Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Clarification on initial MAC addresses  (Read 1616 times)

djrose

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
Clarification on initial MAC addresses
« on: March 03, 2014, 02:06:14 PM »
I've just received an order for 5 lime boards. Each one was unpacked and powered up with the same SD card image. The image is a build of Linux constructed using the instructions of:

http://olimex.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/building-debian-linux-bootable-sd-card-with-hardware-accelerated-video-decoding-and-kernel-3-4-for-a10-olinuxino-lime/

For each board, I carried out an ifconfig and took a note of the HWaddr (aka MAC address).

It appears that all 5 boards have a random value:

20:99:0B:82:CA:FE
20:90:09:C1:06:FE
02:59:0B:81:9E:45
02:D0:09:80:A7:B7
02:50:09:C0:C7:81

I am use to using equipment where the MAC address is formed from an assigned 3 byte OUI value plus a 3 byte supplier value.

So, the question is whether these random MAC addresses are expected from the Limeboard and/or Olimex?

Lurch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 272
  • Karma: +11/-0
Re: Clarification on initial MAC addresses
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2014, 03:10:54 PM »
Quote
assigned 3 byte OUI value
That's possible if you buy a block of addresses. They're not that expensive.  But why make the boards more expensive by doing that? You can, of course, buy your own block if you are re-selling the boards and want them to have your OUI. For hobby market boards, using a free MAC generated by the web-based MAC Address generator is probably better.

djrose

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Clarification on initial MAC addresses
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2014, 03:32:02 PM »
Absolutely, they're not expensive. I had to purchase a large block for a previous employer before. In excess of 16 million for $2500. That works out at less than 1 tenth of a cent per board. Hardly likely to put up the selling price.

But, as a buyer, I need to know whether it is expected to be random or valid.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 03:56:07 PM by djrose »