Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] IPoIB multicast

From: Michael Krause <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:23:47 -0700

At 10:51 AM 4/19/2002 -0700, Aditya Dube wrote:

>Vivek
>
>Thanks for sending this out. This definitely makes it much easier for me
>to analyze the proposed solution.
>
>
>The Router algorithm has a problem:
>
>                 if report informs of leave
>                         IB_leave corresponding IB group
>
>The First leave will cause the Router to leave the group regardless of
>whether there are other nodes that have done an IB_Join.

IB routers leave based on policy.  IB CA acting as a multi-protocol routers 
leave based on policy.  There is nothing here that is normative that 
requires it to leave upon a lower-water mark being hit, e.g. a gross-level 
timer could be used to delay a leave until one is sure the resource will 
not be used for a significant period of time.

>The other thing that I have recently learnt is that Profile B hardware
>requires a node to support a minimum of 16 multicast groups. Each join
>is therefore a valuable resource.

Profile B is not a requirement for anyone to implement to - no one that I'm 
aware is really following any of the recommendations in this profile.  I 
will state that most are implementing a larger number than 16 groups.

Mike

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

---

From: Yaron Haviv <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:07:54 +0200

For my knowledge at least one major HCA vendor supports only 16
So this issue is real, not to mention that each IPoIB partition consumes one
of these groups

This should be addressed some how, maybe even by having multiple MGID's use
the same MLID

YARON

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Michael Krause
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] IPoIB multicast

Mike

---

From: Michael Krause <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:34:07 -0700

>So this issue is real, not to mention that each IPoIB partition consumes one

Some early implementations may have such limitations but most 
implementations are increasing their resources in this regard by quite a 
bit so I don't think 16 is a magic number.

>This should be addressed some how, maybe even by having multiple MGID's use

This is supported already and is strictly a LLP issue not an IP over IB issue.

Mike