Subject: RE: [ipoverib] SDP Capability Bit

From: "Jim Pinkerton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:34:14 -0800

I personally can't see how to use this bit unfortunately. I don't think
it is worthwhile to define arbitrary bits unless we have a defined
mechanism for using them. I think that was the core of the argument for
simply calling them reserved bits - get the spec out now and then
afterwards we can always follow it up with an RFC for how some of the
reserved bits are consumed by additional functionality.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Larsen, Roy K [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ipoverib] SDP Capability Bit

I believe there is agreement for providing a mechanism in an IPoIB ARP
to
indicate additional capabilities of the IPoIB infrastructure.  There has
been some discussion as to whether we should tackle the definition of
these
bits at this time without the definition of the corresponding protocol.
I
agree with this position.

However, there is an IBA protocol definition that has a dependency on
the
IPoIB address resolution protocol.  This is the Sockets Direct Protocol
(SDP) outlined in the Annex B draft.  The dependency is specified in
section
B.4.

Given the interdependency of IPoIB and SDP, I propose that an SDP
capability
bit be defined in the link address of an IPoIB ARP.  This will allow a
node
to recognize that a target node supports SDP when it asks the IPoIB
implementation to resolve a target node address.

Comments?

Roy

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib

---

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:14:48 -0800 (PST)

Please refer to draft-kashyap-ipoib-advanced-capabilities-00.txt. It
defines an interoperable mechanism for such usage exactly on the lines
mentioned by Roy. The draft needs to be updated to drop the LID from
the link-descrtiption field. The draft, at present does not list the
SDP flag (it lists RC) but an SDP flag can be added to provide the
requested function.

Vivek

-- 
Vivek Kashyap
Linux Technology Center, IBM
[email-masked] 
[email-masked] 
503 578 3422 (o)