Talk:Intelligent Platform Management Interface

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statement has been updated to be factually correct. Reference has been updated to cite external source. Kstrongpr (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)kstrongpr[reply]

External links to the intel webpage in the text? doesn't seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriW (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intel webpage houses the actual IPMI specification. So that link is probably legitimate. The Dell link is far more questionable.Chueleven (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I renamed the link from "Intel website" to "IPMI home website". Perhaps that makes it clear that this is the home of the IPMI standard, it just happens to be on the Intel website.Chueleven (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a glossary or a technical manual not an encyclopedia article.Pcarter7 15:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RMCP doesn't work. It redirects here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.89.21 (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a further reading that pointed to a corporate product. While the article did provide some generic overview on IPMI, the article covered a significant portion of things specific to the product, including how to configure it using that vendor's own software. IMO it was too much like an advertisement. There are many neutral overviews of IPMI on the web that could be substituted instead.Chueleven (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did so again with AMI and AmericanMegaTrends links.Chueleven (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between IPMB and PMBus?

This article mentions that the

I see that Power Management Bus (PMBus) is based on the System Management Bus (SMBus), and the SMBus is an enhanced version of the I²C bus.

So ... is IPMB a synonym for SMBus or PMBus? Is IPMB perhaps a further enhanced version of PMBus? Or is IPMB an (incompatible) alternative to PMBus -- a system might have one or the other, but not both? Or is IPMB a separate bus from PMBus -- a system might have both on independent I²C wires? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We make iPhone ipmitool-like App that I would like to add to the external links section. It is basically an IPMI over LAN client for iPhone/iPad/iPod touch. The main app is a commercial product but there is also a free (no advertisement) version. FreeIPMI and OpenIPMI are already listed so it seems like a reasonable thing to do (the apps are based on ipmitool). Wikipedia how-to suggests asking a question in the discussion section of the article before making any edits like this so here I am.

Can the link to the app be added to the external link section or is it inappropriate for this article?

The url is http://www.yellowkompressor.com/ipmi-touch/ipmi-touch/

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

YellowKompressor (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but I believe the spirit of the rule may be broken with your link. While it is in fact free, the webpage suggests it is a trial software for the commercial version. As an example, I removed a pdf in an earlier edit of this IPMI wikipedia article. While the article did in fact contain some legitimate IPMI information, it was also filled with information for a particular vendor IPMI product. My personal feeling was that it crossed the line, and since there were many non-vendor sources of IPMI information out there, there was no need to link to the product pdf. Chueleven (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. It is better not to add it then.

(YellowKompressor (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

By allowing OS-level security policies to be bypassed (even when the server is "off"), IPMI presents a potentially huge intrusion vector. See this article on how servers can be hacked using IPMI. noosphere 15:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find definition of DCMI (it was used in the same sentence with ipmi). The "DCMI" disambiguation page wasn't much help. Does DCMI need it's own (short) page, and should it be added to the appropriate disambiguation page? (March 2013)

Minstrel1977 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, revert, discuss cycle, it is strongly preferred that once edits have been reverted in good faith, editors discuss and try to achieve consensus on the relevant article talk page, not re-revert. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

97.102.161.34 (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original quote also included "The "IPMI 2.0 RAKP Authentication Remote Password Hash Retrieval" vulnerability has been addressed by the introduction of RAKP+, and RMCP has been upgraded to RMCP+." This quote makes no sense, as RMCP+ was added in the IPMI 2.0 specification in 2004 and was not a recent addition. I'm not sure what original author meant in the sentence or if they were alluding to other documentation. I have elected to remove the statement in its entirety.

--Chueleven (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added "GNU FreeIMPI" to the "Implementations" section, but perhaps it doesn't belong, since it is software only, not a firmware implementation like the others. I leave it to others to decide. BMJ-pdx (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it redirect from RMCP ?

IPMI seems quite different from Remote Mail Checking Protocol...86.194.135.23 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]