[ofa-general] RE: IPoIB CM connectivity issue.

[Alex Estrin]

> > In case if connection initiated by remote node(B), OFED node(A)
> > accepts connection and then sends it's own connect request to the same
> > node(B) using different RC QP!

> Yes, in the Linux implementation of IPoIB CM, each QP is used for
> traffic in only a single direction.  This simplifies things quite a bit
> in the implementation, and as far as I know is a fully compliant thing
> to do.

In second case (when OFED is CREQ initiator) only one RC QP was used to establish a connection and
apparently bidirectional traffic was capable to go through that one QP.

> > It looks like violation of RFC4755 convention to send unicast data over
> > connected QP.

> I assume you mean sending ARP replies.  Yes, you are correct.  I never
> noticed before but RFC 4755 does say:

>    Additionally, all address resolution responses (ARP or Neighbor
>    Discovery) MUST always be encapsulated in a UD mode packet.

Yes, you are right. Please discard my note regarding ARP reply.

Thanks,
Alex
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20081003/c6863746/attachment.html>