The requirement is solely that that System Administrators for each host directly attached to Network X agree on the basic addressing characteristics for Network X.
This onerous challenge is sucessfully overcome on every IP subnet in the world every day for such details as what the subnet is, what the mask is, etc. Further, two adjoining subnets won't be able to talk unless their administrators have arranged for them to agree on what their network identifiers are/etc. For the specific question it is even less of a problem than theory suggests. A rule such as "non IPv4 subnets are direct translated while IPv4 subnets use IPv4" is actually quite simple to implement. That could even be extended to allow *some* IPv6 subnets to be translated so that mutiple IPV6 aliases for a single GID could be identified (that is, if anyone has a need for such a thing). -----Original Message----- From: Roland Dreier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:45 PM To: Caitlin Bestler Cc: Roland Dreier; James Lentini; [email protected] Subject: Re: [openib-general] RDMA connection and address translation API Caitlin> So with this wealth of options available, do you agree Caitlin> that there is no reason to elevate any of these issues to Caitlin> being visisble to a transport neutral application? No -- the fact that there are a wealth of options actually means that picking one is an arbitrary choice we impose on transport neutral implementations and is de facto mandating a wire protocol. - R. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
