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

From: "Larsen, Roy K" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:19:20 -0800

It's starting to come together.  I do have two comments.

The last sentence of section 3.0 states that QPs advertised for IP MUST NOT
be used for other protocols.  Multiplexing use of QPs is an implementation
concern and should not be governed by this RFC.

I feel the language for item b) in section 6.1.1 is not clear.  The third
sentence could be read to mean that ALL IP communication (ARP/IPv4/IPv6)
must use the same QP. But the last sentence specifically states that IPv4
and ARP replies  are also directed to the same QPN.  Perhaps it would be
best to be more explicit regarding unicast communication.  That is to say,
the ARP request specifies the QPN for IPv4 and ARP replies and that the
Neighbor Discovery multicast frames specify the QPN for IPv6 unicast frames.
An implementation may choose to use the same QPN for all IPoIB
communications.

Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: Vivek Kashyap [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ipoverib] draft-ietf-ipoib-ip-over-infiniband-00.txt

We submitted this draft today. A consensus call on the 'ethertype' use
has not been made and based on the WG decision in that regard there
may be a change in the sections on the frame format and MTU in this
draft. However, we thought it important that we present the rest of
the solution to the WG in parallel to the ongoing discussions.

Please comment!

Vivek

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

_______________________________________________
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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:59:13 -0800 (PST)

> concern and should not be governed by this RFC.

If we do use the same QPs for other protocols then there is no way to
differentiate between the protocols received (ethertype or not). QPs
can be successfully overlaoded only if we can request IBTA to include
a type in the IB headers.

On second thoughts, it can be made a 'SHOULD' clause. 

> sentence could be read to mean that ALL IP communication (ARP/IPv4/IPv6)

        Here by IP was meant just the specific IP version relevant to
        the query.

        On reading it again I agree that the description needs to be
        made more explict like you indicate.

Vivek