> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:39 AM > > >I understand that SDP needs address translation services as well as > >its own private data. However, I think it could be implemented using > >optional API functions that allow the ULP to modify the private data > >per its need, rather than adding ULP knowledge into CMA. > >As example, if ISER spec will be modified, or some new ULP > >implemented, that needed their own private data, we'll need to modify > >CMA again, as well as creating a dependency between CMA versions and > >ULPs. > > The CMA must be aware of the format of the data in order to > set and extract the IP addressing information. SDP and the > new CMA format locate these in different areas of the private > data. The CMA only defines the SDP hello header, and > restricts its definition to the location of the IP addresses, > source port, and version information. > > If a ULP wants to define their own private data format and move > the locations of any of those fields, then yes, the CMA would > need to be changed again. But I don't see how any API changes > can prevent this, since the CMA must be able to extract the data > on the remote side.
Now that the IB spec is going to have a section for how to support IP addressing in CM MADs, there shouldn't be any need for a ULP to duplicate that functionality. SDP is a special case because it predates the IP addressing extension to the CM protocol. - Fab _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
