Heiko Thiery

try to use the ipmitool interface type and check again please

Ah I see .. the response message from the device is encapsulated in a the send message response. This encapsulated response is currently not supported by pyipmi. There are 2...

> Ok. I understand what you are saying. Is the encapsulated response something that is left up to the vendors/implementors to decide if they should do it or not? Like...

Just checked the code again. Could you please try this? Currently only one encapsulated response is supported, but in your case it is a double bridged command and therefore there...

> Just checked the code again. Could you please try this? > > Currently only one encapsulated response is supported, but in your case it is a double bridged command...

one last thing to test please: ``` diff --git a/pyipmi/interfaces/ipmb.py b/pyipmi/interfaces/ipmb.py index e600edc..88c1640 100644 --- a/pyipmi/interfaces/ipmb.py +++ b/pyipmi/interfaces/ipmb.py @@ -238,8 +238,8 @@ def rx_filter(header, data): (rsp_header.netfn, header.netfn | 1, 'NetFn...

I added a new feature quirk to can configure the behavior to ignore the sequence number ``` pyipmi.interfaces.create_interface( interface="rmcp", quirks_cfg={'rmcp_ignore_rq_seq': True} ) ``` But as you mentioned, this looks like...

The extra things are related to the SendMessage. Check this in the IPMI spec. And the additional bytes at the end are the corresponing checksums.

Hi, since I just use this lib as is and do not plan to work on it any longer I can not add support for that. But if you are...

could you please meld the commits into one for a better review. you should also add testcase(s) for issues/enhancements that are not yet covered by a testcase. thanks