On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:07:37PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > As Haggai wrote, if we let the using IP address thing to fly up, we have > support for RDMA in containers using the RDMA-CM at IPoIB environments. > This will let people test, use, experiment, fix, interact (and even > production-it when static IP address assignment scheme is used).
Sure, I think we all understand the goal, and you've explained some reasonable use cases for the child support. > Later, usage of alias GUIDs for IPoIB RTNL childs would allow to > remove the IP thing. How do we remove it? Along with same-guid child support? What is your idea here? > > Also, now that this has been brought up, I think you need to make a > > patch to fix the IPv6 SLAAC breakage this caused. It looks trivial to > > modify addrconf_ifid_infiniband to return error if the IPoIB child is > > sharing a guid. It was not good at all to push the child patches > > forward to 3.6/3.7 if you knew that IPv6 SLAAC was broken by them. > > Till the alias GUID thing is introduced, maybe we can patch > addrconf_ifid_infiniband to use the QPN value from the device HW > address to come up with unique IPv6 link local address, agree? where > you think we can place the 24 bits QPN? I don't know if that is a good idea, an unstable SLAAC is not in spirit with the RFCs. The safest bet is to return error and disable SLAAC completely. But I'm just guessing here - I'm only feel strongly that something should be done to address this issue in the existing kernel. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
