[swg] RE: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - proposal forsocket based connection model

[Kanevsky, Arkady]

Of course, you can encode versions into service Id.
But that will mix concepts.
And I do not believe that is worse it to provide a couple more
bytes of Consumer private data.
This encoding will not be enough to give Consumer 64 bytes of private
data.

The port numbers are mapped differently for different protocol numbers
(families).
If we only concern with TCP port mapping this will not be needed.
But ULP right now make its decision by standard socket 5-tuple
which does include it.
I prefer that we do not require any changes in ULP to run over IB.
We can do that in the API if there is no need to support more than just
TCP. IN this case API can always return the protocol number for TCP
to a Consumer.

One concern I have is that some existing ULPs (say SDP)
rely on the existing format of the private data.
Thus, it would not want to use this CM encoding.
I do not want to force it to change.
Thus, a bit in CM which indicate whether encoding is present
looks like a right approach.

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: Yaron Haviv [mailto:yaronh at voltaire.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:21 PM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean Hefty
> Cc: swg at infinibandta.org; openib-general at openib.org; 
> dat-discussions at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [swg] RE: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] 
> round 2 - proposal forsocket based connection model
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: openib-general-bounces at openib.org [mailto:openib-general- 
> > bounces at openib.org] On Behalf Of Kanevsky, Arkady
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:26 PM
> > To: Sean Hefty
> > Cc: swg at infinibandta.org; openib-general at openib.org; dat- 
> > discussions at yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 
> - proposal 
> > forsocket based connection model
> > 
> > Think of a single API that supports iWARP and IB (transport
> independent
> > API).
> > To a connection listener it provides the IP 5-tuple + private data. 
> > For IB it means that CM parses REQ and extracts IP 5-tuple 
> as separate 
> > fields from private data. Listener does not parse the private data 
> > encoding of the proposal.
> > 
> > So CM need to know if it need to encode IP 5-tuple on 
> requestor side 
> > and if need to parse on responder side. Arkady
> > 
> 
> Arkady, I agree with Sean you can encode the Dest Port in the 
> ServiceID
> And if you really want to verify its using that format you can look at
> the upper 48 bits in the serviceID.
> 
> We may need to distinguish between Explicit RDMA protocols (iSER,
> NFS-RDMA, RDP, etc') and Implicit RDMA (SDP, where the Socket
> application doesn't know it is using RDMA), this can be done 
> in 3 ways:
> a. port mapper, b. different ServiceID prefix, or c. a bit in 
> the CM REQ
> Header.
> 
> Also I'm not sure why we need the Protocol (UDP, TCP, SCTP, 
> ..) since we
> emulate RDMA we shouldn't care if its TCP or SCTP, and UDP is
> unconnected and cant drive RDMA anyway 
> 
> Yaron
> 
> 
> > 
> > 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: Sean Hefty [mailto:mshefty at ichips.intel.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:08 PM
> > > To: Kanevsky, Arkady
> > > Cc: Caitlin Bestler; dat-discussions at yahoogroups.com;
> > > openib-general at openib.org; swg at infinibandta.org
> > > Subject: Re: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 -
> > > proposal for socket based connection model
> > >
> > >
> > > Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> > > > Correct.
> > > > But this does bring the question how responder CM knows
> > > that it need
> > > > to parse the private data. I suspect this will be done via
> > > new version
> > > > of CM. But a suage of some of the CM REQ reserved 
> fields are also
> > > > possible. Anotherwords the current CM version assumes 
> that CM only
> > > > supports one version and there is no need to support more than 1
> > > > version.
> > >
> > > The responder knows how to parse the private data based on
> > > the service ID that
> > > they're listening on.  This is how it's done today, and how
> > > it will still need
> > > to be done.  What is the motivation to change it?
> > >
> > > What data is beyond the addressing?  How does the responder
> > > know how to
> > > interpret that?
> > >
> > > - Sean
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > openib-general mailing list
> > openib-general at openib.org
> > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> > 
> > To unsubscribe, please visit
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-
> > general
>