On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 10:11 -0800, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 10:45 -0500, James Lentini wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Steve Wise wrote: > >> > >> swise> Just to clarify: Tom is talking about iWARP devices here that > >> swise> support the native stack -and- the rdma stack with the same > >> swise> offload device. For IB devices, the above "collision" doesn't > >> swise> matter because IB really doesn't use the ip addresses at all > >> swise> after the RC is setup. AND, the native stack TCP support in > >> IB swise> (IPoIB) uses a different QP and service type (UD). > > So there's no problem with said collision. > >> > >> If there is a fix for the iWARP collision problem, wouldn't there be > >> an analogous fix for IB? Why wouldn't we make that fix? > > > > Perhaps. To be honest, I have followed the SDP/IB side of > > this thread enough... I just wanted to make a point that > > iwarp devices have a different issue. > > > > But it really isn't a different issue. > > If you are representing to the application that you are > listening for TCP connections on IP address X port Y then > there really shouldn't be another listener allowed for X:Y. > > Isn't that part of presenting yourself as SOCK_STREAM and > claiming to use an IP address?
Yes, SDP has this issue. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
