On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote: > > My take ($0.02) on this is (at most) experimental if it is to be pushed > > upstream. > > I agree. I just didn't want to bother with this change without support > for merging the changes upstream. > > > The issue I see is how prestandard v. standard IB routers can be dealt > > with as cleanly as possible. > > IMO, the risk is minimal.
Understood but there is some risk in terms of compatibility moving forward. > The patches do not introduce any new > protocols or SA attributes. Visible changes are limited to setting the > DLID field in the CM REQ message to an invalid value that the passive > side keys off of to determine the correct value. A node which does not > support this would simply reject the connection with an invalid LID. How might this affect end node operation when there are standard based routers ? If there are other larger changes for that, then this particular issue is a red herring. I do think it's important to try to keep in mind if it is possible to smooth a migration path for end nodes (and SMs) in terms of prestandard and standard routers. That's not to say that there should be no changes; just that it would be nice to be able to tell the two apart and make intelligent choices based on this. -- Hal > - Sean _______________________________________________ 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
