--- Caitlin Bestler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of > Michael Krause > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 7:25 AM > To: Sukanta ganguly > Cc: openib-general@openib.org; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Rdma-developers] Re: [openib-general] > OpenIB and > OpenRDMA: Convergence on common RDMA APIs and ULPs > for Linux > > > At 06:40 AM 5/27/2005, Sukanta ganguly wrote: > > > Venkata, > How will that work? If the RNIC offloads RDMA > and > TCP completely from the Operating System and does > not > share any state information then the application > running on the host will never be in the position > to > utilize the socket interface to use the > communication > logic to send and receive data between the remote > node > and itself. Some information needs to be shared. > How > much of it and what exactly needs to be shared is > the > question. > > > Ok. It all depends upon what level of integration > / interaction > a TOE and thus a RNIC will have with the host > network stack. For > example, if a customer wants to have TCP and IP > stats kept for the > off-loaded stack even if it is just being using for > RDMA, then there > needs to be a method defined to consolidate these > stats back into the > host network stack tool chain. Similarly, if one > wants to maintain a > single routing table to manage, etc. on the host, > then the RNIC needs to > access / update that information accordingly. One > can progress through > other aspects of integration, e.g. connection > management, security > interactions (e.g. DOS protection), and so forth. > What is exposed again > depends upon the level of integration and how > customers want to manage > their services. This problem also exists for IB but > most people have > not thought about this from a customer perspective > and how to integrate > the IB semantics into the way customers manage their > infrastructures, do > billing, etc. For some environments, they simply do > not care but if IB > is to be used in the enterprise space, then some > thought will be > required here since most IT don't see anything as > being "free" or > self-managed. > > Again, Sockets is an application API and not how > one > communicates to a TOE or RDMA component. The RNIC > PI has been proposed > as an interface to the RDMA functionality. The PI > supports all of the > iWARP and IB v 1.2 verbs. > > Mike > > > > I'd like to add that RNIC-PI is planning on > explicitly defining some of > these "obvious" dependencies > between the RDMA stack and the primary IP stack. For > example, the RDMA > stack cannot maintain > any connection in a state that contradicts current > IP stack routing. It > has to adapt or break the connection. > We can't have an RNIC that has its own ARP table > that is not in sync > with the host's ARP table. > > An iWarp RDMA stack gains the benefit of many > pre-existing network > services (such as DNS, ARP > and routing). But that also carries with it the need > to not contradict > those exisiting services. So it is > both a benefit and a restriction -- and a major > divergence from an IB > RDMA stack. > > >
This is exactly what I was getting at and seems like the RNIC-PI is already on its way to do that. Thanks SG __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general