SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] Silly eth question.
- To: Sydney Linux Users Group <slug@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Silly eth question.
- From: Jobst Schmalenbach <jobst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu Mar 1 15:59:01 2001
- Organization: Barrett Consulting Group Pty Ltd
- Reply-to: jobst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2i
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:18:27PM +1100, David Kempe (david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 01:48:47PM +1100, Ken Yap (ken@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > |I have seen lots of cards around from lots of different companies.
> > > |I know that a while ago every company used to mark their cards with
> > > |the mac address, I dont know why they dont do that anymore.
> > >
> > > Cost cutting.
> > buhahahaha, you gotta be kiddin`
> > a flimsy piece of sticky tape with a few numbers on it?
> the cost would be in the manufactuer actually having to find out what the
> mac addr is and then having to make sure the right label got on the right
> card. I reckon this would add some cost for sure. without cost cutting how
> could we get new, working 10/100 sub $20 network cards?
I can only think of a few ways of making up an address on a card:
* PROM (the circuitry inside determines the address)
* resistors (connected==1, not connected==0) which are connected to
the main chip making up the last parts of the mac address.
* switch (not feasable as one could change it)
In the PROM case during the burning of the chip the number could be burned
ontop of the chip (as it used to be) or, alternatively, a little printer
connected to the (e)eprom burner could print out the number and stick it
onto the chip.
If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
| __, Jobst Schmalenbach, jobst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Technical Director|
| _ _.--'-n_/ Barrett Consulting Group P/L & The Meditation Room P/L |
|-(_)------(_)= +61 3 9532 7677, POBox 277, Caulfield South, 3162, Australia|