On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 10:43:22AM -0700, Sean Hefty wrote: > >Rate and MTU should probably be copied over. Not sure about flowlabel > >though.. > > Can you provide more details on your thinking for rate, mtu, and flowlabel?
Well, upon more though, I think rate can probably be dropped from the list. The broadcast group rate should be the minimum rate that any pair of ports can support in the IPoIB group, but that doesn't mean all connections should be limited to that rate. MTU - at a minimum the PR must request a MTU >= than the interface MTU, having a MTU that is exactly equal to the broadcast group MTU seems fine to me. The SM should be able to do >= internally. Flowlabel - IBA hasn't really specified what to do with this field. In IPv6 FlowLabel is assigned randomly by the host on a per-flow (ie socket) basis to allow routers to group packets into flows without doing deeper inspection. This becomes important when encryption is used and the routers can no longer access the TCP header to find flows. Also, my previous arguments on this list about routing and PR suggested using FlowLabel as a way to disambiguate multipath in a routed network. If that view is taken up then FlowLabel is purely an output from the SM in all cases and should not be an input - much like SL. Jason _______________________________________________ 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
