At 12:34 PM 8/25/2005, Roland Dreier wrote: >All implementation of NFS/RDMA on top of IB had better interoperate, >right? Which means that someone has to specify which address >translation mechanism is the choice for NFS/RDMA.
Correct. At the moment the existing NFS/RDMA implementations use ATS (Sun's and NetApp's). >NFS/RDMA is being defined on top of an abstract RDMA interface. >Someone has to write a spec for how that RDMA abstraction is >translated into packets on the wire for each transport that NFS/RDMA >will run on top of. Well, we did. We specify the ULP payload of all the messages in those two IETF documents. What we didn't do is define how each transport handles IP addressing, that is a transport issue. We don't need address translation over iWARP, since that uses IP. Over IB, so far, we have used ATS. I am perfectly fine with a better solution, but ATS has been fine too. I am catching up to this discussion, so this is just one reply. Tom. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
