On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Eli Dorfman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> > wrote: >> 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 ? > yes > >> What's the difference between xxxx's and ABCD in the syntax above ? > none. should be the same.
Doesn't the xxxxxx for IPv6 mean mask these nibbles though ? > >> IPv6 is being collapsed per PKey too, right ? > yes > >>>>> 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
