> From: Roland Dreier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:18 PM > > Fab> My understanding was that we want the IBTA to add a section > Fab> in the IB spec to define this higher-level connection > Fab> management protocol, specifically the use of the first > Fab> 32-bytes of the private data in the REQ to contain the source > Fab> and destination IP addresses associated with the source and > Fab> destination GIDs in the primary and alternate paths. > > Yes, but there's no point in doing this unless there's a defined range > of service IDs to map TCP ports onto. If every protocol needs to > define its own service ID mapping, then the protocol might as well > define how it uses the IB CM private data to carry IP addressing info. > This is exactly what SDP does today. However, this solution is > apparently not acceptable for NFS/RDMA. Hence the current discussion.
I'm not saying we shouldn't define a range of service IDs, I'm questioning whether we should restrict the use of this protocol to just the defined range of service IDs. I think there's a benefit in having different protocols use a well-established and defined way of mapping IP addresses to IB. I'd like to see us define the protocol independent of the service ID. We can then establish a service ID range to be used with this protocol for NFS/RDMA, or for more generic TCP mappings, but these are two different issues to me. - Fab _______________________________________________ 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