[dat-discussions] RE: [openib-general] IB Address Translation service

[Dror Goldenberg]

From: Kanevsky, Arkady [mailto:arkady at netapp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:44 PM
> 
> Some historical perspective - ATS was defined prior to IPoIB.
> 
> The requirements.
> DAT has two needs:
> 1. forward translation: given an IP address returns back IB 
> GID/LID. 2. reverse translation: given IB GID/LID returns 
> back an IP address of the requestor.
> 
> ULPs: NFS, DAFS.
> 
> SDP encoded IP addresses into its headers.

Arkady, you meant that SDP placed the IP addresses into the private data 
of the CM REQ message. This message just go once when the connection
is established. Right ?
In other words, if one wants to perform reverse lookup when not using ATS,
then the private data of the REQ message in DAPL has to change so that
the connecting node can send it's IP address.

> But DAT is API and cannot define a protocol for it.
> 
> Abstract address translation is a good idea.
> For IB we can use ATS or IPoIB.
> For iWARP it will be no-op.
> We must ensure that the DAPL that we submit to Linux can be 
> layered on top of all RDMA transports.
> 
> Since IPoIB had not had plugfest/connectathon or some other 
> interop that demonstrate ARP and RARP I suggest we have both 
> ATS and IPoIB support. ATS has been fully successfully tested 
> at DAPL Plugfest.

As far as I know IPoIB has been tested for interop to some degree 
last plugfest. I don't know the details. Note that it was tested as a 
standalone module and not as an address resolution mechanism 
for DAPL.

> 
> In DAPL we had not assessed the HA requirements implications 
> on address translations which is currently under discussion.
> 
> Arkady Kanevsky                       email: arkady at netapp.com
> Network Appliance                     phone: 781-768-5395
> 375 Totten Pond Rd.                  Fax: 781-895-1195
> Waltham, MA 02451-2010          central phone: 781-768-5300
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Duffy [mailto:tduffy at sun.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:02 PM
> > To: Yaron Haviv
> > Cc: openib-general at openib.org
> > Subject: RE: [openib-general] IB Address Translation service
> > 
> > 
> > [ putting back on list ]
> > 
> > On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 00:29 +0200, Yaron Haviv wrote:
> > > Did you try RARP with IPoIB ?
> > 
> > I have not.
> > 
> > > I thought that there is some issue that it doesn't work
> > 
> > Currently, the rarpd only works with ethernet, but I don't
> > see why this couldn't be fixed.
> > 
> > > Also I hope you can comment on the other ib_at capabilities
> > which are
> > > more important than ATS
> > 
> > I don't mind the idea of abstracting out address translation.
> >  I think maybe this is a premature optimization and we should 
> > see how each ULP uses/does it first, then abstract out common 
> > code.  Otherwise, I feel neither strongly for or against your 
> > proposal.
> > 
> > -tduffy
> > 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> To visit your group on the web, go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dat-discussions/
>   
> To 
> unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
> dat-discussions-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>   
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20050302/8cd750ae/attachment.html>