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

[Eli Dorfman]

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 ?
yes

> What's the difference between xxxx's and ABCD in the syntax above ?
none. should be the same.

> IPv6 is being collapsed per PKey too, right ?
yes

>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>