From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 29 17:11:43 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471171065675 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:11:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from seanbru@yahoo-inc.com) Received: from mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com (mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.253.104]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088978FC1D for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (rideseveral.corp.yahoo.com [10.73.160.231]) by mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/y.out) with ESMTP id p8TH16tg073221 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:01:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=cobra; t=1317315667; bh=keBJnJSpRGlnKbXsH+L43s5MKJh5wndmSdHk7JJNynY=; h=Subject:From:To:Content-Type:Date:Message-ID:Mime-Version: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=FSz5ATnrX4rBNKWcCBC8aWGSySMH4+0ne+rjnkcGBptuRKxAE4G0GbSEtlYEZ/WnP pT78V/R9kYkDve8jMBgGV0+jDDPpMYSjiVv1e+3Lh9rM8/R/c3vd3XBqkPWT/OmCtE 2a0I+BlSW661l2/0Dj6oo+eHGJDI7JmoCesh0+v4= From: Sean Bruno To: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:01:06 -0700 Message-ID: <1317315666.2777.8.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: bce(4) with IPMI X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:11:43 -0000 We've been getting reports of odd behavior on our Dell R410 machines when trying to use IPMI. The servers have two NIC's that we have assigned as the IPMI interface(bce0) and production interface(bce1) respectively. Since we don't actually configure bce0 in FreeBSD, we've found that the IPMI interface deactivated when bce(4) loads. I assume that the driver is not initializing the interface correctly in this case and the default case is to turn the interface off. Does it make sense to completely turn off the interface when there is an active link on the port, but no configuration assigned? Sean p.s. Dell's IPMI implementation is ... um ... more difficult than it needs to be.