> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:openib-general- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Hefty > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:40 PM > To: 'Michael Krause'; Caitlin Bestler > Cc: Openib > Subject: RE: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using ARP > > >It would be best to define a CM architecture that enabled communication > >between like endpoints and avoid the gateway dilemma. Let the gateway > >provider work out such issues as there are many requirements already > >on each side of these interconnects. > > > I've given this some more thought since the original postings and agree > with > you. It doesn't seem right to me to have the CM establish a connection to > something that is not the specified destination, under the assumption that > whatever is being connected to is a gateway. I think it would be better > for the > application to determine that the actual destination is on a different > subnet, > locate the gateway, and issue a connection request to the gateway. > > - Sean >
Sean, I believe this is exactly how it is been proposed The gateway is the endpoint in IB, and the IB CM request is done against the gateway, the gateway may decide to create its own connection on the other side based on IB headers or Private data or even application data (depend on the type of the gateway), this just requires that traffic targeted to a certain IP range/subnet/non-local will end up in the gateway without the need to specify address by address individually (just like its done in IP) Yaron > _______________________________________________ > openib-general mailing list > [email protected] > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib- > general _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
