[ewg] [PATCH] Make multicast and path record queue flexible.
jgunthorpe at obsidianresearch.com
Tue Oct 5 14:28:26 PDT 2010
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:12:59PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > How do you propose to handle the IB level join to 126.96.36.199 to avoid
> > > packet loss there? IGMP messages will still get lost because of that.
> > First, the routers all join the group at startup and stay joined
> > forever. This avoids the race in the route joining a new MGID after
> > the client creates it, but before the IGMPv2 report is sent. I expect
> > this is a major source of delay and uncertainty
> I think the current routers join 188.8.131.52 already. Adding another MC
> group should come with IGMPv3 support.
Sure, .22 is definately something routers need to have with IGMPv3.
> > Second, since all clients join this group as send-only it becomes
> > possible for the SM to do reasonable things - for instance the MLID
> > can be pre-provisioned as send-only from any end-port and thus after
> > the SM replies with a MLID the MLID is guaranteed good for send-only
> > use immediately.
> The problem is that the client join on 184.108.40.206 will be delayed due to
> fabric reconfig. The group is joined on demand. It is not automatically
I was trying to explain that it is possible for the SM to provide a
MLID that is fully functional for .22 - there is no behind the scenes
network reconfiguring delay. This is doable with IGMPv3 because the
client join is send-only and all the listeners have been joined for a
Basically, the SM pushes out an all end-ports send-only configuration
for the MLID when the listeners join. So there *is no reconfiguration*
for a new send-only join to complete. No reconfiguration means no lost
Not sure if any SMs work this way already but they already have
special support for things like the IPv4 broadcast so it is completely
reasonable to have special support for IGMPv3 all routers as well.
A 'fast send-only join' configurable for MGIDs would do the job.
There is virtually no cost with preconfiguring switches for send only
> > Finally, by sending multicast packets to the broadcast during the time
> > the MLID is unknown we can pretty much guarantee that the first IGMPv3
> > packet that is sent to .22 will reach all routers in a timely fashion.
> > (Hence my objection to Aleksey's approach)
> Right. So the multicast traffic will flow to the broadcast address until
> the SM sends the response. The multicast traffic will then get lost until
> the fabric reconfig is complete.
See above, that is avoidable with some SM help too.
> Sure this sounds to be a much better approach (we have thought through
> such approaches here repeatedly) but I do not know of any IB gateway that
> supports IGMPv3.
Lean on the vendors :( Seems crazy to not implement v3 when v2 is so
unworkable on IB.
More information about the ewg