On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 08:02 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > Caitlin> It is important to separate two issues here: L2-L3 > Caitlin> coordination and L4 coordination. > > Caitlin> The patches that Tom recently posted address the L2-L3 > Caitlin> coordination. They ensure that the TCP/IP stack used by > Caitlin> the RNIC is consistent in its L2-L3 configuration with > Caitlin> the host stack. For example, it will route packets to the > Caitlin> same destination IP address the same way as the host > Caitlin> stack, use the same MAC addresses for first hops, etc. > > But the patches don't provide full L2 coordination. For example if I > install a netfilter rule that discards packets from a particular > source MAC (a completely, 100% L2 notion), the RNIC will still happily > accept connections from that MAC, right?
The intended behavior is to provide "full coordination". For the example you give, I would expect that rdma_resolve_addr would fail due to to a timeout waiting for an ARP reply. > > Caitlin> Those will be compicated give and takes. There is no > Caitlin> reason to hold up the L2-L3 work because of it. If it > Caitlin> were, then SDP/IB should have been deferred until > Caitlin> complete consistency was achieved. Updating one step at a > Caitlin> time makes more sense. > > SDP/IB is not in the upstream kernel. And I agree that there are many > issues with respect to network stack integration to work out before > SDP is suitable for merging. > > - R. > _______________________________________________ > openib-general mailing list > openib-general@openib.org > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
