Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] Scope of Connection Management MADs and Link Bound ary

From: Brian Forbes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:12:46 -0800

I'll second Paul's statement, adding that IMO we'll have failed if CM MADs
don't work across subnets.

Brian Forbes
Brocade Communications 
-----Original Message-----
From: Culley, Paul [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:33 AM
To: Larsen, Roy K; H.K. Jerry Chu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] Scope of Connection Management MADs and Link
Boundary

Of course EVERYTHING relating to cross subnet operation and IB routers
remains ambiguous until the specs are completed.  That said, I believe the
"goal" is to allow normal communications (RC, UD, UC, RD, not QP0 subnet
management MADs) to work properly across subnet boundaries.  Since
Connection Management MADs are ordinary UD packets, they should also be able
to cross subnet boundaries.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Larsen, Roy K [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:41 AM
To: 'H.K. Jerry Chu'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ipoverib] Scope of Connection Management MADs and Link
Boundary

Jerry,

One of the concerns you listed with using SIDR was that connections
management MADs might not be able to cross IB subnets.  If that turns out to
be the case, how prudent is it to define an IPoIB link that does?  Do we
want a protocol that has different link domains between different transport
types?   E.g., a UD boundary could be greater than an RC boundary if
connection management MADs are restricted to an IB subnet.

Can an LWG member on this reflector let us know if the scope of connection
management MADs is still ambiguous?

Thanks,
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

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

---

From: Al Hartmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:31:43 -0600

Agree with Brian--the key part is for CM MADs to "work across subnets".
They flow across subnets easily enough, since CM MADs, being GMPs, may
contain a GRH.  They key is to get them to work, once they arrive.  

It is easy to imagine future scenarios in which inter-subnet connections
might be the norm rather than the exception.  For example each individual
rack might contain a leaf switch with copper downlinks to each unit in the
rack, and fiber uplinks to core switches elsewhere in the fabric.  Each leaf
switch might be provisioned with an integral SM, and for management
convenience in dynamically clustering racks and for fault isolation, each
rack might just comprise a self-contained one-rack subnet.  

Alfred Hartmann, Ph.D. <mailto:[email-masked]> 
Vieo, Inc. <http://www.vieo.com/> 
12416 Hymeadow Drive, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78750
+1.512.257.3031, x267

>  From: Brian Forbes [mailto:[email-masked]]
>  Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:13 PM
>  To: 'Culley, Paul'; Larsen, Roy K; H.K. Jerry Chu
>  Cc: [email-masked]
>  Bound ary