> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:dat- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kanevsky, Arkady > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sean Hefty > Cc: Lentini, James; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [dat-discussions] RE: [openib-general] Re: [swg] Re: private > data... > > > Once this is defined ULP can decide on which Service ID(s) to listen. > Requestor can send conn req to a specific Service ID (IB specific) > or use higher level abstraction - TCP port. > CM may be capable to translate TCP port to Service ID based on ULP. > For example, iSER over IPoIB will be mapped to one Service ID and > native iSER over IB will be mapped to another. But this is not simple. > On another hand every intermediate level protocol (SDP, IPoIB) can > do conversion. But this is also hard and is extension of existing > protocol.
A small correction, there is no iSER over IPoIB, just iSER over Native RDMA There can be an iSCSI/TCP session running over IPoIB but than it's a connectionless UD session (without ServiceID), also the iSER spec defines that iSCSI/iSER is in precedence to iSCSI/TCP. To add to the ongoing discussion, one of the major benefits in maintaining the TCP port numbers for RDMA protocols is the ability to leverage on existing naming services and configuration mechanisms. e.g. NFS use Port mappers, other protocols use DHCP, DNS, SLP, iSNS, well defined numbers, or other mechanisms, this way the upper layers beyond the transport stay the same and don't bother if its IB or iWarp or even if its plain TCP. If we don't preserve a simple/linear port mapping, we probably need to reinvent name-services for RDMA as well. 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
