Tom Tucker wrote: > On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 09:50 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote: >>>> The app _usually_ doesn't care. See NFS discussion for a client >>>> app that does care. Also, providers DO care. Because of this >>>> issue, the chelsio iwarp provider right now has to allocate its own >>>> ephemeral ports at connect time. This logic should be moved into >>>> the IWCM or maybe the CMA and an explicit bind() operation be >>>> exported by the iwarp providers to allow the IWCM or CMA to track >>>> all port allocations. >> >> Somehow I didn't receive Steve's response. Anyway, I'm referring to >> apps that don't specify which port to use as the one's that don't >> care, versus those that do want to know their port. >> >> In reality, the port space for RDMA connections over IB is distinct >> from the TCP port space. No attempt is made to coordinate between >> the two, and I am not convinced that those two port spaces should be >> one and the same. This is where I believe there's disconnect. > > Whether it's a separate port space or not is as simple as > defining a different hash_info structure. >
Tracking the port allocations in one or two data structures isn't the real issue. The real issue is whether there is a way to describe all connections created through the CMA in a simple manner that can be understood by developers used to IP semantics. For example, how do I compare the list of CMA approved connections vs. the netfilter rules for establishing connections? Am I going to expect netfilter code to undestand that a "connection" can have "Not applicable" as the local port number? _______________________________________________ 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
