Re: [Etherboot-users] etherboot with wake on lan-option

[Vasil V. <vas...@sy...>]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Marty Connor wrote:

> On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 11:59  AM, Vasil Vasilev wrote:
> > What we have so far, I think, is that WOL is somehow desirable but
> > because
> > there are so many variables, testing may be a little unreliable in
> > some cases.
>
> It's an interesting idea. I guess I'm wondering if this implies that
> the client would need to know the MAC address of the (DHCP?/TFTP?)
> server(s) in order to send the magic WOL packet?

No, if you don't mind waking up the entire subnet. In this case you use the
broadcast address. An alternative is to use a multicast address and then
configure the switch to send packets with this destination address to only a
few ports which you don't mind waking up. Or you can say, don't send any
multicast packets to the uplink ports of the switch and you limit yourself to
that switch only. This is all refers to Layer 2 networking and switching.

This just adds to the FAQ and to the possible confusion and lots of potential
problems. I still like the feature, though.

I had an idea to change the MAC address of one of the server's NICs  but I
don't expect this to work usually because the power is sort of off.

Some NICs have a password feature for the WOL, which may a way to say which
NICs will be woken-up only but this means that any NIC supporting WOL on the
subnet will have to have this feature.

--
Vasil