Duplicate additional MAC addresses being removed.



  • I have been working on adding a group of HP Stream 11 G2 Laptops to our FOG Server. These particular laptops don’t have an onboard LAN adapter so we have purchased 2 HP USB 3.0 to LAN adapters which are PXE booting and working well. We are manually adding the Laptops to our FOG server. We are using the Wireless MAC as the Primary MAC address, adding the two USB LAN adapter MACs as additional MAC addresses and selecting the IMC option as recommended by Tom in a Previous Post. Upon trying to add these MAC addresses to a second host they are removed from the initial host. Is there a setting we can change to prevent the automatic removal from occurring? We are running the 1.5.5 version of FOG. Thanks for any assistance you can offer, and to all those involved in the FOG Project and it’s support thanks for all your efforts.


  • Senior Developer

    @Leigh-Elgar said:

    is there an option to or could there be an option to, allow identical MAC addresses to be added as additional MAC addresses

    As of now the MAC address table has a UNIQUE constraint in the database. Sure something we could (and need to) change in the long run. I am afraid to say that there is no quick solution to this.



  • Thanks for the reply Sebastian, I realize that at this point in time MAC addresses are still the most practical method for identification of hosts. While I would be interested to see another method of device identification in future, maybe device serial number? At present my question was more along the lines of is there an option to or could there be an option to, allow identical MAC addresses to be added as additional MAC addresses so that those who are using USB adapters to image multiple devices can add them to each device as suggested by Tom in the previous post.
    Thanks again.
    Leigh


  • Senior Developer

    @Leigh-Elgar Please take a look at what I posted in this topic just a few hours ago: https://forums.fogproject.org/post/122234

    We know the MAC address is not a perfect identifier to work with but we’ve struggled to find a better one so far. Maybe we can get together and work on this topic.

    @Tom-Elliott Looking towards version 1.6 wouldn’t it be good we try to implement this in 1.5 at first and see how we go. When we have it ready for production we could more easily include it in 1.6 as well. We’ll face that kind of question more in the future I am sure.


Log in to reply
 

355
Online

7.4k
Users

14.5k
Topics

136.7k
Posts