phoshor-network manager daemon + IPMI

[Patrick Venture]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Ratan K Gupta <ratagupt at in.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> We have enabled the link local address auto configuration,thats why you are
> noticing the link local address,
> But as a side effect of this,you should not notice this problem that the
> DHCP IP has not get assigned to the
> BMC.
>
> Please try the "ip addr show dev eth0" instead of ifconfig.
>
> Now days kernel supports ip aliasing where a single interface can have
> multiple ip adress,so on a intterface you may see link local address
> as well as DHCP assigned/Static Assigned IP address.
>
> I have tried on our setup and it is working fine.

However, have you tried updating the IP address over IPMI?  As part of
that code, it calls delete on those interfaces and IPs (all of them).
Which fails.  Should there be logic in the ipmi daemon to only delete
non-local-link addresses?  And then, if you try to delete a DHCP
assigned address, it also fails -- so how does one transition from
DHCP to static?  I'd just like to hear how these cases were tested so
I can verify the problem is on my end with my configuration, or
possibly that more work is required before this is working fine.

>
> Regards
> Ratan
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: Patrick Venture <venture at google.com>
> Sent by: "openbmc" <openbmc-bounces+ratagupt=in.ibm.com at lists.ozlabs.org>
> To: Dave Cobbley <david.j.cobbley at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc at lists.ozlabs.org>
> Subject: Re: phoshor-network manager daemon + IPMI
> Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2017 11:59 PM
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Dave Cobbley
> <david.j.cobbley at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> I have been digging into the network manager as well.
>> The link local problem has been popping up on our systems as well.
>>
>> I'm not sure why linklocaladdress causes our systems to get the 169.XX IP
>> Address.
>> I suspect is has something to do with the way our DHCP servers are setup
>> on
>> the network, systemd-networkd is not recognizing that we do in fact get an
>> IP from DHCP.
>>
>> I'm assuming engineers at IBM are not seeing this behavior since the patch
>> was accepted (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>> Therefore this is more likely not a bug in systemd, but something strange
>> with the configuration of network infrastructure.
>> Either way, root cause needs to be identified.
>>
>> To work around it, simply delete the line linklocaladdress=xxxx from
>> /etc/systemd/networkd/00-bmc-ethx.network
>
> I ended up updating the default configuration file writer to not set
> that, then found that once it had DHCP=yes in it, it also would crash
> on attempt to delete (from the exception it raises when you try)
>
>>
>> Let me know if you make any more observations about the strange behavior
>> (it
>> would be nice to get past this issue).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Dave Cobbley
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/2017 07:48 AM, Patrick Venture wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious if anyone has experience using the phosphor-network
>>> manager daemon. I've run into some oddities using it for instance, if
>>> you don't configure anything it sets up both links as LinkLocal and
>>> enables DHCP, etc -- and then even if DHCP fails, it doesn't update it
>>> (although it's aware of the failure) -- and when I then go to set the
>>> IP address over IPMI to a static IP, I run the two lan channel set
>>> commands which work (because they just set the object contents) --
>>> when i call "access on" over IPMI, it tries to delete all the dbus
>>> objects for the network, which fail because of checks in the network
>>> daemon that prevent this, which causes the network daemon to crash.
>>>
>>> Ultimately I'm going to enable the host ipmi daemon to support
>>> multiple channels -- the trick is then to map the channel to an
>>> ethernet device...  Some patches will be send up today to reviewing
>>> this type of change.
>>>
>>> I'm going through the uses cases now trying to get it working, and
>>> just curious what I should be doing to get it to work.
>>>
>>> Also of note, when I set the MAC address -- which works :), it doesn't
>>> update the configuration for the systemd network file with that
>>> information  -- I'll be sending a patch for that today -- but I was
>>> curious if that was deliberate, etc.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Patrick
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>