Re: [openib-general] round 2 - proposal for socket basedconnection model
Why does an application care whether the remote implementation supports ZB? Whether memory regions can be described with zero based rkeys or not doesn't matter on an end-to-end level. Its only a local issue. So ZB shouldn't be there IMO. - Original Message - From: Tom Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kanevsky, Arkady [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; openib-general@openib.org Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [openib-general] round 2 - proposal for socket basedconnection model Arkady: I may actually have a constructive comment about the protocol (private data format). One thing I noticed is that *almost* everything in the private data header is available in the native iWARP protocol header except the ZB and SI bits. If these bits become part of the canonical private data header, then does that require an iWARP transport to use the header too even though only two bits are useful? Sorry if this is a dumb question, Tom On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 16:40 -0500, Tom Tucker wrote: Arkady: I don't think anyone disagrees with your goals. Unfortunately additional requirements on the implementation were coupled with the specification of the private data format (protocol). This peripheral discussion derailed any attempt to discuss the protocol. Attempts to separate the protocol discussion from the implementation failed. And so here we are... On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 15:38 -0400, Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: What are you trying to achieve? I am trying to define an IB REQ protocol extension that support IP connection 5-tuple exchange between connection requestor and responder. And define mapping between IP 5-tuple and IB entities. That way ULP which was written to TCP/IP, UDP/IP, CSTP/IP (and so on) can use RDMA transport without change. To modify ULP to know that it runs on top of IB vs. iWARP vs. (any other RDMA transport) is bad idea. It is one thing to choose proper port to connect. Completely different to ask ULP to parse private data in transport specific way. The same protocol must support both user level ULPs and kernel level ULPs. 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 3:22 PM To: Kanevsky, Arkady Cc: Sean Hefty; openib-general@openib.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [openib-general] round 2 - proposal for socket based connectionmodel Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: Sean, answers in-line. Arkady At this point, I'm just going to disagree with this approach and move on with the current implementation of the CMA. What's needed is a service that provides IB connections using TCP/IP addressing. I don't believe this proposal meets this goal. To meet the requirement of connecting over IB using TCP/IP addressing, I believe that we need a service with a reserved service identifier or range of identifiers, a mechanism for mapping between IP and IB addresses, and a mechanism for reversing the mapping. I don't see where the proposal addresses the bulk of the work that's required, nor do I think that it will present an API to the user that does not expose IB related addressing (such as service IDs). - 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 ___ 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 ___ 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
RE: [openib-general] round 2 - proposal for socket basedconnection model
No. iWARP does not have to pass this info. The info is needed for IB because ZB and SI were introduced in IBTA 1.2 specs as optional functionality. So if ULP wants to use that functionality it need to find out whether remote side can support it. This is needed for backwards compatibility. For example iSER protocol defines the use of remote invalidate but obviously can not be done if remote side can not support it. I do not recall right now whether iWARP defined that functionality as required or optional. 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: Tom Tucker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:56 PM To: Kanevsky, Arkady Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; openib-general@openib.org Subject: RE: [openib-general] round 2 - proposal for socket basedconnection model Arkady: I may actually have a constructive comment about the protocol (private data format). One thing I noticed is that *almost* everything in the private data header is available in the native iWARP protocol header except the ZB and SI bits. If these bits become part of the canonical private data header, then does that require an iWARP transport to use the header too even though only two bits are useful? Sorry if this is a dumb question, Tom On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 16:40 -0500, Tom Tucker wrote: Arkady: I don't think anyone disagrees with your goals. Unfortunately additional requirements on the implementation were coupled with the specification of the private data format (protocol). This peripheral discussion derailed any attempt to discuss the protocol. Attempts to separate the protocol discussion from the implementation failed. And so here we are... On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 15:38 -0400, Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: What are you trying to achieve? I am trying to define an IB REQ protocol extension that support IP connection 5-tuple exchange between connection requestor and responder. And define mapping between IP 5-tuple and IB entities. That way ULP which was written to TCP/IP, UDP/IP, CSTP/IP (and so on) can use RDMA transport without change. To modify ULP to know that it runs on top of IB vs. iWARP vs. (any other RDMA transport) is bad idea. It is one thing to choose proper port to connect. Completely different to ask ULP to parse private data in transport specific way. The same protocol must support both user level ULPs and kernel level ULPs. 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 3:22 PM To: Kanevsky, Arkady Cc: Sean Hefty; openib-general@openib.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [openib-general] round 2 - proposal for socket based connectionmodel Kanevsky, Arkady wrote: Sean, answers in-line. Arkady At this point, I'm just going to disagree with this approach and move on with the current implementation of the CMA. What's needed is a service that provides IB connections using TCP/IP addressing. I don't believe this proposal meets this goal. To meet the requirement of connecting over IB using TCP/IP addressing, I believe that we need a service with a reserved service identifier or range of identifiers, a mechanism for mapping between IP and IB addresses, and a mechanism for reversing the mapping. I don't see where the proposal addresses the bulk of the work that's required, nor do I think that it will present an API to the user that does not expose IB related addressing (such as service IDs). - 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 ___ 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
