Re: Specifying names for tap interfaces

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 05:43:51PM -0700, Scott Solmonson wrote:
> >[...]
> > No they are not. You can use MACs to generate UUIDs (the RFC says so),
> > but it does not turn it into an UUID per-see.
> 
> Perhaps I did conceptually misspeak, you can call it a UID if you
> want; the concept is the same, an identifier that is entirely unlikely
> to be represented in the same machine, exceedingly unlikely to be
> replicated across the same broadcast domain, and if "proper" behaviors
> are followed, unlikely to be replicated anywhere on the planet... thus
> it's entirely suitable for the single-box-unique-identifier-problem
> scenario provided.

the MAC address is not unique on the same machine. For example, on the box
I'm typing this:
ex0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        
capabilities=3f00<IP4CSUM_Rx,IP4CSUM_Tx,TCP4CSUM_Rx,TCP4CSUM_Tx,UDP4CSUM_Rx,UDP4CSUM_Tx>
        enabled=0
        address: 00:01:01:d4:83:fa
        [...]
vlan0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        vlan: 574 parent: ex0
        address: 00:01:01:d4:83:fa
        [...]
        inet6 fe80::201:1ff:fed4:83fa%vlan0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
vlan1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        vlan: 597 parent: ex0
        address: 00:01:01:d4:83:fa
        [...]

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--