[openib-general] IPv6oIB neighbour discover broken when MCGs overflow

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 12:27, Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > > I much prefer to fix the SM not to impose too-low limits on the number
>  > > of MCGs.  Supporting O(# nodes) MCGs is really not a very onerous
>  > > requirement on the SM.
>  > 
>  > Is this a MFT size issue or SM issue or both ?
> 
> Well as we discussed before, the size of the MFT is really independent
> of the # of MCGs supported.  It's up to the SM how to allocate MLIDs,
> and as long as all the switches in the fabric support at least one
> MLID, then any number of MCGs can be managed by the SM.

Almost but not quite.

> So I would say this is entirely an SM issue.

I thought that mapping multiple MCGs to the same MLID requires that a
set of the (group) parameters are the same. Is that the case for these
IPv6 groups ? Is the only variable in those parameters the PKey ?

I certainly agree that the SM can do a better job than simple 1:1
mapping.

-- Hal

>  - R.