> -----Original Message----- > From: Roland Dreier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:17 PM > To: Tom Tucker > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [openib-general] RDMA connection and address > translation API > > Tom> Good point, although for iWARP it will work that way that you > Tom> expect. For IB, admitedly it's more complex and would > Tom> require ATS. There seems to be significant reluctance around > Tom> ATS and I don't understand the issues. Can you provide a > Tom> quick synopsis? > > My resistance is that ATS is just complexity without any benefit.
IMHO the benefit is that you have a transport independent addressing mechanism -- albeit with some limitations as you've mentioned. In this case, the vast majority of clients enjoy the benefit without suffering the limitations. > ... It > doesn't provide additional security. It doesn't solve the > multi-homing problem we're talking about now. Whenever a single GID maps to multiple IP addresses, I agree, it is a limitation. However, I don't believe that this is strictly necessary. > ... Once you've thrown away > information by turning your IP address into an IB GID, there's no > magic way ATS can recreate that information and be psychic about which > of the multi-homed IPs you actually meant. I agree, so don't do that. If you want it to work properly, then you need to map GIDS to IP addresses. > ... So why not just put the IP > addressing information into the CM private data, the way that the SDP > protocol already does? > > - R. > Because it would be better to configure your network "properly". Putting IP addresses in private data is fundamentally insecure since any user mode client can spoof the IP address. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
