[openib-general] Re: [swg] Re: private data...

[Fab Tillier]

> From: James Lentini [mailto:jlentini at netapp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:39 AM
> 
> I like Sean's idea better. Have a well know service id or range of
> service ids on which this protocol is used. I think of it as a service
> running on top of the CM protocol for using IP addresses on native IB.
> I don't think it should be mandatory for every CM connection.

The well known service ID implies that a DAPL application *would* prevent a TCP
application from using a particular port, which seems to conflict your statement
that DAPL apps shouldn't prevent TCP apps from working.

That's not to say you couldn't have one range of service IDs for TCP
applications, and another range for DAPL applications, and yet another range per
protocol or application that wishes to use IP addressing during connection
establishment.  However, this doesn't extend the CM protocol, but just creates
an ad-hoc group of protocols that happen to define the first 32-bytes of their
private data similarly.

Having a bit in the CM REQ indicate whether the first 32-bytes of private data
contain the source and destination IP addresses allows any app using any service
ID to use IP addresses as source and destination identifiers regardless of what
protocol they actually use once the connection is established.

Defining service ID ranges for particular protocols then becomes the
responsibility of the organizations defining such protocols and the owner of the
OUI with which the service ID ranges are defined, and is outside the scope of
the IBTA.

- Fab