> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Wise [mailto:swise@opengridcomputing.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3:47 PM
> To: Kanevsky, Arkady
> Cc: Sean Hefty; Sean Hefty; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> rdreier@cisco.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
>
general@lists.openfabrics.org
> Subject: Re: [ofa-general] [PATCH v3] iw_cxgb3:
> Support"iwarp-only"interfacesto avoid 4-tuple conflicts.
>
>
>
> Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
> > Sean,
> > IB aside,
> > it looks like an ULP which is capable of being both RDMA aware and
> > RDMA not-aware, like iSER and iSCSI, NFS-RDMA and NFS, SDP and
> > sockets, will be treated as two separete ULPs.
> > Each has its own IP address, since there is a different IP
> address for
> > iWARP port and "regular" Ethernet port. So it falls on the users of
> > ULPs to "handle" it via DNS or some other services.
> > Is this "acceptable" to users? I doubt it.
> >
> > Recall that ULPs are going in opposite directions by having a
> > different port number for RDMA aware and RDMA unaware
> versions of the ULP.
> > This way, ULP "connection manager" handles RDMA-ness under
> the covers,
> > while users plug an IP address for a server to connect to.
> > Thanks,
>
> Arkady, I'm confused about how this proposed design changes
> the behavior of the ULPs that run on TCP and iWARP. I don't
> see much difference from the point of view of the ULPs.
>
> The NFS-RDMA server, for example, will not need to change
> since it binds to address 0.0.0.0 which will translate into a
> bind/listen on the specific iwarp address for each iwarp
> device on the rdma side, and address 0.0.0.0 for the TCP side.
>
> Am I missing your point?
>
> The real pain, IMO, with this solution is that it FORCES the
> admins to use 2 subnets when 1 is sufficient if the net
> maintainers would unify the port space...
>
> Steve.
>
>
>
> >
> > Arkady Kanevsky email:
arkady@netapp.com
> > Network Appliance Inc. phone: 781-768-5395
> > 1601 Trapelo Rd. - Suite 16. Fax: 781-895-1195
> > Waltham, MA 02451 central phone: 781-768-5300
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:sean.hefty@intel.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:12 PM
> >> To: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean Hefty; Steve Wise
> >> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; rdreier@cisco.com;
> >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
general@lists.openfabrics.org
> >> Subject: RE: [ofa-general] [PATCH v3] iw_cxgb3:
> >> Support"iwarp-only"interfacesto avoid 4-tuple conflicts.
> >>
> >>> What is the model on how client connects, say for iSCSI,
> when client
> >>> and server both support, iWARP and 10GbE or 1GbE, and
> would like to
> >>> setup "most" performant "connection" for ULP?
> >> For the "most" performance connection, the ULP would use
> IB, and all
> >> these problems go away. :)
> >>
> >> This proposal is for each iwarp interface to have its own
> IP address.
> >> Clients would need an iwarp usable address of the server and would
> >> connect using rdma_connect(). If that call (or
> >> rdma_resolve_addr/route) fails, the client could try
> connecting using
> >> sockets, aoi, or some other interface. I don't see that Steve's
> >> proposal changes anything from the client's perspective.
> >>
> >> - Sean
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> general mailing list
> >>
general@lists.openfabrics.org
> >>
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, please visit
> >>
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> >>
>
