Ok Jim, sounds good to me.
Thanks,
Z.
--
Zdenek Styblik
email: zdenek.styb...@gmail.com
jabber: zdenek.styb...@gmail.com
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Jim Mankovich wrote:
> Z,
> This change will make ipmitool work as it is currently documented so no new
> documentation is required.
>
> The
Z,
This change will make ipmitool work as it is currently documented so no new
documentation is required.
The current ipmitool man page for -m and -t is
as follows:
-m
Set the local IPMB address. The default is 0x20 and there
should be no need to chang
Jim,
I have two questions for you.
1] can you post a diff of changes?
2] Is there any plan to document(= real use example?) this "feature"
or how it works? Also, perhaps document change in behaviour as well?
Perhaps, it's done already. This feature is already documented, I
mean, not the changes.
All,
If anyone has an objection to my proposed change to have -m be
all that is
necessary to modify the local IPMB address, let me know by the end of the week.
With the code as currently written, you have to specify both -m
and
-t with both local_address and target_address set to the
exact
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
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 drive
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 inste
