On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 12:33, Yaron Haviv wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:general- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Rosenstock > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:28 PM > > To: Michael Krause > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ofa-general] [RFC] host stack IB-to-IB router support > > > > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 10:41, Michael Krause wrote: > > > At 07:22 AM 3/21/2007, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > >The SM is subnet local but it is unclear about the SA. > > > > > > The SA was intended to be subnet local. > > > > What about ServiceRecords ? ServiceIDs can have non local subnet scope > > per Annex A1. That's one issue. > > > > Hal, the fact that we have bits saying something is global vs. local > Doesn't mean the control plain for that needs to be in the SM/SA > Not to mention that with OpenFabric fabric independent model ServiceIDs > are now 16bits and map to TCP like ports > > We want to have the SM/SA be the monitoring/configuration tool for a > specific subnet and not grant it with more authorities than it should > Some IB mechanisms are too centralized already, we don't want to carry > that legacy into an inter-subnet framework unless we have to. > > If there are holes in the spec that inhibit us from doing it in the > right way (like in IP routing), we should identify them and drive them > quickly via IBTA, after all IB usage model may have changed a bit since > the draft was written few years ago. > > Ok, lets assume Sean would finish his experiments with remote_sa, how > would that find its way into the commercial sm/sa versions that are > mostly used, how would we guarantee interoperability between all > implementations, .. ?
It wouldn't necessarily. It is a vehicle for experimentation. I believe there is separation of what is spec compliant and non compliant and it allows for more flexible configurations than what can currently be done by the current spec. > How would that address future routing, security, QoS, .. enhancements ? > can it ? It can evolve but the controversial part of this was meant for more flexible configurations for experimentation. -- Hal > Yaron _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
