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

[Sean Hefty]

Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> It may be benefitial to split the range of SID for one TCP port into
> several.
> That way the all "base TCP ports equivalent" will have the same
> mapping.
> Mapping to support SDP will use SDP assigned Service IDs.
> And IPoIB will have its own range similar to SDP for TCP ports.
> The RDMA "native" will use the "base" TCP ports.
> We can also add more ports for each of these categeories
> to support multiple SIDs. But we as well
> can use portmapper for them.
> 
> But transparent adoptable clients that support all 3 (or more of the
> methods)
> will have to try each of the assigned Service IDs using appropriate
> transport
> to see if server supports it.
> Arkady

An application that wants to connect to destination port 53 is expecting a 
particular application.  The benefits of letting the application connection to 
different applications depending on a transport that may be selected by some 
underlying software is questionable to me.

If we're going to define a protocol that passes TCP/IP addresses in private 
data, then the addresses should behave as close to TCP port numbers as possible. 
  Two CM REQs that contain the same address should expect to reach the same 
destination.

- Sean