Corey, When you specify -m 0x54 and -t 0x54 on the ipmitool command line, the message will be correctly routed to the local MC. But, if you only specify -m 0x54, the message will be bridged to 0x20 from 0x54 because the default target address in the OpenIPMI interface in ipmptool is set to a default of 0x20 instead of zero. This bridging to 0x20 from 0x54 when you only specify -m 0x54 on the command line has caused confusion for more than one person.
-- Jim Mankovich | jm...@hp.com -- On 2/19/2013 5:59 PM, Corey Minyard wrote: > So you are saying that if you set the local address to, say -m 0x54, and > then send a messages with -t 0x54, it will not route it to the local MC, > and the message just gets lost? That may be the case, I'm not that > familiar with ipmitool. One would expect that would work properly, but > the driver does not catch this (perhaps it should) and perhaps ipmitool > doesn't (perhaps it should). The openipmi library does do this. > > Am I correct? > > -corey > > On 02/19/2013 03:43 PM, Jim Mankovich wrote: >> All, >> >> I recently discovered that the in band ipmitool OpenIPMI Interface did now >> work as I >> expected when I attempted to specify different local IPMB address via the -m >> switch. >> >> My expectation was that local system interface would be used with the >> address I >> specified on the command line, but instead ipmitool attempted to bridge my >> request because >> the interface target address was 0x20 and my specified address via -m was >> not 0x20. I tracked >> the issue down to the fact that bridging will occur in the OpenIPMI >> interface whenever there >> is a non zero target address and the target address is not equal to the >> interface address. I >> believe this logic is reasonable, but I think the intent was that the target >> address would always >> be zero unless it was specified on the command line with the -t option (in >> which case you want >> bridging). The problem I am seeing crops up because the OpenIPMI >> interface in ipmitool initializes >> both the target address and the interface address to 0x20 instead of only >> initializing the interface >> address to 0x20 and setting the target address to zero. Does anyone happen >> to know whether my >> interpretation of intended usages for -m and -t are correct? >> >> Thanks in Advance, >> Jim >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb > _______________________________________________ > Ipmitool-devel mailing list > Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ Ipmitool-devel mailing list Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
