[ofa-general] Re: Re: IPoIB-CM UC mode

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

> Quoting Sean Hefty <sean.hefty at intel.com>:
> Subject: RE: [ofa-general] Re: Re: IPoIB-CM UC mode
> 
> >What real advantages are there for doing this "in-band" as you say?
> 
> Doing this in-band keeps the entire keep-alive protocol within the ULP.  It can
> set the keep-alive message size and retry times.
> LAP messages are fixed at 256
> bytes, add additional traffic on QP 1, and retries are limited by the CM
> protocol.

BTW, I think we might want to avoid retries altogether: if LAP
timed out, we can just re-create the connection.

> (Of course, new CM messages would have these same limits, so it's not
> clear to me that creating new CM messages are a win.  New CM messages would
> allow the CM itself to respond directly to keep-alives though.)

OTOH, using QP1 makes it easier to separate rare keepalives
from fast-path data packet receive path.

-- 
MST