Quoting r. Eitan Zahavi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 3. Today: "match_both" is not clearly described as applying to passive side > only, even though it does > > not have a meaning for "active" side (since connection is > either on INET or SDP) > > Change: Wrror on cases where the user specified match_both destination ? > > 4. Today: If connect over SDP fails an automatic fall back to INET socket is > performed > > Change: "match_fallback" should be used for active side rules when > fallback is required. Moreover > > "match" will not fallback i.e. if SDP socket is required > and fail connect will return an error. > > Thanks
IMO, unmatch, match_both match_fallback are misleading names: you still do matching in the same way, you supply a modifier affecting SDP/TCP selection. How about we have an extra parameter to match directive? It could be sdp, tcp, or both. Thus: match sdp listen *:12865 match tcp destination 192.169.2.0/24 # tcp only to this destination match both destination 192.168.1.0/24 # sdp with fallback -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
