|
|
Post by jyundt on Feb 2, 2022 14:29:28 GMT
I'm trying to use the LLDP functionality added in 2021.1. Specifically, I'm looking to query the LLDPReceive property for the Port associated with the BMC's EthernetInterface. But I'm not entirely sure how a "Port" should be mapped back to a "Manager". I checked the latest version of DSP2046 and the only Port listed under Managers is a USB port: /redfish/v1/Managers/{ManagerId}/USBPorts/{PortId}Should a Manager also have a NetworkAdpaters collection? Or should I query all "Chassis" NetworkAdapters -> Chassis Ports? If so, is there a link or relationship to determine which of those Ports is the "Manager" Port? |
|
|
|
Post by mraineri on Feb 2, 2022 15:08:03 GMT
At this time LLDP doesn't map back to a given manager. The requested support we've had for LLDP were for system NICs where the information can be collected via sideband channels, so in the model today I would expect this to be found in the Port resources subordinate to a NetworkAdapter.
I haven't seen this at the BMC-level before, but at least from your post it sounds like it does exist and we should extend the model to support this use case.
|
|
|
|
Post by jyundt on Feb 2, 2022 16:23:44 GMT
I haven't seen this at the BMC-level before, but at least from your post it sounds like it does exist and we should extend the model to support this use case. Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. What's the best way to "request" this functionality? |
|
|
|
Post by mraineri on Feb 2, 2022 16:38:32 GMT
This thread is sufficient; it'll get reviewed by others.
|
|
|
|
Post by jyundt on Feb 9, 2022 20:51:44 GMT
This thread is sufficient; it'll get reviewed by others. What's the best way to follow this change/review? I ask, because I've been discussing this BMC port + LLDP requirement with our server OxMs and I want to avoid having them implement something with an OEM extension. Would it be safe to tell them to expect a Port -> NetworkAdapter -> Manager relationship? |
|
|
|
Post by jautor on Feb 10, 2022 0:23:54 GMT
This thread is sufficient; it'll get reviewed by others. What's the best way to follow this change/review? I ask, because I've been discussing this BMC port + LLDP requirement with our server OxMs and I want to avoid having them implement something with an OEM extension. Would it be safe to tell them to expect a Port -> NetworkAdapter -> Manager relationship? We can't guarantee a solution until the group approves one and it's released, but if those server OxMs are DMTF members, they should follow along internally.
This issue overlaps with several other bits of functionality that have been requested here, so it's getting attention and I hope we'll have something to report soon. But we absolutely on the same page that this shouldn't be OEM-specific as it's commonly available functionality - and so deserves a standard method to implement.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Post by jyundt on Feb 10, 2022 14:05:58 GMT
Ah that is helpful, thank you. I believe most are DMTF members, I'll point them to this thread for reference.
|
|
