[Fwd: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] Enable inet6 on ib interface]

[Hal Rosenstock]

Here's some text from the IPoIB I-D relative to this:

[AARCH] requires the interface identifier be created in the
    "Modified EUI-64" format when derived from an EUI-64 identifier.
    [IBTA] is unclear if the GUID should use IEEE EUI-64 format or the
    "Modified EUI-64" format.  Therefore, when creating an interface
    identifier from the GUID an implementation MUST do the following:

        => Determine if the GUID is a modified EUI-64 identifier ("u"
        bit is toggled) as defined by [AARCH]

        => If the GUID is a modified EUI-64 identifier then the "u" bit
        MUST NOT be toggled when creating the interface identifier

        => If the GUID is an umodified EUI-64 identifier then the "u"
        bit MUST be toggled in compliance with [AARCH]

I'm not sure how one determines whether the GUID is modified or 
unmodified EUI-64.

Here's an email from the LWG chair to the IPoIB WG back on August 9:

[Ipoverib] Update on status of eui-64 in IB

________________________________________________________________________
      * To: ipoverib at ietf.org
      * Subject: [Ipoverib] Update on status of eui-64 in IB
      * From: Daniel Cassiday <Daniel.Cassiday at Sun.COM>
      * Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:28:42 -0400
      * List-help: <mailto:ipoverib-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
      * List-id: IP over InfiniBand WG Discussion List
        <ipoverib.ietf.org>
      * List-post: <mailto:ipoverib at ietf.org>
      * List-subscribe:
        <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib>,
        <mailto:ipoverib-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
      * List-unsubscribe:
        <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib>,
        <mailto:ipoverib-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
      * Reply-to: Daniel.Cassiday at Sun.COM
      * Sender: ipoverib-bounces at ietf.org
      * User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1)
        Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0

________________________________________________________________________
A while back it was pointed out that the IB specification was unclear on
how to set the universal/local bit in the EUI-64. This was causing a
problem in the ipoverib wg on how to generate an interface identifier
from this EUI-64.

The IBTA has looked into this and planning is to modify the IB spec to
clarify that the universal/local bit should be cleared when defining the
EUI-64. The spec with this modification is currently under internal
review. Pending approval (which is expected) the clarification will be
included in the upcoming 1.2 release of the spec.


This means that the IBA will conform to the IEEE definition of
universal/local bit, and that for ipoverib, interface identifiers should
be generated from the EUI-64 as per RFC 2373 (i.e. the universal/local
bit should be inverted).
(Note, at one point the IBTA Link WG considered using a special value in
the OUI field (i.e. this is where the vendor id appears) to indicate
local scope but this was discarded in favor of the simplier fix defined
above.)




_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
IPoverIB at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib

-----Forwarded Message-----

From: Hal Rosenstock <halr at voltaire.com>
To: Roland Dreier <roland at topspin.com>
Cc: Nitin Hande <Nitin.Hande at Sun.COM>, openib-general at openib.org
Subject: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] Enable inet6 on ib interface
Date: 11 Nov 2004 13:50:28 -0500

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 13:46, Roland Dreier wrote:
>     Hal> IBTA GUIDs are EUI-64. The only issue I recall was whether
>     Hal> the polarity of the U/G bit was consistent with IEEE. This
>     Hal> was updated at IBA 1.2. It now says "manufacturer assigns
>     Hal> EUI-64 with global scope set. May also assign additional
>     Hal> EUI-64 with local scope."
> 
> Uh-oh -- none of the HCAs I have access to have the universal bit set
> in their port GUIDs.

That's the old way (where old < IBA 1.2).

I can dig out more emails on this and any recommendations.

In the older versions of IBA, the bit was inverted due to some language
ambiguity. It was supposed to be global.

I would think we want to be compliant with the IBA 1.2 definition but
if there are practical matters with this...

-- Hal

_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
openib-general at openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general