On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 10:52:34AM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
> On 04/06/2015 19:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Discussion idea: Can we actually use the netstack to process the
> > RDMA-CM packets? It looks like the netstack wants a skb to do this
> > mid-layer work, so rdma-cm would have to synthes
On 04/06/2015 19:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Discussion idea: Can we actually use the netstack to process the
> RDMA-CM packets? It looks like the netstack wants a skb to do this
> mid-layer work, so rdma-cm would have to synthesize a skb for the CM
> packets and pass it through netdev to apply al
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 09:24:37AM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
> > The l2/l3 distinction in ipvlan is also very interesting. The L3 mode
> > solves some of the security type issues. What do you think Haggi?
> I think some issues ipvlan is trying to solve would also affect us using
> the alias GUIDs
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:41:33PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
> On 04/06/2015 00:45, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > I don't know if that is a good idea, an unstable SLAAC is not in
> > spirit with the RFCs. The safest bet is to return error and disable
> > SLAAC completely.
> Maybe this is a silly que
On 04/06/2015 00:45, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:07:37PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> As Haggai wrote, if we let the using IP address thing to fly up, we have
>> support for RDMA in containers using the RDMA-CM at IPoIB environments.
>> This will let people test, use, experim
On 04/06/2015 02:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:07:37PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
>>> I'm mostly fine with it as an optional capability, similar to macvlan,
>>> I just don't see how to cleanly integrate it with RDMA CM and
>>> namespaces. And I don't see what RDMA CM is s
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:07:37PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > I'm mostly fine with it as an optional capability, similar to macvlan,
> > I just don't see how to cleanly integrate it with RDMA CM and
> > namespaces. And I don't see what RDMA CM is supposed to do when
> > it hits this case.
> >
>
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:07:37PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> As Haggai wrote, if we let the using IP address thing to fly up, we have
> support for RDMA in containers using the RDMA-CM at IPoIB environments.
> This will let people test, use, experiment, fix, interact (and even
> production-it when
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:05:34PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
>> Indeed the DHCP story isn't working there and to get DHCP work
>> something has to be done. But this issue can't serve for blocking the
>> existing UAPI and introduce regressi
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:05:34PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Indeed the DHCP story isn't working there and to get DHCP work
> something has to be done. But this issue can't serve for blocking the
> existing UAPI and introduce regression to working systems.
It is not DHCP that concerns me, it is
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:03:01PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
>> > Then I'm inclined to say that we should map for namespaces using device,
>> > port, guid/gid, pkey. And in this situation, since a unique guid/gid on
>> > any given pkey maps
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:03:01PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
> > Then I'm inclined to say that we should map for namespaces using device,
> > port, guid/gid, pkey. And in this situation, since a unique guid/gid on
> > any given pkey maps to a unique dhcp identifier and a unique ipv6
> > lladdr, th
On 28/05/2015 18:46, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:22:36PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
>> wouldn't care if they share the "QP number namespace", etc. RDMA CM
>> ports are different because they are chosen by the applications, but
>> they map directly to the network namespace, so
On 29/05/2015 00:55, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 22:05 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> So what's your concrete saying here? where should we go from here?
>
> This excerpt is from the commit log of patch 3/12:
>
> The IB device and port, together with the P_Key and the IP address shoul
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 22:05 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> >> I don't think that is what Doug said.
>
> > Indeed. There is no need to scrap things, but if the design as it
> > stands, and the intended means of creating objects for use in
> >
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> I don't think that is what Doug said.
> Indeed. There is no need to scrap things, but if the design as it
> stands, and the intended means of creating objects for use in
> containers, is going to result in an unworkable network, then we ha
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 11:43 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:21:11PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
> > Anything else except for that (you said "reworking of the network scripts
> > and NetworkManager assumptions to make it work")??
>
> IPv6 becomes very broken, child interf
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:21:11PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Anything else except for that (you said "reworking of the network scripts
> and NetworkManager assumptions to make it work")??
IPv6 becomes very broken, child interfaces will generate the same IPv6
addreses for radv and link local resu
On 5/28/2015 5:07 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
You would think that, but sometimes important information comes from
totally different places. See mine and Jason's comments back and forth
in the SRIOV thread started by Or.
Long story short:
ip link add dev ib0 name ib0.1 type ipoib
is totally broke
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:22:36PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
> wouldn't care if they share the "QP number namespace", etc. RDMA CM
> ports are different because they are chosen by the applications, but
> they map directly to the network namespace, so they don't require their
> own namespace.
Diffe
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 16:07 +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
> On 26/05/2015 16:34, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 08:50 +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
> > This is a core feature more than anything else. Namespaces for RDMA
> > devices is not unique to IB or RoCE in any way. Yet no thought has
On 26/05/2015 20:46, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> Remember, this isn't RDMA namespaces, this is netdev namespace support
>> > for RDMA-CM -> very different things.
> That was the point of my email. This is a very myopic view of the
> feature. It *should* at least have an idea of these other things too.
On 26/05/2015 19:59, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The big open question for ethernet is how to work without relying on
> VLAN to create delgated netdevs - typically one would use a bridge and
> veth's, which do not seem very RDMA compatible. But that doesn't need
> to be answered right now.
I think in
On 26/05/2015 16:34, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 08:50 +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
>> Thanks again everyone for the review comments. I've updated the patch set
>> accordingly. The main changes are in the first patch to use a read-write
>> semaphore instead of an SRCU, and with the ref
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:46:36PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > Remember, this isn't RDMA namespaces, this is netdev namespace support
> > for RDMA-CM -> very different things.
>
> That was the point of my email. This is a very myopic view of the
> feature. It *should* at least have an idea o
hachar Raindel; Yotam Kenneth
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 for-next 00/12] Add network namespace support in the
> RDMA-CM
...
> I don't think this is an issue for usNIC as if you
> want namespace support there, you just start the user space app in a given
> namespace and you are pro
On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 10:59 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 09:34:40AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> > This is a core feature more than anything else. Namespaces for RDMA
> > devices is not unique to IB or RoCE in any way. Yet no thought has been
> > given to how this wi
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 09:34:40AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> This is a core feature more than anything else. Namespaces for RDMA
> devices is not unique to IB or RoCE in any way. Yet no thought has been
> given to how this will work universally across all of the RDMA
> capable
I think if Hag
On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 08:50 +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
> Thanks again everyone for the review comments. I've updated the patch set
> accordingly. The main changes are in the first patch to use a read-write
> semaphore instead of an SRCU, and with the reference counting of shared
> ib_cm_ids.
> Pleas
29 matches
Mail list logo
