[dat-discussions] RE: [openib-general] Re: iWARP emulationprotocol

[Sean Hefty]

Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> I will update the proposal for IBTA based on this feedback
> and all other feedback posted.
> I will still separate private data usage proposal
> and port mapping one.

Again, I think that these should be in the same proposal.  The CM REQ carries 
the IB transport layer address.  The goal here is to map another transport layer 
address to the IB one.  The source port is included in the private data.  By not 
including the destination port, there's an assumption that it's provided 
somewhere else in the CM REQ.  We should either make this explicit, or put the 
destination port in the private data as well.

- Sean