On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:34:48PM -0800, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 15:32, Roland Dreier wrote: > >> Roland> No, I think trying to create a mapping is a bad idea. > >> The Roland> semantics of VLANs and IB partitions are sufficiently > >> Roland> different that it's probably better to treat each > >> concept Roland> natively. > >> > >> Steve> Roland, can you expand on this some? > >> > >> I don't think transport neutral code should be dealing with either > >> P_Keys or VLANs. The Linux model for handling VLANs is that each > >> VLAN has a separate network interface. So an iWARP consumer should > >> never deal with VLANs, just with a routing choice of interfaces. > >> > >> Similarly if a consumer is using the iWARP-emulation CM for IB, then > >> the P_Key will come from the IPoIB interface. Only native IB > >> consumers that understand partitions ever have to deal with P_Keys. > > > > What about a gateway between iWARP and IB ? Would it need the > > mappings between VLAN and IB partition ? If so, I would > > presume that is at a layer above what you are talking about. > > > > If you are attempting to implement an iWARP/IB gateway *above* > transport neutral verbs then I don't think there is anything > that can be defined that will be of much help.
The IB side of the gateway should know about P_Keys, but I think attempting to translate that to vlans is a bad idea. Any use case I can think of that is going to want to map IB partitions to a vlan will do it by having the gateway know what P_Key goes to what ethernet interface, and there are already other tools to map ethernet interfaces to vlans. Let's not reinvent this until there's an actual need. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
