[openib-general] [PATCH] [CMA] support for SDP + standard protocol

[Dan Bar Dov]

Wouldn't it make sense than, to also modify the SDP spec?
After all, the change in openIB would modify both client & server sides.
Of course existing stacks would have to be changed if they will want
interoperability,
but I think it could fly.

Dan

On 12/13/05, Fab Tillier <ftillier at silverstorm.com> wrote:
> > From: Sean Hefty [mailto:sean.hefty at intel.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:39 AM
> >
> > >I understand that SDP needs address translation services as well as
> > >its own private data. However, I think it could be implemented using
> > >optional API functions that allow the ULP to modify the private data
> > >per its need, rather than adding ULP knowledge into CMA.
> > >As example, if ISER spec will be modified, or some new ULP
> > >implemented, that needed their own private data, we'll need to modify
> > >CMA again, as well as creating a dependency between CMA versions and
> > >ULPs.
> >
> > The CMA must be aware of the format of the data in order to
> > set and extract the IP addressing information.  SDP and the
> > new CMA format locate these in different areas of the private
> > data.  The CMA only defines the SDP hello header, and
> > restricts its definition to the location of the IP addresses,
> > source port, and version information.
> >
> > If a ULP wants to define their own private data format and move
> > the locations of any of those fields, then yes, the CMA would
> > need to be changed again.  But I don't see how any API changes
> > can prevent this, since the CMA must be able to extract the data
> > on the remote side.
>
> Now that the IB spec is going to have a section for how to support IP addressing
> in CM MADs, there shouldn't be any need for a ULP to duplicate that
> functionality.  SDP is a special case because it predates the IP addressing
> extension to the CM protocol.
>
> - Fab
>
>
>