Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:10:33 -0800 From: Jeff Behl <jbehl@fastclick.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@niksun.com> Subject: Re: IPMI doesn't work... Message-ID: <42372519.5050602@fastclick.com> In-Reply-To: <423723B5.7020906@elischer.org> References: <4235E6CC.7040909@santaba.com> <42364E75.8030205@elischer.org><42367D57.30009@santaba.com> <200503151232.44158.jkim@niksun.com> <423723B5.7020906@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > > > Jung-uk Kim wrote: > >> On Tuesday 15 March 2005 01:14 am, Jeff Behl wrote: >> >> >>> Julian Elischer wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Jeff wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by in band. The IP address of the >>>>> BMC is assigned via the bios and is different from what the OS >>>>> later assigns. With imiptool we can turn on/powercycle/monitor >>>>> via the BMC assigned address up until the point where the kernel >>>>> loads. Once it does, the BMC no longer responds. This doesn't >>>>> happen with the two linux distros we've tried it on. Wtih both, >>>>> including SuSE, we can still query/control via the BMC using >>>>> ipmitool. It seems to be some sort of driver issue to me. I >>>>> find it confusing that the NIC is shared between the BMC and the >>>>> OS, but I guess that's just how it's done. Perhaps the bsd >>>>> broadcomm driver is simply blocking this somehow... >>>>> >>>> >>>> you have to assign it the same address! >>>> >>> >>> that's not the way it's supposed to work, afaik. it'd be silly to >>> tie the BMC address and the OS assigned address together. you give >>> the BMC an ip address via a little program that comes from IBM and >>> this address is independent of the ip address that whatever os you >>> use on the system assigns to the nic. the redbook that Jung-uk >>> sent a link for shows this process if you're interested. >>> >> >> >> I believe you are correct. If you have the same IP address, the >> packet reaches host OS and (I think) it must be discarded by OS. >> IPMI spec. is very verbose but I found very simple explanation here: >> >> > > I simply have a firewall rule throwing those away. > We have a Class -C full of those machines and if I had to duplicate > the addresses I'd need 2. > we've been assigning private addresses to the BMCs making them only reachable via a local admin host...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42372519.5050602>