Sean, The reason IBTA is interested to address IP address issue is because of multiple UPLs and APIs want to support socket based connection model. Sure each one of them can define its own protocol (for private data). But this will not ensure interoperability.
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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:34 PM > To: Kanevsky, Arkady > Cc: Caitlin Bestler; openib-general@openib.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - > proposal for socket based connection model > > > Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: > > Think of a single API that supports iWARP and IB (transport > > independent API). > > The CMA implements this today and did not require any changes > to the IB CM. > > > To a connection listener it provides the IP 5-tuple + private data. > > For IB it means that CM parses REQ and extracts IP 5-tuple > as separate > > fields from private data. > > Why push this down into the CM? The CM should operate on IB > addresses, not IP > addresses. The mapping of IP addresses to IB addresses is > done at a higher level. > > > Listener does not parse the private data encoding of the proposal. > > The listener is the one who cares about the IP addressing. > > - Sean > _______________________________________________ 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
