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

[Kanevsky, Arkady]

Sean,
The reason IBTA is interested to address IP address issue
is because of multiple UPLs and APIs want to support
socket based connection model. Sure each one of them
can define its own protocol (for private data).
But this will not ensure interoperability.

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 1:34 PM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady
> Cc: Caitlin Bestler; 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:
> > Think of a single API that supports iWARP and IB (transport 
> > independent API).
> 
> The CMA implements this today and did not require any changes 
> to the IB CM.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Why push this down into the CM?  The CM should operate on IB 
> addresses, not IP 
> addresses.  The mapping of IP addresses to IB addresses is 
> done at a higher level.
> 
> > Listener does not parse the private data encoding of the proposal.
> 
> The listener is the one who cares about the IP addressing.
> 
> - Sean
>