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

[Yaron Haviv]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openib-general-bounces at openib.org [mailto:openib-general-
> bounces at openib.org] On Behalf Of Kanevsky, Arkady
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:26 PM
> To: Sean Hefty
> Cc: swg at infinibandta.org; openib-general at openib.org; dat-
> discussions at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] round 2 - proposal
> forsocket based connection model
> 
> 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, I agree with Sean you can encode the Dest Port in the ServiceID
And if you really want to verify its using that format you can look at
the upper 48 bits in the serviceID.

We may need to distinguish between Explicit RDMA protocols (iSER,
NFS-RDMA, RDP, etc') and Implicit RDMA (SDP, where the Socket
application doesn't know it is using RDMA), this can be done in 3 ways:
a. port mapper, b. different ServiceID prefix, or c. a bit in the CM REQ
Header.

Also I'm not sure why we need the Protocol (UDP, TCP, SCTP, ..) since we
emulate RDMA we shouldn't care if its TCP or SCTP, and UDP is
unconnected and cant drive RDMA anyway 

Yaron


> 
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> openib-general mailing list
> openib-general at openib.org
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> 
> To unsubscribe, please visit
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-
> general