On 04/06/2015 00:45, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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. Maybe this is a silly question, but doesn't DAD already disable SLAAC addresses when there's a conflict?
Haggai -- 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
