[closed dat-discussions list snipped from Cc list] I have some comments about the proposal. Unfortunately I can't quote from a PDF file but I'll try to make it clear what I'm talking about.
The proposal doesn't talk about mapping from TCP port numbers into a 16-bit range of IB service IDs. I think this is necessary. Also, putting the destination address in the REP message doesn't make sense to me. The destination IP and port number is something that the initiator of the connection is sending to the destination, not the other way around. The passive side of the connection (receiver of the REQ) needs the destination IP as part of the REQ so that it can decide whether to accept the connection; the active side (sender of the REQ) knows who it is trying to talk to, so having the address information in the REP is not useful. As I said above I believe the destination port should be encoded in the service ID, but the destination IP address should be in the REQ message. This consumes 16 more bytes of private data, but I would still like to understand whether there are real applications using 64 bytes of private data, or if this is just a uDAPL spec issue. - 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
