Fab> My understanding was that we want the IBTA to add a section
Fab> in the IB spec to define this higher-level connection
Fab> management protocol, specifically the use of the first
Fab> 32-bytes of the private data in the REQ to contain the source
Fab> and destination IP addresses associated with the source and
Fab> destination GIDs in the primary and alternate paths.
Yes, but there's no point in doing this unless there's a defined range
of service IDs to map TCP ports onto. If every protocol needs to
define its own service ID mapping, then the protocol might as well
define how it uses the IB CM private data to carry IP addressing info.
This is exactly what SDP does today. However, this solution is
apparently not acceptable for NFS/RDMA. Hence the current discussion.
- 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
