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

[Kanevsky, Arkady]

Think of a single API that supports iWARP and IB (transport independent
API).
To a connection listener it provides the IP 5-tuple + private data.
For IB it means that CM parses REQ and extracts IP 5-tuple as separate
fields from private data.
Listener does not parse the private data encoding of the proposal.

So CM need to know if it need to encode IP 5-tuple on requestor side
and if need to parse on responder side.
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 1:08 PM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady
> Cc: Caitlin Bestler; 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
> 
> 
> Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> The responder knows how to parse the private data based on 
> the service ID that 
> they're listening on.  This is how it's done today, and how 
> it will still need 
> to be done.  What is the motivation to change it?
> 
> What data is beyond the addressing?  How does the responder 
> know how to 
> interpret that?
> 
> - Sean
>