> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:general- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Gunthorpe > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:32 AM > To: Yaron Haviv > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] [RFC] host stack IB-to-IB router support > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:21:15AM +0200, Yaron Haviv wrote: > > > I believe a much simpler and more generalized solution would be to > > imitate the behavior of IP routing rather than using the "remote sa" > > concept >
I completely agree with Yaron. > We talked about this at some length a while ago on this list. In > short, we started with the position you outlined until it was > discovered that the L2 address checking described by 9.6.1.5.1 C9-57 > makes it unworkable. This existing IB behavior is sufficiently > un-IP-like that existing IP solutions do not work. (The parallel to > ethernet would be if each TCP connection checked that the SMAC in > incoming frames matched some pre-determined value.) If C9-57 is a problem then that can be addressed by the IBTA. BTW, the IBTA is going to present on IB routers spec during the upcoming OFA workshop in Sonoma. That should be a good opportunity for non-IBTA members to raise their concerns and potentially find ways to become involved in the router architecture specification process. > > Sean is working on one of the simpler solutions that considers the > effects of C9-57, which is to allow the active side to control all 4 > path records that are involved. > > Notice this is similar to how IB CM works within a subnet, where the 2 > required paths are selected by the active side and the passive side > does no queries. This already is different than IP which would have > the passive side doing ARP. Again this behavior in the spec is > fundamentally required by the restriction in C9-57. For the IB spec, the SM and SA are subnet local entities. The remote SA concept is at odds with the spirit of the IB spec. I would say that changing that is a much more significant departure from the spec than dealing with C9-57 if necessary. > > I agree with you that this is not a good place to be, but with current > hardware I think we are stuck with it.. I do not think so (with my ib hw asic vendor hat on). > > Regards, > Jason > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib- > general _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
