> It is like an IPv6 address but it was expressly envisioned to be a > seperate space. The IBA authors copied many of the conventions from > IPv6 for numbering this new space, like link local, and multicast > prefixes, but it was not intended to be co-mingled.
Well (I've quoted this many times): IBA section 4.1: "A GID is a valid 128-bit IPv6 address (per RFC 2373) with additional properties / restrictions defined within IBA..." People often try to claim that this sentence doesn't mean what it very explicitly and clearly says, and certainly I believe that existing practice doesn't comply with the IBA spec, but I don't see how anyone can say that a truly compliant IB GID is not a real IPv6 address. > So, I didn't look closely enough, but what was the ethertype that is > used here in this patch set? Hopefully not IPv6. I don't think it's specified in the code -- presumably in HCA FW. Which is an issue as you say -- do we have an IEEE ethertype yet? And if we don't use the IPv6 ethertype, then is multicast going to work well (if the code is moved away from just broadcasting everything)? I doubt that switch IGMP snooping works well for non-IP ethertypes -- in fact I wonder how well existing switches handle IPv6 multicast ;) - R. _______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg