[openfabrics-ewg] [openib-general] OFED 1.1 release - schedule and features

[Vladimir Sokolovsky]

Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>> Vladimir Sokolovsky wrote:
>
>>> Did you have any special reason to assign host1:ib1 an IP address 
>>> ***before*** the failover? is the reason for that happen to be 
>>> having it joins the IPv4 multicast group at "batch time", that is 
>>> not during the failover?
>
>> ib1 interface is loaded in any case (with or without configuration) 
>> if ib0 is loaded by /etc/init.d/network or /etc/init.d/openibd. It 
>> can't be configured with IP 0.0.0.0 - it fails to start with this 
>> configuration.
>> So, I gave it some IP in a different IP subnet.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "loaded": the trigger for IPoIB to registers 
> network devices is plain IB, that is "device (not link!) up" event it 
> gets through the ib stack client register hotplug mechanism, for 
> exampe if the HCA has two ports, IPoIB will register ib0 and ib1 (same 
> for two HCAs each of them with one port etc).
> However, I think the trigger for IPoIB to attempt doing the SA Q to 
> have the port GID associated with IPoIB netdevice join an mcast group 
> is the user action towards having this device being "UP" (eg the 
> assignment of IP address to it).
>
> Not sure what you mean by "start", you can just do nothing before the 
> failure of ib0 and during the failover from ib0 to ib1, assign ib1 the 
> address which used to be of ib0.
By "loaded" I meant that ib1 is configured with IP address and other 
parameters after executing '/etc/init.d/network start' or 
'/etc/init.d/openibd start'
I worked on SuSE 10 and I saw that even if ifcfg-ib1 does not exist then 
ib1 get the same configuration as ib0. This does not happens on RedHat 4.0.

>
>>> I think we want arping to send a gratuitous arp with the MAC of ib1
>>> so weren't you need to provide the -U or -A command line to arping?
>
>> You are right I used 'arping -A ...' (fogot to insert it in the 
>> email). Actually, I have added my flag '-R' which means '-A over IPoIB'
>
> thanks for the patch, i am not sure to fully follow the code path when 
> the "unsolicited" flag is set, but i do see what unlike in the -A/-U 
> options you have made the -R option not to set the "unsolicited" flag, 
> can you explain what was the issue?
There was no issue, it just a drop version. So, you can change it as you 
wish.
>
> Or.
>

Regards,
Vladimir