Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:04:37 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@niksun.com> Cc: Jeff Behl <anon1@santaba.com> Subject: Re: IPMI doesn't work... Message-ID: <423723B5.7020906@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200503151232.44158.jkim@niksun.com> References: <4235E6CC.7040909@santaba.com> <42364E75.8030205@elischer.org> <42367D57.30009@santaba.com> <200503151232.44158.jkim@niksun.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. >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 >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?423723B5.7020906>