<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Doron Shoham <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dorons@voltaire.com" target="_blank">dorons@voltaire.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>Hal Rosenstock wrote:<br>><br>><br>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Doron Shoham <<a href="mailto:dorons@voltaire.com" target="_blank">dorons@voltaire.com</a><br></div>
<div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dorons@voltaire.com" target="_blank">dorons@voltaire.com</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>> ibcheckroutes validates route between all hosts in the fabric.<br>> This script finds all leaf switches (switches that are connected to<br>
> HCAs)<br>><br><br></div>This script parses the output of ibnetdiscoer.<br>It finds all leaf switches (from the topology file<br>generated by ibnetdiscover).<br>The it checks if a route exists between all leaf switches<br>
using ibtracert.<br></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Why leaf switches (and not CAs) ? How are they determined (from the ibnetdiscover output) ?</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>><br>> CAs or HCAs ?<br>CAs<br>
<div>><br>> What about switch port 0s ?<br></div>It checks connectivity only between leaf switches (not all switches).<br>I assume that traffic is generated only between CAs and therefor<br>connectivity between other switches (not leaf switches) does not important.<br>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>It's important for a couple of reasons: first PMA access on switches and secondly it's an IBA requirement although some OpenSM routing protocols ignore this. IMO it should be an option (not the default) to add these LIDs in too to the ones checked.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div><br>><br>><br>> and runs ibtracert between them.<br>> When using various routing algorithms (e.g. up-down),<br>><br>><br>> With which routing algorithms has this been tried ?<br></div>I assume that from complexity perspective, the routing algorithms calculate<br>
routes only between leaf switches and not between all CAs.<br>Then it adds one hop for all CAs connected to the leaf switches.<br></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>It depends on the routing algorithm (some violate this) but the basic IBA requirement is:</div>
<div><b><font face="Arial-BoldMT" size="3"><font face="Arial-BoldMT" size="3">
<p align="left">C14-62.1.4: </p></font></font></b><font face="ArialMT" size="3"><font face="ArialMT" size="3">From every endport within the subnet, the SM </font></font><b><font face="Arial-BoldMT" size="3"><font face="Arial-BoldMT" size="3">shall </font></font></b><font face="ArialMT" size="3"><font face="ArialMT" size="3">provide at least one reversible path to every other endport.</font></font>
<p align="left">-- Hal</p></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>I've tested it with up-down but it really doesn't matter which<br>routing algorithm you are using.<br>
It just check the routes between leaf switches (and if the routing<br>algorithm behave as above, it means that it checks all CAs connectivity).<br>
<div><br>><br>> -- Hal<br>><br>><br>> if fabric topology is not suitable there will be no<br>> routes between some nodes.<br>> It reports when the route exists between source and destination LIDs.<br>
><br>> Signed-off-by: Doron Shoham <<a href="mailto:dorons@voltaire.com" target="_blank">dorons@voltaire.com</a><br></div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dorons@voltaire.com" target="_blank">dorons@voltaire.com</a>>><br>
><br>><br>> <snip...><br><br></blockquote></div><br>