[openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - proposal for socket based connection model

[Kanevsky, Arkady]

Correct.
But this does bring the question how responder CM knows that it need to
parse
the private data. I suspect this will be done via new version of CM.
But a suage of some of the CM REQ reserved fields are also possible.
Anotherwords the current CM version assumes that CM only supports
one version and there is no need to support more than 1 version.

This proposal may change this assumption.
Arkady

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: Sean Hefty [mailto:mshefty at ichips.intel.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:56 PM
> To: Caitlin Bestler
> Cc: Kanevsky, Arkady; dat-discussions at yahoogroups.com; 
> openib-general at openib.org; swg at infinibandta.org
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - 
> proposal for socket based connection model
> 
> 
> Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> > I believe it requires a CM protocol version change, or a "IP Address
> > Header present" bit.
> >  
> > Basically, userspace consumers can supply *any* 72 bytes of private 
> > data
> > currently.
> > To maintain backwards compatability you need an 
> authenticator that says 
> > "this IP
> > header data vouched for by privileged components on this 
> end", and that 
> > authenticator
> > cannot be within the private data.
> 
> I believe that the solution is keep the CM protocol as is.  
> The CM private data 
> should be completely controlled by the service.  The IB CM 
> does not care if an 
> IP address is in the private data or not.
> 
> My reading of the proposal is that it defines a private data 
> format that a 
> particular service may or may not use.
> 
> - Sean
>