Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] draft-ietf-ipoib-ip-over-infiniband-00.txt

From: "Culley, Paul" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:43:39 -0600

I don't think ethertype is necessary, for reasons that have been argued
before...

Paul R. Culley
Compaq Sr. Fellow
281-514-5543

-----Original Message-----
From: H.K. Jerry Chu [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] draft-ietf-ipoib-ip-over-infiniband-00.txt

It looks like we have a number of people requesting "EtherType" (as per
RFC1700) to be included in the IPoIB encapsulation as part of the
UD payload. The EtherType will occupy the lower 16 bits of a 4 byte
word,
with the upper 16 bits marked as reserved.

Those who are against including "EtherType" should speak up now. This
allows us to make a consensus call sooner.

As for myself, I don't really care one way or the other. But if
including "EtherType" addresses the QP sharing issue that people
are concerned, then why not? There is not much of downside for it
except perhaps a bit of architectural unpleasantness. As for non-IP
protocols following the same rule, technically it's up to IBTA to
designate the inclusion of "EtherType" as the official demux scheme.
The same applies to the part of multicast address space reserved
for IPoIB use. But in reality I doubt this will be an issue, as IPoIB
will become a well-publicized application of IB. Anyone serious about
developing IB applications will most likely know about these
contraints/assumptions imposed by IPoIB.

Jerry

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

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