Correct. But this does bring the question how responder CM knows that it need to parse the private data. I suspect this will be done via new version of CM. But a suage of some of the CM REQ reserved fields are also possible. Anotherwords the current CM version assumes that CM only supports one version and there is no need to support more than 1 version.
This proposal may change this assumption. Arkady Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Appliance phone: 781-768-5395 375 Totten Pond Rd. Fax: 781-895-1195 Waltham, MA 02451-2010 central phone: 781-768-5300 > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:56 PM > To: Caitlin Bestler > Cc: Kanevsky, Arkady; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - > proposal for socket based connection model > > > Caitlin Bestler wrote: > > I believe it requires a CM protocol version change, or a "IP Address > > Header present" bit. > > > > Basically, userspace consumers can supply *any* 72 bytes of private > > data > > currently. > > To maintain backwards compatability you need an > authenticator that says > > "this IP > > header data vouched for by privileged components on this > end", and that > > authenticator > > cannot be within the private data. > > I believe that the solution is keep the CM protocol as is. > The CM private data > should be completely controlled by the service. The IB CM > does not care if an > IP address is in the private data or not. > > My reading of the proposal is that it defines a private data > format that a > particular service may or may not use. > > - 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
