On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 15:14, Talpey, Thomas wrote: > At 02:27 PM 6/24/2005, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 13:51, Talpey, Thomas wrote: > >> mentioned earlier. For better or for worse, the ATS approach is easily > >> administered and does not impact any protocol layers outside of its > >> own. I think of it as ARP for IB. > > > >reverse ARP for IB > > Actually, I did mean ARP. It's only necessary to answer the questions > "please send this to address foo" (for making connections),
This is the ARP side (get the link layer address (GID + QPN) for an IP address) I'm connecting to. > along with > "what address sent this request" (for accepting connections and export > checking). I think this is the RARP side (get the IP address that corresponds to a partial link layer address (GID)). This was the side being discussed on the list, right ? Do I have this backwards ? > There is no need for RARP, which would answer the question "who is > supposed to belong to this MAC address". In fact, I don't want to know > the answer to that! :-) That's link layer stuff, three floors down. I think we are just discussing terminology. Perhaps I should have said reverse ARP for IP (not IB). You are calling that ARP for IB. Doesn't RARP say for a given MAC (hardware) address give me the IP address and that's exactly what ATS is doing (where the MAC address is equivalent to the GID) in the case under discussion ? ARP is the other way 'round: for an IP address give me the link layer address. -- Hal _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
