[openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] socket based connection model for IB proposal - round 3

[Sean Hefty]

Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> Current CM software could generate the Serive ID. Therefore
> the fact that the Private Data is in the "new format" cannot
> be part of the Service ID. Otherwise I agree with your analysis
> that data can be moved to the Serivce ID. Which is more valuable,
> 4 more bytes of private data or a very larger number of Service
> IDS, is another topic.

The CM would still need to know what range of service IDs can be generated.  I 
don't believe that the range can overlap with an existing range that is already 
defined without needing to redefine service records and other items.  The extra 
bit in essence becomes a 65th bit for the service ID in such cases.

The additional 4 bytes of private data come at an expense of consuming something 
like .0000006% of the service ID space.

>>To be clear, the CM REQ _carries_ the IP address.  There
>>should be no requirement that the CM performs the mapping,
>>and I see no reason why it should even care.
> 
> The CM needs to have at least the capability of validating
> the local IP address supplied.

Validation can be done outside of the CM in a separate module.

- Sean