Silverstorm is executing a usage model that the IBTA used to develop the IB protocols. What is the problem with that? If it works and integrates into the stack, then this seems like an appropriate bit of functionality to support. The fact that one can use a standard ULP to communicate to a TCA as an alternative which is supported by the existing stack is a customer product decision at the end of the day. If Silverstorm or any IHV can show value and that it works in the stack, then it seems appropriate to support. Isn't that a fundamental principle of being an open source effort?
Mike At 12:31 PM 10/3/2006, Fabian Tillier wrote: >Hi Yaron, > >On 10/3/06, Yaron Haviv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm trying to figure out why this protocol makes sense > > As far as I understand, IPoIB can provide a Virtual NIC functionality > > just as well (maybe even better), with two restrictions: > > 1. Lack of support for Jumbo Frames > > 2. Doesn't support protocols other than IP (e.g. IPX, ..) > >Whether to use a router or virtual NIC approach for connectivity to >Ethernet subnets is a design decision. We could argue until we are >blue in the face about which architecture is "better", but that's >really not relevant. > > > I believe we should first see if such a driver is needed and if IPoIB > > UD/RC cannot be leveraged for that, maybe the Ethernet emulation can > > just be an extension to IPoIB RC, hitting 3 birds in one stone (same > > infrastructure, jumbo frames for IPoIB, and Ethernet emulation for all > > nodes not just Gateways) > >You're joking right? Are you really arguing that SilverStorm should >not develop a driver to support its existing devices? This really >isn't complicated: > >1). SilverStorm has a virtual NIC hardware device. >2). SilverStorm is committed to support OpenFabrics. > >The above two statements lead to the following conclusion: SilverStorm >needs a driver for its devices that works with the OpenFabrics stack. >This is totally orthogonal to and independent of working on IPoIB RC >or any IETF efforts to define something new. > >- 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 _______________________________________________ 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