On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 08:38:18AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
I can't think of a better example of something that is truly
brain dead than an application *written* to use Sockets Direct
Protocol.
I think you confuse specificly written to support with specificly
written to support only. And
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:39:53PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
Open source does NOT ignore legacy applications:
1) Anyone can continue to update and run on the linux kernel version
they have source code for if they don't want to (or can't) change
the application or newer kernels break
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 10:11 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote:
I think the current CMA could probably be better.
Can you please clarify what you would change to the CMA API or implementation?
I would rather get changes in sooner, rather than waiting until it has been
pushed upstream.
At first blush,
Tom Tucker wrote:
At first blush, the API looks good to me. The kinds of changes I was
pondering were related to hiding some of the routing issues. For
example, if the app. doesn't bind the rdma_cm_id prior to calling
rdma_connect, the code will lookup and use the default route instead of
At 50,000 feet, I don't think anyone disagrees with these lines of
reasoning, however, there are some practical design issues that don't
yield to the architectural rubric of design by rule of least
astonishment.
It may be more complex than it needs to be; so propose an API, submit a
patch. I
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 08:38:18AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
That's not who SDP is going to work on Linux, though. Where
not into your crude hacks to let broken applications work
with new technology business. Applications will have to use
SDP directly or via getaddrinfo and we
At 03:14 PM 10/12/2005, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sean
Hefty
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:36 PM
To: Michael Krause
Cc: openib-general@openib.org
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address
I agree with Mike's analysis. But I'd also like to point
out that even
when source compatability is not a requirement, source
familiarity
is. That is, even when recoding is feasible the API should
only
introduce new concepts as required to improve efficiency.
The
shift from socket model to
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
KrauseSent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:24 AMTo: Hal
Rosenstock; Sean HeftyCc: OpenibSubject: RE:
[openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using ARP
At 07:45 AM 10/10/2005, Hal Rosenstock wrote
At 09:59 AM 10/12/2005, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael
Krause
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:24 AM
To: Hal Rosenstock; Sean Hefty
Cc: Openib
Subject: RE: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using
ARP
At 07
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Hefty
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:36 PM
To: Michael Krause
Cc: openib-general@openib.org
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using ARP
Michael Krause wrote
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
No, I think Mike's comment was dead on. Applications want to
use the existing API. They want to use the existing API even
when the API is clearly defective. Note that there are several
generations of host-resolution APIs for the IP world, with the
earlier ones clearly
On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 10:19, Sean Hefty wrote:
I think iWARP can be on top of TCP or SCTP. But why wouldn't it care ?
I'm referring to the case that iWarp is running over TCP. I know that it can
run over SCTP, but I'm not familiar with the details of that protocol. With
TCP, this is an
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 13:10, Tom Tucker wrote:
On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 07:57 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote:
It is theoretically possible to support all this on an IPoIB based
network. Multiple subnets, multiple routes to remote peers, ICMP
redirect, multiple IP addresses for each physical
On 10/9/05, Sean Hefty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think iWARP can be on top of TCP or SCTP. But why wouldn't it care ?I'm referring to the case that iWarp is running over TCP.I know that it canrun over SCTP, but I'm not familiar with the details of that protocol.With
TCP, this is an end-to-end
On 10 Oct 2005 10:45:59 -0400, Hal Rosenstock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 10:19, Sean Hefty wrote: I think iWARP can be on top of TCP or SCTP. But why wouldn't it care ? I'm referring to the case that iWarp is running over TCP.I know that it can
run over SCTP, but I'm not
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 11:50, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
Doesn't the IP next hop need determining in that case ? Why is
that not
relevant ? I don't think the iWARP connection is end to end in
all
cases.
Of course it's end to end. It's just that only
Tom Tucker wrote:
Again, I don't think that the binding is the issue, so much as the desire to use
an address for a protocol that isn't actually being used for communication.
Not to be pedantic, but if binding or mapping or somesuch weren't an
issue we wouldn't need AT.
We need AT because
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
What about the case of iWARP - IB ?
Crossing IB shouldn't matter. iWarp should simply cross the IB subnet using
IPoIB. You could build a gateway to make the transfer across IB more efficient,
but it's not required.
- Sean
-Original Message-
From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:37 PM
To: Tom Tucker
Cc: Sean Hefty; Openib
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using ARP
Tom Tucker wrote:
Again, I don't think that the binding
Tom Tucker wrote:
I think I understand where I'm upside down now. In my world,
you don't know which interface to send the ARP request on
until you've identified the local interface and you can't
identify the local interface until you've looked up the route.
Not all interface have a path to
At 10:40 AM 10/10/2005, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
What about the case of iWARP
- IB ?
Crossing IB shouldn't matter. iWarp should simply cross the IB
subnet using IPoIB. You could build a gateway to make the transfer
across IB more efficient, but it's not required.
I don't
Michael Krause wrote:
What about the case of iWARP - IB ?
Crossing IB shouldn't matter. iWarp should simply cross the IB subnet
using IPoIB. You could build a gateway to make the transfer across IB
more efficient, but it's not required.
I don't understand this statement. iWARP is RDMA
At 01:59 PM 10/10/2005, Sean Hefty wrote:
Michael Krause wrote:
What about the case of iWARP
- IB ?
Crossing IB shouldn't matter. iWarp should simply cross the IB
subnet using IPoIB. You could build a gateway to make the transfer
across IB more efficient, but it's not required.I don't
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 13:40, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
What about the case of iWARP - IB ?
Crossing IB shouldn't matter. iWarp should simply cross the IB subnet using
IPoIB. You could build a gateway to make the transfer across IB more
efficient,
but it's not required.
I think iWARP can be on top of TCP or SCTP. But why wouldn't it care ?
I'm referring to the case that iWarp is running over TCP. I know that it can
run over SCTP, but I'm not familiar with the details of that protocol. With
TCP, this is an end-to-end connection, so layering iWarp over it, only
It is theoretically possible to support all this on an IPoIB based
network. Multiple subnets, multiple routes to remote peers, ICMP
redirect, multiple IP addresses for each physical interface, yada yada
yada. But IMHO, the only way to do this would be to tie directly into
the existing routing,
On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 07:57 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote:
It is theoretically possible to support all this on an IPoIB based
network. Multiple subnets, multiple routes to remote peers, ICMP
redirect, multiple IP addresses for each physical interface, yada yada
yada. But IMHO, the only way to do
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 20:13 -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 19:57, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Would an iWARP connection jump across IP subnets ? It would need to
determine that it could do this (ala NHRP with ATM). Also, could there
be other RDMA
At 06:38 AM 9/30/2005, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roland
Dreier
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:50 PM
To: Sean Hefty
Cc: Openib
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using
At 06:24 AM 9/30/2005, Yaron Haviv wrote:
-Original
Message-
From: Roland Dreier
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:50 PM
To: Sean Hefty
Cc: Yaron Haviv; Openib
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using
ARP
I think the usage
It would be best to define a CM architecture that enabled communication
between like endpoints and avoid the gateway dilemma. Let the gateway
provider work out such issues as there are many requirements already
on each side of these interconnects.
I've given this some more thought since the
From: Michael Krause [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:29 PM
To: Yaron Haviv
Cc: Openib
Subject: RE: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using ARP
At 06:24 AM 9/30/2005, Yaron Haviv wrote:
-Original
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:openib-general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Hefty
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:40 PM
To: 'Michael Krause'; Caitlin Bestler
Cc: Openib
Subject: RE: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using ARP
It would
Yaron Haviv wrote:
Sean, I believe this is exactly how it is been proposed
The gateway is the endpoint in IB, and the IB CM request is done against
the gateway, the gateway may decide to create its own connection on the
Yes - I agree with that. I'm referring to the RDMA connection manager,
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 16:10, Sean Hefty wrote:
Yaron Haviv wrote:
Sean, I believe this is exactly how it is been proposed
The gateway is the endpoint in IB, and the IB CM request is done against
the gateway, the gateway may decide to create its own connection on the
Yes - I agree with
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
IP is connectionless, so I'm not sure how to relate from IP to the RDMA CM.
IP is connectionless but has been implemented on top of connection
oriented link layers which may gateway to other connection oriented link
layers or non connection oriented link layers. I think
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 17:02, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
IP is connectionless, so I'm not sure how to relate from IP to the RDMA CM.
IP is connectionless but has been implemented on top of connection
oriented link layers which may gateway to other connection oriented link
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
If the RDMA CM ran a protocol that ensured that data sent from the source
reached the actual destination, then this would make more sense to me. But
the protocol is coming from the client.
Wouldn't the gateway/host reject or drop the connection if it couldn't do
what was
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 17:30, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
If the RDMA CM ran a protocol that ensured that data sent from the source
reached the actual destination, then this would make more sense to me. But
the protocol is coming from the client.
Wouldn't the gateway/host
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Would an iWARP connection jump across IP subnets ? It would need to
determine that it could do this (ala NHRP with ATM). Also, could there
be other RDMA networks between them (like IB) ?
if iWarp is on top of TCP, I don't think that it would care about IP subnets.
- Sean
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 19:57, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Would an iWARP connection jump across IP subnets ? It would need to
determine that it could do this (ala NHRP with ATM). Also, could there
be other RDMA networks between them (like IB) ?
if iWarp is on top of TCP, I
-Original Message-
From: Roland Dreier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:50 PM
To: Sean Hefty
Cc: Yaron Haviv; Openib
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using ARP
I think the usage model is the following: you have some magic
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Dreier
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:50 PM
To: Sean Hefty
Cc: Openib
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using ARP
Sean Can you explain how RDMA works
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:26, Sean Hefty wrote:
Here's a first attempt at an API / implementation (that compiles only) for
an address translation module for IB using ARP. The code should check the
ARP cache for information, but is missing the actual ARP processing.
Where would the path record
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 09:59, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:26, Sean Hefty wrote:
Here's a first attempt at an API / implementation (that compiles only) for
an address translation module for IB using ARP. The code should check the
ARP cache for information, but is missing
Sean Hefty wrote:
struct ib_addr_svc* ib_addr_create_svc(void *context, ib_addr_handler handler);
void ib_addr_destroy_svc(struct ib_addr_svc *svc);
On second thought, I think this can be done without the need to create/destroy a
service without changing the functionality.
void
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 12:05, Sean Hefty wrote:
What happens if the destination IP address is a local one ? I think
there is some missing code here.
I think there's code in at.c to handle that case that could be re-used.
Yes. This is the code related to ip_dev_find which has been discussed
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 12:40, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
How does that map to the IB subnet?
or IP subnet in the case of iWARP, right ? It's still an outgoing
interface just more than 1 IP hop away.
The intent of the module is only to deal with IB. Although, it seems
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Would it require global routing,
Yes.
If it requires global routing of IB, then I think that we should defer it until
global routing is available. At least this was my original thinking.
I was referring to IP not IB routing.
If we restrict IB to a single subnet,
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 12:57, Sean Hefty wrote:
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Would it require global routing,
Yes.
If it requires global routing of IB, then I think that we should defer it
until
global routing is available. At least this was my original thinking.
I was referring to
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
If we restrict IB to a single subnet, do we need to worry about IP routing? My
assumption was no. Is this an invalid assumption?
I think so. There is nothing that precludes having multiple IPoIB
subnets on the same IB subnet.
This seems similar to having multiple IP
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
I'm struggling with understanding how translation can even occur in this case.
What DGID is used when querying for the path record, and how is it obtained?
Isn't it the DGID of the next hop IP router ? (I suppose in the case of
multiple IPoIB subnets on the same IB
Yaron Haviv wrote:
4. send an arp on the net device find destination MAC
Note the destination IP in the ARP phase is either the REAL destination
IP in case of a local subnet, or the IP router IP address in case of a
gateway/router.
5. issue a path record between the source/dest GIDs (DGID
-Original Message-
From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:16 PM
To: Yaron Haviv
Cc: Hal Rosenstock; Openib
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] IB address translation using ARP
Yaron Haviv wrote:
4. send an arp on the net device find
Yaron Haviv wrote:
The RC connection is established with the DGID of the router (it's the
equivalent of a MAC address and its ok), the ServiceID + private data in
the case of SDP or iSER (or NFS-R assuming the IBTA proposal will pass)
also contains info on the REAL destination IP that can be
Sean Can you explain how RDMA works in this case? This is simply
Sean performing IP routing, and not IB routing, correct? Are you
Sean referring to a protocol running on top of IP or IB directly?
Sean Is the router establishing a second reliable connection on
Sean the
I think the usage model is the following: you have some magic device
that has an IB port on one side and something else on the other
side. Think of something like a gateway that talks SDP on the IB side
and TCP/IP on the other side.
You configure your IPoIB routing so that this magic device is
58 matches
Mail list logo
