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

[Rimmer, Todd]

> From: Yaron Haviv [mailto:yaronh at voltaire.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:05 PM
> To: Rimmer, Todd; Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen); Kuchimanchi,
Ramachandra;
> Roland Dreier (rdreier)
> Cc: openib-General
> Subject: RE: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/10] [RFC] Support for
SilverStorm
> Virtual Ethernet I/O controller (VEx)
> 
> 
> Todd,
> 
> 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, ..)
> 
> 1 can easily be addressed using IPoIB RC, and the question is if 2 is
> really a problem (how many people use IPX or apple talk .. these days)
> And if 2 is a problem why isn't it in a greater scope of supporting
> Ethernet emulation even between any IB nodes, and not just from a host
> to a gateway device.
> 
> If this is a real requirement, why haven't SilverStorm worked with the
> industry and standardization bodies such as IBTA or IETF to come with
a
> standard and interoperable way to address it, and not just try and
push
> a proprietary driver and a point solution to the kernel.
> 
> 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)
> 

Hi Yaron,

I was offline much of today, in reviewing the email on this topic it
seems others have already answered most of your questions.  So rather
than belabor the topic, I would simply like to say that I agree with all
the comments Rick, Fab and Michael have put forth.

Todd Rimmer