[openib-general] [PATCH 0/10] [RFC] Support for SilverStorm Virtual Ethernet I/O controller (VEx)

[Yaron Haviv]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rick [mailto:richard.frank at oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:54 PM
> To: Michael Krause
> Cc: Fabian Tillier; Yaron Haviv; Roland Dreier (rdreier); Kuchimanchi,
> Ramachandra; openib-General
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/10] [RFC] Support for
SilverStorm
> Virtual Ethernet I/O controller (VEx)
> 
> For what it's worth: As a customer who is using the SS stack - we were
> more than pleased that we could achieve IPOIB (and RDS) failover
without
> using the bonding driver. I believe this is direct result of the
Virtual
> NIC approach SS is using.

Rick, if such functionality (w/o the bonding driver) is needed
It can also be implemented into IPoIB (we had it in our old stack) 
It has no direct relation to the Virtual NIC.

It may even be preferred if it's IPoIB and not a proprietary gateway
driver, so also IB nodes in the same fabric can use that functionality.

The only point I'm making is that any one can add an overlay driver for
his proprietary HW as he likes, and put it in OFED distribution, but if
this is becoming an internal portion of the open fabric kernel than:
1. Let's look at how we solve the problems in a more general perspective

2. Let's not duplicate code where we can avoid it
3. Let's make sure it's documented and reviewed (code and architectural
wise)  

We have kept those standards for all other solutions; I think it's just
as fair to demand it in that case as well

Yaron 

> 
> Michael Krause wrote:
> 
> >Silverstorm is executing a usage model that the IBTA used to develop
the
> IB
> >protocols.   What is the problem with that?  If it works and
integrates
> >into the stack, then this seems like an appropriate bit of
functionality
> to
> >support.   The fact that one can use a standard ULP to communicate to
a
> TCA
> >as an alternative which is supported by the existing stack is a
customer
> >product decision at the end of the day.   If Silverstorm or any IHV
can
> >show value and that it works in the stack, then it seems appropriate
to
> >support.  Isn't that a fundamental principle of being an open source
> effort?
> >
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >
> >At 12:31 PM 10/3/2006, Fabian Tillier wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi Yaron,
> >>
> >>On 10/3/06, Yaron Haviv <yaronh at voltaire.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'm trying to figure out why this protocol makes sense
> >>>As far as I understand, IPoIB can provide a Virtual NIC
functionality
> >>>just as well (maybe even better), with two restrictions:
> >>>1. Lack of support for Jumbo Frames
> >>>2. Doesn't support protocols other than IP (e.g. IPX, ..)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Whether to use a router or virtual NIC approach for connectivity to
> >>Ethernet subnets is a design decision.  We could argue until we are
> >>blue in the face about which architecture is "better", but that's
> >>really not relevant.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I believe we should first see if such a driver is needed and if
IPoIB
> >>>UD/RC cannot be leveraged for that, maybe the Ethernet emulation
can
> >>>just be an extension to IPoIB RC, hitting 3 birds in one stone
(same
> >>>infrastructure, jumbo frames for IPoIB, and Ethernet emulation for
all
> >>>nodes not just Gateways)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>You're joking right?  Are you really arguing that SilverStorm should
> >>not develop a driver to support its existing devices?  This really
> >>isn't complicated:
> >>
> >>1). SilverStorm has a virtual NIC hardware device.
> >>2). SilverStorm is committed to support OpenFabrics.
> >>
> >>The above two statements lead to the following conclusion:
SilverStorm
> >>needs a driver for its devices that works with the OpenFabrics
stack.
> >>This is totally orthogonal to and independent of working on IPoIB RC
> >>or any IETF efforts to define something new.
> >>
> >>- Fab
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >
> >