[ewg] Re: [ofw] SC'09 BOF - Meeting notes

[Jeff Squyres]

FWIW: the dealbreaker for me is that we're already at 1.5rc2.  By  
OFED's own rules, new features are not to be allowed.  Or you can  
reset the release clock and target Jan/Feb.

Mellanox already has their own OFED distribution -- since there  
appears to be strong desire to get this stuff released ASAP, is there  
an issue with releasing it through Mellanox OFED.  Then later release  
it through community OFED in the next go-round?



On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:18 AM, Liran Liss wrote:

> In the past few months of review, the responsibility for rdmaoe
> addressing was moved to the rdmacm.
> So, any future addressing enhancements can be confined to the rdmacm
> module without breaking existing APIs.
>
> RFC 3041 deals with static global IP addresses on the Internet,
> especially for portable devices.
> rmdaoe allows using link-local GIDs for applications residing on the
> same subnet, so I don't see the relevance.
> Note that for rdmacm apps, the intention is to map the IP addresses  
> that
> were assigned to the host's interfaces.
> Please see http://www.t11.org/ftp/t11/pub/fc/study/09-543v0.pdf.
>
> Regarding multicast, current switches will flood the traffic just as  
> any
> other non-IP multicast traffic (e.g., fcoe).
> Using switches that support multicast pruning for additional  
> ethertypes,
> you can optimize the traffic and achieve the same link utilization as
> normal IP multicast.
> In any case, this is not a correctness issue that prohibits
> experimentation with rdmaoe multicast on any network today.
> --Liran
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ewg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org
> [mailto:ewg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Roland Dreier
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:35 PM
> To: Richard Frank
> Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org; OpenFabrics EWG
> Subject: Re: [ewg] Re: [ofw] SC'09 BOF - Meeting notes
>
>
>  > Having lots of testing exposure can help in validating that all the
> > edge cases are handled..
>
> To some extent -- but there also needs to be some thinking involved to
> make sure that the interface can actually handle future cases.
>
>  > Are there a set of cases that you have in mind ?
>
> For example -- how is multicast going to interact with IGMP on  
> ethernet
> switches?  How is address resolution going to be done (current patches
> seem to assume that stateless IPv6 link-local addresses contain the
> ethernet address, which is not valid if RFC 3041 is used)?  etc
>
>  - R.
> _______________________________________________
> ewg mailing list
> ewg at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
> _______________________________________________
> ewg mailing list
> ewg at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
>


-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com