On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 21:07 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > On 13:41 Sat 17 Nov , Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:30:17AM -0800, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 12:37 +0200, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > > > > As stated in bug#504 (https://bugs.openfabrics.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504) > > > > lid output format unification is needed. Print LIDs as decimal in > > > > ibtracert. > > > > > > I'd prefer to see this done as some sort of option. Also, I think hex is > > > better for MLIDs. > > > > FWIW, we consistently use hex notation in our switch products in the > > format '0x10/16' which specifies both the LMC and the LID in a compact > > manner. > > > > Since both GIDs, GUIDs and MACs are printed in hex, choosing decimal for lid > > seems like an inconsistent choice to me. It also makes it harder to > > read out the LMC bits. > > > > Also, this same kind of unification is needed for GID's. They should > > always be printed and accepted in IPv6 format, not 128 bit > > decimal. > > Not sure this was discussed explicitly (probably it should be). My > feeling based on the feedback from people (emails, opened bugs, etc) > was that desired *IDs formats are decimal for LIDs, LMC and hexadecimal > for GUIDs, MLIDs.
Not sure about decimal for LMC (as it is a mask to apply to LID). I also think that some prefer hex and would rather see some option for decimal/hex. Also, as I said before, I think that unicast LIDs need to be consistent with the SM. > I don't remember that GID was discussed at all and I think that Jason's > proposition about ipv6 format is first here. > > Any other opinions? Should *IDs formats be formalized at all? Thoughts? ipv6 format for GIDs makes sense to me (also affects SM too). -- Hal > Sasha _______________________________________________ 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
