Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] IPoIB multicast

From: "Larsen, Roy K" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:22:45 -0700

Mike,

I would be thrilled if a correct and interoperable IPoIB multicast
implementation is as simple as having receivers join the associated group
when needed and leave when done, and senders join using the appropriate IBA
method for senders, send their frames to the requested address, and leave as
deemed appropriate.  Unfortunately, due to my shallow knowledge of IP
routing issues and protocols, I've been drawn into the believe that it is
not that simple.  If we can get consensus that it is, you are absolutely
right.  I don't think we have that consensus so it just seems futile to have
a discussion where the majority of the participants are in the dark about
pending IBA multicast changes.

Roy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Krause [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:31 PM
To: Larsen, Roy K; 'H.K. Jerry Chu'; 'Bill Strahm'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] IPoIB multicast

At 12:05 PM 4/19/2002 -0700, Larsen, Roy K wrote:
>Jerry and Bill,
>
>As Vivek alluded to when he published his latest thinking on multicast and
>again here, the IBTA is currently considering making some significant
>changes to multicast semantics and facilities.  I echo Vivek's sentiments
on
>not taking the multicast design any further until the IBTA makes public
>their multicast updates.  Otherwise, we are going to have to revisit many
of
>these issues or worse, accept non-optimal solutions because no one wants to
>rehash this again.  Therefore, I am requesting that this topic be tabled
>until we have a stable IBA multicast service to design against.

You have a good idea based on what I wrote and Vivek wrote to understand 
that there will be minimal impact to IP over IB specifications and this can 
go forward.  All that needs to be done is just describe the IP multicast 
address encapsulation and the work is essentially done.  The IP router 
interactions are also a non-issue.  Keep in mind that the IP over IB 
implementation is what is impacted by any of these IB changes and not the 
IP over IB protocol so let's finish encapsulation for unicast and multicast 
and be done with it.

Mike

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

---

From: Michael Krause <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:50:41 -0700

At 01:22 PM 4/19/2002 -0700, Larsen, Roy K wrote:
>deemed appropriate.

This is all that is needed and should be applicable to IP over IB.

>Unfortunately, due to my shallow knowledge of IP

The IB changes should result in this simple approach being all that IP over 
IB needs to deal with and since the IB portions are really a LLP issue from 
a spec point of view, there is no reason to get completion of the IP over 
IB spec at this time.

Mike