On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 12:55, Sean Hefty wrote: > > Guy German wrote: > > > I believe that ib_at is still a valuable module even if ATS > > > reverse ARP is broken, and I think we should discuss this. > > > > Here's my thinking on this. ATS is broken as you mentioned for > > reverse lookups. > > However, if we want to keep ATS, I think that ATS > > registration/deregistration should be integrated with IPoIB. > > There was a desire expressed a long time ago to keep these separate. I agree. Keeping it seperate is best. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
