On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 00:09 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 06:34:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:27:47PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > > > > > Portreserve is also useful to reserve (not let the OS make use of) > > > ports that are needed by an embedded management controller that > > > intercepts delivery of packets to the port and delivers them to the > > > BMC (e.g. the PowerEdge 1955 BMC). While we've done away with that > > > behavior in newer systems, such are still in production use. > > > > Is that port number exposed to the OS in any way? > > Not that I can recall, which is why it was a horrible design. IIRC it > was just the remote IPMI port, but there may have been a few others. > > I misremembered [1] the system type, it was the PowerEdge 1855, not > the newer 1955. So we did fix that particular bit of pain in newer > generations. In that case, it was the IPMI port 623/tcp that was > snarfing packets. > > [1] http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-poweredge/2005-November/023606.html > I had some of the 1850s that had this "feature". Istr nis binding to 623 and then not working and it utterly mystifying more than one of us for a while as to why that was happening. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
