> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ mailto:openib-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Baxter
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:32 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] IB Address Translation service
>
> Having now just read Yaron's reply, I am even more convinced that this
is
> the right way to go albeit I can't comment on the API etc (Could
someone
> explain the differences in using ARP and ATS. )
Paul,
ATS (Address Resolution Service) is based on each node registering a
service record in the SM/SA with GID&P_Key=IP address.
When you want to map an IP address to IB address it issues an SA query
to the SM/SA with an IP that results in GID+P_Key values than can be
used by the ULP.
ATS is a standard defined by DAT and recently also by ICSC.
It is not an ICSC standard. It is a DAT specification with the ICSC simply acting as a proxy for DAT to manage some standard look-up values which it can do but I don't recall why DAT cannot. In any case, the ICSC and DAT are different beasts all doing about the same damn thing at the end of the day.
As I mentioned in the IP to GID API you can specify if to resolve based
on the IP infrastructure (like the one Libor described), or based on
ATS, or Default (first try IP/ARP, than ATS).
And as you mentioned there is value to have the same API for different
resolution mechanisms, the SDP code can be altered in future to ride
over the proposed API, so it can be used without TCP/IP.
It would be a mistake to attempt to use anything by IP addresses (v4 or v6) from an application perspective. Mapping to IB must be application transparent to be viable.
Mike
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
