Sean wrote: > I'm not sure how much we should care about higher level > abstractions for this > discussion. We should do what's right for IB. Abstractions > that want to use IP > addresses can either use the standard protocol defined by the > IBTA or define > their own private data.
Correct. But we should define standard protocol suited for most apps to avoid creations of multiple apps specific protocols. > > To me, it seems that the most flexible solution is to pass > the source and > destination IP address in the CM REQ. I agree. This is the cleanest and most simple to define. But it impacts some existing apps. That is why DAT has 64 bytes private data req. We do not loose too many users by the time we define the complete solution stack. > We can then define a > standard mapping > from TCP port numbers to IB service records, or change the CM > version to read > into the private data. What's wrong with this approach? It is the "standard" mapping which we just spend 1 hour discussing at SWG. What is that standard mapping if it is native IB? IPoIB as intermediate layer? SDP as intermediate layer? What is the standard TCP port for iSER (pick your ULP) native over RDMA vs. the same ULP over IPoIB? This have to be defined. But is it part of the IP address and TCP port info sharing between 2 sides of the connection proposal or a separate proposal? I think it is separate proposal but both will have to be in place to support iWARP emulation. Arkady Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Appliance phone: 781-768-5395 375 Totten Pond Rd. Fax: 781-895-1195 Waltham, MA 02451-2010 central phone: 781-768-5300 _______________________________________________ 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