It's Intel's word usage: http://communities.intel.com/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadBody/1754-102-10-22193/Configuration%20Guide%20for%20Microsoft%20ConfigMgr%20SP2%20Out%20of%20Band%20Management.pdf
Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin --- On Thu, 6/28/12, Tim Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Tim Schmidt <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Without software collusion > To: "Rick Hodgin" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Thursday, June 28, 2012, 4:16 PM > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Rick > Hodgin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > However, it is out-of-band because the sender and > receiver are operating on their own. > > No, they're not. There are ethernet switches, wireless > access points, > or other networking equipment involved - each fully capable > computers > in their own right. > > 'Out of band' is entirely inappropriate language for what's > happening here. > > They're just two ethernet devices, speaking ethernet frames > to each > other. Like normal. > > The fact that the CPU of one of the machines isn't aware of > the > network communications means nothing. It's still going > on, still > observable by any other ethernet device on the local > network. > > --tim > _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
