I'm still missing a bunch of openib mail, so I eventually went out to the openib
web site to read Steve and Tom's full messages. The fact that NFSoRDMA would
break without a port number is reason enough to add it.
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
Currently an application endpoint is identified by IP address
and protocol/port, and a connection is a pairing of two endpoints.
I view RDMA endpoints as being identified by QPs, rather than addresses. I
guess for iWarp, a QP maps to a unique port-address pair (?), but the same isn't
necessary for IB.
Allocating a port number from one of the existing portspaces
so that existing APIs can be complied with is a decision that
can be made within this project.
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The only interfaces that I'm aware of for
allocating a port require a socket structure. Attempting to use those
interfaces in an acceptable manner could require substantial changes.
So, do you have any reason why allocating a port number for
the active endpoint is so onerous that it is worth co-ordinating
the evolution of an L4 endpoint with an IP address to accommodate
that endpoint being an IB QP? Isn't assigning a port number to the
IB QP far simpler?
The question is the domain from which the port number is allocated.
- Sean
_______________________________________________
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
