On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Eli Dorfman <dorfman....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenst...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Slava Strebkov <sla...@voltaire.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> In addition to the original proposal we suggest allocating special MLID >>>> for the following MGIDs: >>>> 1. FF12401bxxxx000000000000FFFFFFFF - All Nodes >>>> 2. FF12401bxxxx00000000000000000001 - All hosts >>>> 3. FF12401bffff0000000000000000004d - all Gateways >>>> 4. FF12401bxxxx00000000000000000002 - all routers >>>> 5. FF12601bABCD000000000001ffxxxxxx - IPv6 SNM >>> >>> It turns out that collapsing multicast groups across PKeys on a single >>> MLID may not be such a good idea unless partition enforcement >>> enforcement by switches is disabled. There should be different modes >>> of collapsing based on this based on whether this is enabled or not. >> >> The idea is to allocate a different MLID per each of the above special MGIDs. > > So one MLID per PKey in the MGID ? yes
> What's the difference between xxxx's and ABCD in the syntax above ? none. should be the same. > IPv6 is being collapsed per PKey too, right ? yes >>>> For all other cases we suggest that same MLID will be assigned to >>>> different MGIDs if: >>>> 1. They share the same P Key >>>> 2. Same signature - for IPoIB only >>>> 3. Same LSB bits - bitmask configurable by user (default 10 bits) >>>> for example, the following are the same: >>>> MGID1: FF12401bABCD000000000000xxxxx755 >>>> MGID2: FF12401bABCD000000000000yyyyyB55 >>> >>> Jason's approach to this was in a thread entitled "IPv6 and IPoIB >>> scalability issue": >>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2006-November/029621.html >>> in which he proposed an MGID range (MGID/prefix syntax) for collapsing >>> IPv6 SNM groups. Additionally, there was the potential to distribute >>> the matched groups across some number of MLIDs. See also thread "[RFC] >>> OpenSM and IPv6 Scalability Proposal": >>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-June/051226.html >>> >>>> Implementation. >>>> Since there will be many mgroups shared same mlid, mlid-array entry >>>> will contain >>>> fleximap holding mgroups. >>>> Searching of mgroup will be performed by mlid (index in the array) and >>>> mgid - >>>> key in the fleximap. >>> >>> Sasha proposed using an array rather than fleximap for this: >>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-June/051525.html >>> >>> -- Hal >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Slava Strebkov >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> general mailing list >>>> general@lists.openfabrics.org >>>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe, please visit >>>> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> general mailing list >>> general@lists.openfabrics.org >>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general >>> >>> To unsubscribe, please visit >>> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general >>> >> > _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general