Hi Yaron, On 10/3/06, Yaron Haviv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm trying to figure out why this protocol makes sense > As far as I understand, IPoIB can provide a Virtual NIC functionality > just as well (maybe even better), with two restrictions: > 1. Lack of support for Jumbo Frames > 2. Doesn't support protocols other than IP (e.g. IPX, ..)
Whether to use a router or virtual NIC approach for connectivity to Ethernet subnets is a design decision. We could argue until we are blue in the face about which architecture is "better", but that's really not relevant. > I believe we should first see if such a driver is needed and if IPoIB > UD/RC cannot be leveraged for that, maybe the Ethernet emulation can > just be an extension to IPoIB RC, hitting 3 birds in one stone (same > infrastructure, jumbo frames for IPoIB, and Ethernet emulation for all > nodes not just Gateways) You're joking right? Are you really arguing that SilverStorm should not develop a driver to support its existing devices? This really isn't complicated: 1). SilverStorm has a virtual NIC hardware device. 2). SilverStorm is committed to support OpenFabrics. The above two statements lead to the following conclusion: SilverStorm needs a driver for its devices that works with the OpenFabrics stack. This is totally orthogonal to and independent of working on IPoIB RC or any IETF efforts to define something new. - Fab _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
