On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 11:03 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote: > >> It's correct that the CMA currently does not do this. I > >> guess I'm still unsure of why it needs to when running over > >> IB. The CMA should work fine if it assigned every active > >> connection the same port number. As long as the CMA manages > >> its own port spaces, does it matter if its semantics are defined this > >> way? > >> > >The 4-tuple must be unique, even across devices. Hence if the > >native stack has X:Y to I:J then CMA cannot also create > >X:Y to I:J. > > What I what to understand is _why_ it must be unique? The CMA-IB port spaces > are separate from the native stack.
But should they be? I mean it would be great if IPoIB address/port had the same semantics as Linux native TCP/IP address/port tuples. Especially if anyone ever dreamed of trying to bridge the IB/IP gap even more with devices for this purpose ;-) > And the CMA-IB has no issues connecting or > routing data among multiple connections all having the same 4-tuple. It 'works' to the extent that it has been tested thus far. I predict that this will wreak havoc with applications -- it already breaks NFS security policy. > - Sean > _______________________________________________ > openib-general mailing list > [email protected] > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
