[openib-general] Re: iWARP emulation protocol

[Roland Dreier]

[closed dat-discussions list snipped from Cc list]

I have some comments about the proposal.  Unfortunately I can't quote
from a PDF file but I'll try to make it clear what I'm talking about.

The proposal doesn't talk about mapping from TCP port numbers into a
16-bit range of IB service IDs.  I think this is necessary.

Also, putting the destination address in the REP message doesn't make
sense to me.  The destination IP and port number is something that the
initiator of the connection is sending to the destination, not the
other way around.  The passive side of the connection (receiver of the
REQ) needs the destination IP as part of the REQ so that it can decide
whether to accept the connection; the active side (sender of the REQ)
knows who it is trying to talk to, so having the address information
in the REP is not useful.

As I said above I believe the destination port should be encoded in
the service ID, but the destination IP address should be in the REQ
message.  This consumes 16 more bytes of private data, but I would
still like to understand whether there are real applications using 64
bytes of private data, or if this is just a uDAPL spec issue.

 - R.