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

[Yiftah Shahar]

Richard, All,

> Has anyone else done any evaluation / testing with RDMAoE / RoCEE ?
We are testing the RDMAoE version of OFED all the time (mainly on IB but
also on Eth.) and currently we did not fined stability issue related
only to RDMAoE in our IB testing (all opened bugs/issues are the same as
in OFED that does not have RDMAoE patches).

After saying the above I will still prefer to see a lot other that will
test it so we can have fast turn-around with OFED 1.5.1 including
RDMAoE... our IB install-base is big and we do not want to risk it with
stability, quality and future compatibility issues.

As Or, and other stated, we are still see missing (or not so good)
support in RDMAoE for important features like multicast traffic, VLAN,
QoS, ... I'm sure Mellanox are working to provide/fix them.

Regards,
Yiftah

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ewg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ewg-
> bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Richard Frank
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:59 PM
> To: Jeff Squyres
> Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org; Roland Dreier (rdreier); OpenFabrics
EWG;
> Liran Liss
> Subject: Re: [ewg] Re: [ofw] SC'09 BOF - Meeting notes
> 
> Is this code new ? We've been evaluating versions of it since before
> June/2009.
> 
> We are currently testing with OFED-RDMAoE-1.5-20091116-0620.tgz.
> 
> Our plans are to move from OFED 1.4.2 to OFED 1.5.x in June/2010..
> 
> It takes us this long to complete internal testing.
> 
> Has anyone else done any evaluation / testing with RDMAoE / RoCEE ?
> 
> 
> Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ewg mailing list
> ewg at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg