[swg] RE: [openib-general] Re: [swg] Re: private data...

[Kanevsky, Arkady]

It may be benefitial to split the range of SID for one TCP port into
several.
That way the all "base TCP ports equivalent" will have the same
mapping.
Mapping to support SDP will use SDP assigned Service IDs.
And IPoIB will have its own range similar to SDP for TCP ports.
The RDMA "native" will use the "base" TCP ports.
We can also add more ports for each of these categeories
to support multiple SIDs. But we as well
can use portmapper for them.

But transparent adoptable clients that support all 3 (or more of the
methods)
will have to try each of the assigned Service IDs using appropriate
transport
to see if server supports it.
Arkady

Arkady Kanevsky                       email: arkady at netapp.com
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: Lentini, James 
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:39 PM
> To: Fab Tillier
> Cc: 'Sean Hefty'; swg at infinibandta.org; 
> dat-discussions at yahoogroups.com; openib-general at openib.org
> Subject: [swg] RE: [openib-general] Re: [swg] Re: private data...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Fab Tillier wrote:
> 
> > > From: Sean Hefty [mailto:mshefty at ichips.intel.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:11 AM
> > > 
> > > Fab Tillier wrote:
> > > > I would personally rather see a reserved bit get used. 
> Imagine a 
> > > > system that has two protocols installed that use IP 
> addressing.  
> > > > That system might want to have different apps listening on the 
> > > > same port number over both, even though the protocols are 
> > > > different.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you want two apps 
> listening on the same service id?
> 
> > > I don't think that this maps well to TCP.  Apps need to listen on 
> > > different ports.
> > 
> > Are DAPL apps TCP apps?
> 
> DAPL doesn't mandate any particular network transport. 
> However the API 
> uses sockaddrs to hold network addresses. The specification says that 
> these should contain IP addresses.
> 
> > I thought they just wanted to use IP addresses for connection
> > establishment, but weren't actual TCP apps.  If DAPL apps 
> aren't TCP 
> > apps, should they block usage of the TCP port from real TCP apps?
> 
> They should not.
> 
> > > > Having a reserved bit in the REQ indicate the presence of IP 
> > > > addressing information (including source and destination port
> > > > numbers) in the private data seems most flexible to me.
> > > 
> > > How would a reserved bit help here?  How does the CM know 
> which app 
> > > to give the request to?
> > 
> > Based on the ServiceID provided by the applications on both 
> sides of 
> > the connection.
> 
> You'd need to add a parameter to specify whether or not the 
> bit should 
> be set to the call for listening on a service id, right?
> 
> I like Sean's idea better. Have a well know service id or range of 
> service ids on which this protocol is used. I think of it as 
> a service 
> running on top of the CM protocol for using IP addresses on 
> native IB. 
> I don't think it should be mandatory for every CM connection.
> 
> james
>