> Roland, do you think the iSCSI approach is a "good design" for iWARP > devices?
Well, it's a different problem since as I said the port collision problem is a non-issue for iSCSI anyway. But yes having a separate interface to assign an iWARP IP address to an RNIC does seem to avoid the immediate problem. I actually don't know what the right answer is -- having a separate IP address for iWARP does seem to lead to having to duplicate everything for configuring it. (And this is the approach for the cxgb[34] iSCSI drivers, right?) On the other hand trying to hook offloaded iWARP into the normal stack does seem to lead to a mess. I see DaveM's point: TCP port space is just the beginning -- filtering, queueing, etc also have config that ultimately an offload device would want to hook too. Maybe the sanest out of a bad set of options would be to come up with a standard way to configure independent TCP/IP stacks that share a link. really, dunno. - R. -- Roland Dreier <[email protected]> || For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
