[openib-general] Re: Re: port_num

[Steve Wise]

On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 10:11 -0800, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> openib-general-bounces at openib.org wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 10:45 -0500, James Lentini wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Steve Wise wrote:
> >> 
> >> swise> Just to clarify:  Tom is talking about iWARP devices here that
> >> swise> support the native stack -and- the rdma stack with the same
> >> swise> offload device.  For IB devices, the above "collision" doesn't
> >> swise> matter because IB really doesn't use the ip addresses at all
> >> swise> after the RC is setup.  AND, the native stack TCP support in
> >> IB swise> (IPoIB) uses a different QP and service type (UD).
> > So there's no problem with said collision.
> >> 
> >> If there is a fix for the iWARP collision problem, wouldn't there be
> >> an analogous fix for IB? Why wouldn't we make that fix?
> > 
> > Perhaps.  To be honest, I have followed the SDP/IB side of
> > this thread enough...  I just wanted to make a point that
> > iwarp devices have a different issue.
> > 
> 
> But it really isn't a different issue.
> 
> If you are representing to the application that you are
> listening for TCP connections on IP address X port Y then
> there really shouldn't be another listener allowed for X:Y.
> 
> Isn't that part of presenting yourself as SOCK_STREAM and
> claiming to use an IP address?

Yes, SDP has this issue.