On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:35, Sean Hefty wrote: > Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > The other issue is whether you trust the state of the network or not > > when the SM comes up. That's sometimes a dangerous proposition. > > I considered this, but I think there's a difference between trusting one of > the > systems on the network, versus the network as a whole. For example, as long > as > the MCMember records from the end nodes mesh with MulticastForwarding tables > on > the switches, then we may be okay.
What does mesh mean in this instance ? How do you know the multicast routing tables are indeed valid and that the SM didn't corrupt them ? (Why did the SM need restarting ?) > Also, the MCMember records carry both the MGID and MLID, so what more would > you > need? The MLID is supplied by the SA in response to a group request from the end node, not the other way around. The end node doesn't tell the SA what MLID to use for a group. -- Hal > - 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
