From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 15 17:41:10 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4682E16A4CE for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:41:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sb.santaba.com (sb.santaba.com [207.154.84.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D33943D41 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:41:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anon1@santaba.com) Received: from [192.168.3.100] (unknown [205.180.85.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sb.santaba.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE58828433; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:41:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42371E86.7090503@santaba.com> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:42:30 -0800 From: Jeff User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jung-uk Kim References: <4235E6CC.7040909@santaba.com> <42364E75.8030205@elischer.org> <42367D57.30009@santaba.com> <200503151232.44158.jkim@niksun.com> In-Reply-To: <200503151232.44158.jkim@niksun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: IPMI doesn't work... X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:41:10 -0000 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: > >http://www.ethereal.com/lists/ethereal-dev/200304/msg00233.html > >'IPMI messages are encapsulated in Remote Management Control Protocol >packets. RMCP is a UDP-based protocol that uses port 623 for remote >system control when the system is in a pre-os or os-absent state. >RMCP can also use port 664 for secure traffic.' > >FYI, IPMI v2.0 defines extended RMCP, so called RMCP+. > > > >>like i said earlier, having different ip addresses (the BMC's being >>in private address space) works fine with the linux kernel... >> >> > >Just out of my curiosity, are you using bcm or tg3 driver on Linux? > >Thanks, > >Jung-uk Kim > > the tg3, according to lsmod. it looks like the bcm and the tg3 share common code (tigon3.c is included in the bcm source)...