Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] What's inside an IPoIB link layer address?

From: "Arvind Murching" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:57:05 -0800

Why do we need to include the LID inside the link layer address when it
is already available in the SLID field? Previous discussions indicate
that the SLID value works for proxy ARP/bridge implementations.

- Arvind

-----Original Message-----
From: Vivek Kashyap [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ipoverib] What's inside an IPoIB link layer address?

Ashwin,
Ashwin,

        I agree that you get more flexibility if you include the LID.
        If we include the GID along with the LID we allow all
        implementations the choice to create different solutions. We
        don't tie them down to one thing. Choosing one or the other
        (LID or GID) blocks out various advantages that different
        implementations seek. Hence I suggested that let us include
        both and move on.

Vivek

<snip>

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

---

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:30:52 -0800 (PST)

A device can always respond for another. The LID of the sender
        is not the same as the LID for which it has responded. It also
        allows any network monitoring/debugging device to work
        independently. This is the reason why none of the other media
        does anything like this. You don't pick ethernet source
        address from the frame but take it from the ARP/ND packet.

        [ If it was ok we wouldn't need anything except QPN/cap_flags
        - get the LID from response, consult SA using LID for GID if
        you want that, and you are done. ]

Vivek

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