Michael Krause wrote:
This is really an IBTA issue to resolve and to insure that backward compatibility with existing applications is maintained. Hence, this exercise of who is broken or not is inherently flawed in that one cannot comprehend all implementations that may exist. Therefore, the spec should use either a new version number or a reserved bit to indicate that there is a defined format to the private data portion or not. This is no different than what is done in other technologies such as PCIe. Those applications that require the existing semantics will be confined to the existing associated infrastructure. Those that want the new IP semantics set the bit / version and operate within the restricted private data space available. It is that simple.
If we use an IBTA assigned service ID, I think that this can be defined without using a reserved bit or changing a version number. The two possible implementations that I see are using a single service ID, or mapping port numbers to a range of assigned service IDs.
- Sean _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
