[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 15:32, Roland Dreier wrote: >> Roland> No, I think trying to create a mapping is a bad idea. >> The Roland> semantics of VLANs and IB partitions are sufficiently >> Roland> different that it's probably better to treat each >> concept Roland> natively. >> >> Steve> Roland, can you expand on this some? >> >> I don't think transport neutral code should be dealing with either >> P_Keys or VLANs. The Linux model for handling VLANs is that each >> VLAN has a separate network interface. So an iWARP consumer should >> never deal with VLANs, just with a routing choice of interfaces. >> >> Similarly if a consumer is using the iWARP-emulation CM for IB, then >> the P_Key will come from the IPoIB interface. Only native IB >> consumers that understand partitions ever have to deal with P_Keys. > > What about a gateway between iWARP and IB ? Would it need the > mappings between VLAN and IB partition ? If so, I would > presume that is at a layer above what you are talking about. >
If you are attempting to implement an iWARP/IB gateway *above* transport neutral verbs then I don't think there is anything that can be defined that will be of much help. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
