[ofa-general] Re: [RFC] OpenSM and IPv6 Scalability Proposal

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Eli Dorfman <dorfman.eli at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Slava Strebkov <slavas at voltaire.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In addition to the original proposal we suggest allocating special MLID
>>> for the following MGIDs:
>>>  1. FF12401bxxxx000000000000FFFFFFFF - All Nodes
>>>  2. FF12401bxxxx00000000000000000001 - All hosts
>>>  3. FF12401bffff0000000000000000004d  - all Gateways
>>>  4. FF12401bxxxx00000000000000000002 - all routers
>>>  5. FF12601bABCD000000000001ffxxxxxx - IPv6 SNM
>>
>> It turns out that collapsing multicast groups across PKeys on a single
>> MLID may not be such a good idea unless partition enforcement
>> enforcement by switches is disabled. There should be different modes
>> of collapsing based on this based on whether this is enabled or not.
>
> The idea is to allocate a different MLID per each of the above special MGIDs.

So one MLID per PKey in the MGID ?

What's the difference between xxxx's and ABCD in the syntax above ?
IPv6 is being collapsed per PKey too, right ?

>>> For all other cases we suggest that same MLID will be assigned to
>>> different MGIDs if:
>>>  1. They share the same P Key
>>>  2. Same signature - for IPoIB only
>>>  3. Same LSB bits - bitmask configurable by user (default  10 bits)
>>>        for example, the following are the same:
>>>        MGID1:  FF12401bABCD000000000000xxxxx755
>>>        MGID2:  FF12401bABCD000000000000yyyyyB55
>>
>> Jason's approach to this was in a thread entitled "IPv6 and IPoIB
>> scalability issue":
>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2006-November/029621.html
>> in which he proposed an MGID range (MGID/prefix syntax) for collapsing
>> IPv6 SNM groups. Additionally, there was the potential to distribute
>> the matched groups across some number of MLIDs. See also thread "[RFC]
>> OpenSM and IPv6 Scalability Proposal":
>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-June/051226.html
>>
>>>  Implementation.
>>>  Since there will be many mgroups shared same mlid, mlid-array entry
>>> will contain
>>>  fleximap holding mgroups.
>>>  Searching of mgroup will be performed by mlid (index in the array) and
>>> mgid -
>>>  key in the fleximap.
>>
>> Sasha proposed using an array rather than fleximap for this:
>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-June/051525.html
>>
>> -- Hal
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Slava Strebkov
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general at lists.openfabrics.org
>>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openfabrics.org
>> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
>>
>> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>>
>