On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Eli Dorfman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Slava Strebkov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> In addition to the original proposal we suggest allocating special MLID >>> for the following MGIDs: >>> 1. FF12401bxxxx000000000000FFFFFFFF - All Nodes >>> 2. FF12401bxxxx00000000000000000001 - All hosts >>> 3. FF12401bffff0000000000000000004d - all Gateways >>> 4. FF12401bxxxx00000000000000000002 - all routers >>> 5. FF12601bABCD000000000001ffxxxxxx - IPv6 SNM >> >> It turns out that collapsing multicast groups across PKeys on a single >> MLID may not be such a good idea unless partition enforcement >> enforcement by switches is disabled. There should be different modes >> of collapsing based on this based on whether this is enabled or not. > > The idea is to allocate a different MLID per each of the above special MGIDs.
So one MLID per PKey in the MGID ? What's the difference between xxxx's and ABCD in the syntax above ? IPv6 is being collapsed per PKey too, right ? >>> For all other cases we suggest that same MLID will be assigned to >>> different MGIDs if: >>> 1. They share the same P Key >>> 2. Same signature - for IPoIB only >>> 3. Same LSB bits - bitmask configurable by user (default 10 bits) >>> for example, the following are the same: >>> MGID1: FF12401bABCD000000000000xxxxx755 >>> MGID2: FF12401bABCD000000000000yyyyyB55 >> >> Jason's approach to this was in a thread entitled "IPv6 and IPoIB >> scalability issue": >> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2006-November/029621.html >> in which he proposed an MGID range (MGID/prefix syntax) for collapsing >> IPv6 SNM groups. Additionally, there was the potential to distribute >> the matched groups across some number of MLIDs. See also thread "[RFC] >> OpenSM and IPv6 Scalability Proposal": >> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-June/051226.html >> >>> Implementation. >>> Since there will be many mgroups shared same mlid, mlid-array entry >>> will contain >>> fleximap holding mgroups. >>> Searching of mgroup will be performed by mlid (index in the array) and >>> mgid - >>> key in the fleximap. >> >> Sasha proposed using an array rather than fleximap for this: >> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-June/051525.html >> >> -- Hal >> >>> >>> >>> Slava Strebkov >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ 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
