[openib-general] SDP socket address family

[Michael Krause]

At 04:57 PM 10/14/2004, Fab Tillier wrote:
> > From: Michael Krause [mailto:krause at cup.hp.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 4:21 PM
> >
> > Why not just leverage the SDP port mapper protocol already defined in the
> > RDMAC version and avoid having to provide a new address family?  The port
> > mapper protocol is interconnect independent and will enable sockets
> > applications to more easily be executed transparently.  It seems
> > counterproductive to continue to pursue a new address family.
> >
> > BTW, the new port mapper protocol will also work with the new async
> > sockets and memory management API that is nearly complete (should be
> > approved soon within the OpenGroup).  This would greatly enhance socket
> > application design and provide greater performance when operating over a
> > RDMA interconnect than traditional BSD sockets.
> >
>
>A while ago, there was some discussion of having transparent port mapping be
>a bad thing, and a security vulnerability of some sort.  Note that I don't
>personally believe that.

The SDP spec submitted to the IETF as a draft has the port mapping.  The HP 
IETF gurus did not have a problem with the port mapping.  Discussions with 
various IETF AD did not generate a negative reaction but one never knows 
how the IETF will act.  In general, the exchange has measures to mitigate 
any DOS attacks and conserve resources.  Take a look and please consider as 
this is the best way to get a large number of sockets applications to 
quickly operate over RDMA interconnects without requiring any source code 
changes.

Mike 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20041015/81a33190/attachment.html>