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

From: Michael Krause <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:37:56 -0800

At 01:17 PM 2/28/2002 +0900, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:34:56 -0800
> >From: Michael Krause <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: Re: [Ipoverib] draft-ietf-ipoib-ip-over-infiniband-00.txt
>
> >IP over IB charter is quite explicit in the target of the technology
> >specification focus and there is nothing within it that states a method to
> >support alternative protocol suites.  As such, there is no basis for
> >forcing the inclusion of Ethertype at this time.
>
>I know IETF/ipoib focuses on IP suite and not focus on non-IP themselves.
>But I think IETF/ipoib should provide infrastructure on which vendors can
>develop various applications (incl. some IPoIB driver implementations
>and their upper layers) based on IETF/ipoib standard.
>One of the ways which enable them is Ethertype in payload.
>I believe IETF/ipoib is infrastructure for applications.
>So even if IETF/ipoib foceses on IP suite, we should think another 
>applications
>(e.g. non-IP protocols over IPoIB) and I think you cannot prohibit inclusion
>  of Ethertype.

The specification is used to define what is included in the payload not an 
individual.  If there is no consensus to support Ethertype, then it is not 
present. This does not preclude anyone from sending it within the payload 
but there may be interoperability issues in doing so.

> >>And IETF/ipoib should allow vendors to implement non-IP protocols over
> >>IPoIB.  (not "directly over IB" but "over IPoIB".) Of course, they need to
> >>follow IETF/ipoib protocol standard.
> >
> >The IETF specifications are used to create interoperable solutions for the
> >IP protocol suite of technology.  If a technology does not fall into this
> >suite then there is no requirement to provide any additional capabilities
> >to support such technology.  No one restricts what you can implement so you
> >can implement anything on top of this technology but it is up to you to
> >find an appropriate method to specify which is separate from the charter
> >specifications.
>
>Yes it it up to developers (incl. me) to implement application over 
>IPoIB.  But IETF/ipoib should provide infrastructure for applications over 
>IPoIB.  One of requirements to IETF/IPoIB is, implementations are possible 
>*WITHOUT* multi-QPs and tricky/dirty ways,
>Ethertype satisfies it, I think.

Applications are designed to work over IP independent of this specification 
and thus there is no IP over IB specific knowledge for applications to use 
/ be concerned with in this regard.  As such, there is no requirement on IP 
over IB to do anything to support Ethertype.  I'll leave further debate to 
any who wish to champion this inclusion so that consensus can be reached 
one way or another.

Mike

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