> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:10 AM > To: Kanevsky, Arkady > Cc: Caitlin Bestler; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - > proposal for socket based connection model > > Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: > > It is APIs not ULPs that are concern. > > Yes - and an application that wants to use IP addressing > instead of IB addressing should use a different API than that > of the IB CM. Trying to define the IB CM to use anybody's > favorite transport/network address is the wrong solution to > the problem. That is a service level issue best left to the > service that's trying to perform the mapping. >
What you are proposing is an API that purports to have the semantics of TCP/IP connection establishment that can be implemented under non-IP transports such as InfiniBand. However, as proposed the mapping of this API to InfiniBand does *not* implement the semantics of TCP/IP connection establishment in that the remote address presented to the listener has been subject to *no* authentication. That is a change in the API that has an impact on the application. It is creating a requiremet for the application to validate the remote identity greater than it would face for TCP/IP connection establishment. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
