Hi Olga, On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 18:27 +0300, Olga Shern (Voltaire) wrote: > Hi, > > I have tested the same scenario with OpenSM. > What I have expected to see is trap 259 because of switch enforcement > that is done by OpenSM. I don't see this trap, therefore I assume that > ANAFA
Do you mean Anafa II ? > doesn't generate this trap (this is not mandatory only > optional). Right, this trap is optional and I don't know whether or not it is supported. Perhaps someone from Mellanox can comment on this to be sure. > I only see trap 257 that is generated by the node (with partial pkey) > that sends the multicast traffic. Only when there is no switch enforcement ? > The conclusion is that if there is switch enforcement the issue is not > severe and we can live with it :) Would that be the case if those optional traps were supported ? Thanks. -- Hal > Olga > > On 6/26/08, Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 16:44 +0300, Olga Shern (Voltaire) wrote: > > > Would you try this with OpenSM (and validate your theory about > > > getting > > > switch bad PKey traps v. end port bad PKey traps) or does VSM > > > have such > > > a mode (ingress/egress partition filtering) ? > > > > > > -- Hal > > > > > > Yes, I will test it with OpenSM > > > > Any update on this ? Thanks. > > > > -- Hal > > > > _______________________________________________ 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
