Comments on the
private data format:
Combine major/minor
version into a single field. There’s no advantage to have two fields, so
keep it simple.
[AK] agree
Remove ZB and SI
bits. These are unrelated to socket addressing.
[AK] That is true these are
unrelated to socket addressing. But since several ULPs over IB need this
info
it can be added to the generic CM
extensions for IB.
I will rename the proposal to
deal with it.
I prefer a single private data
formating proposal rather then several layered on top of each
other.
If IBTA think this is
generic enough and want to redefine some reserved fields for it
- good.
This is captured in discussion
slides.
If the destination
port number is encoded in a service ID, then it can be removed from the
private data.
[AK] This is dependent on how port mapping to Service ID is
done. But if SDP will incorporate this into
hello-wold
protocol this may still be needed. With
64-bytes Consumer private data requirement relaxed saving 2
bytes
will not make much
difference.
The transport
protocol number could also be encoded in the service ID and removed from the
private data. Actually, the version, IP version, and source port could
all be encoded in the service ID, limiting the private data to just 32 bytes
of IP addresses.
[AK] Encoding IP version into Service ID sounds
strange. Service ID is a pprt equivalent. Sure it is much larger than IP ports
but why does CM extensions should encode more than port into
it?
Even with this Consumer private data is still only 60
bytes (not old 64-bytes requirement).
-
Sean
