Intel's zero-day problem

Posted May 10, 2017 15:03 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: Intel's zero-day problem by joib
Parent article: Intel's zero-day problem

AFAIK it's actually fairly common to not have a separate RJ45 port for the BMC, but rather the BMC is connected to one or more of the onboard RJ45 ports and shared with the host OS. The BMC does have it's own MAC though, and standard practice is to use a different VLAN for the management network.

Oh indeed: I've only ever owned one machine with a dedicated BMC RJ45 out of several with BMCs. I'm not aware of any machines on which the BMC is *only* connected to a dedicated RJ45, though -- they all seem to be able to share NICs with the main CPU (and indeed are usually configured that way by default).

Intel's zero-day problem

Posted May 10, 2017 15:09 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

> I'm not aware of any machines on which the BMC is *only* connected to a dedicated RJ45, though -- they all seem to be able to share NICs with the main CPU (and indeed are usually configured that way by default).

I have several SuperMicro BigTwin and FatTwin 4-node boxes that have dedicated ports for each node's BMC.

Intel's zero-day problem

Posted May 12, 2017 12:44 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

They don't listen on any other RJ45 ports? Interesting to learn that such machines exist in the vast domains beyond my price range :) I suppose if you have multi-node boxes that sort of sharing might become actively confusing, which is probably why they moved to purely dedicated ports...