[openib-general] Re: port_num

[Tom Tucker]

BTW, I don't have any conclusion to all this, but I have a use case we
should be aware of....

The TCP port space is divided into 'trusted' and 'untrusted' ranges.
Some applications (NFS) look at the source port on an incoming connect
request and check if it is in the 'trusted' range. If it is not, the
connection is denied. So basically, ULP are going to want to be able to
reserve and specify port numbers...and this policy needs to be
coordinated...

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 16:48 -0800, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> Sean Hefty wrote:
> > Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> >> How about something along the lines of stating that the transport
> >> specific CM is responsible for translating 0 to a number that does
> >> not conflict with the host stack, and then leave the details to be
> >> implemented as required.
> > 
> > That doesn't quite work.  If there are multiple transports,
> > you want the same translation.
> > 
> > - Sean
> 
> I can see how an offload device can share an IP address
> with the host stack and hence need to prevent conflicting
> uses of the TCP port. But how do *two* offload devices
> share the same IP address with each other and/or with the
> host stack?
> 
> And if "0" means "don't care - pick something", why is there
> a need for it to be consistent/predictable?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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