> > The advantage of ATS is that it "just works" whether wired point to > point, or via a switch, or whatever. It requires no central > administration, > works as transparently as ARP and ND, and supports IP addressing so > applications don't have any ambiguity in how they resolve names. > > If we get rid of ATS, what do we replace it with? Raw IB GID's from > the application?? > > Tom. > Tom, I am with you regarding that subject. Even though both IB-ARP and ATS should be considered to be a hack, I think that IB-ARP is much more problematic and it does not deliver a complete solution: it doesn't contain all data required, it does not solve the SM load problem (due the requirement for the path record query) and it is a mechanism that contradicts IB management architecture. I would fix the ATS to include some missing fields, and maybe define unified ATS + path query for performance.
The SM/SA scalability problem should be solved by distributing the SA part of it, probably using a single write/multiple reader model and a simple cache coherency protocol to allow efficient caching by sub SA agents or even hosts. This type of distribution is also requested clearly in the SOW section 1.3.1. Shahar _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
