<html><body>
<p><tt><font size="2">Scott Moser <smoser@ubuntu.com> wrote on 05/13/2013 02:33:01 PM:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> You seem to assume there that ipmi or other power control is on the same<br>
> network as the pxe boot or other network that the user needs to use.<br>
> I dont think that is necessarily true. That may be a silly/broken<br>
> limitation of ipmi (ipmi does have shortcomings for untrusted occupant).</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">I'd say for private configurations, shared IPMI and NIC port is a defensible strategy for cost-reduction.</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">In public configurations, I don't think IPMI and NIC should be shared in a physical sense.</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">In terms of untrusted occupant, I think if baremetal had a platform to work with that was durable (signed firmware in the critical path) and scrub-friendly (to fix the components not signed and tamper resistant), then in the general case a malicious tenant could knock a baremetal resource out of commision to the point of requiring manual trust restoration (i.e. making the system unable to be remotely controlled via secure channel. There are, however, configurations that distrust the OS completely (e.g. our Flex servers won't let credentials be manipulated via KCS).</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2"><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
> <br>
</font></tt></body></html>