Subject: [Ipoverib] IETF-54 IPoIB meeting minutes

From: Jerry Chu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:21:52 -0700

IP over IB WG minutes 7/14, as taken by Rob Thurlow

Jerry Chu co-chair present and presenting for others

Agenda items:

WG last call - three drafts out for last call now; link and multicast,
encapsulation and DHCP over IB.  Please add your comments - last good
chance!  You have until end of July.  WG wants to put these drafts on
standards track and to move these to proposed standard.

IPoIB MIBs - Sean Harnady's slides presented by Jerry.  Six MIBs defined
in WG charter. Textual conventions MIB version 1 available.  IPOIB
Infiniband Interfaces MIB version 3 available.  IPOIB Subnet Management
MIB version 2 available.  [one more version 2, missed the name] IPOIB
Baseboard Management Agent MIB not yet published, and IPOIB Sample
Counters MIB yet to be completed.  Need to complete two drafts at
least to initial version, and the others need a thorough review.  Also
need some implementation experience, though this is not yet necessary
to advance.  Also: do we need more MIBs?

Poll for new agenda items met with silence.

Recharter discussion - current WG scope is limited to basic
encapsulation
method.  Some advanced features have been discussed - should this be
added to scope?  IETF rules: WG needs to register sufficient interest,
must have a concise definition and scope, deliverables and milestones
need to be clear, and IESG must agree.

Work items: IP datagrams in non-UD IB transports; Demuxing IP datagrams
over multipls QPs based on some TBD criteria; other client capability,
e.g. SDP; skipping/disabling TCP/UDP checksum when running over RC/UC
(this is controversial!).

Area director - do we have any idea of the ordering and desired delivery
of running IPoIB on top of a non-UD transport?  Are we being clear
enough
about what we might do?  Answer: No, not clear enough. Supporting some
of
this on reliable connections is the main thing.  If we can use RC, a
larger MTU could be used and we could have better performance.  Some
ideas come from a previous draft.  Take this back to the mailing list?
Audience in room is not really familiar with the issues.  Multiple QPs -
could introduce routing and session establishment problems, unclear if
it is solvable. Jerry polled the room for whether this item should be
added to the WG charter. Two were against it. Reasoning from Roger
Cummings
who is one of the two - see no use of it. only want enough IP to be able
to set up signalling, but want to run SDP (Session Description Protocol)
instead. Jerry asked if this feature is only optional so only those who
think it's useful will implement it, will he oppose it? The reply is no.
AD commented that there is a cost vs benefit tradeoff one must weigh.
"Other client capability - SDP" - is this even in scope?  Maybe not.
Jerry - SDP out of scope, but a few bits to be able to facilitate this
could be OK.  AD - bar is higher than "could be useful".  Bypassing
checksums - lots of people have had this idea, and they always found
they had to add them back later on, so why?  Attendees with an opinion
all agreed that bypassing was bad.

Next steps: Move 3 IPoIB drafts plus IB Interfaces MIB to standards
track.
Need more reviewers plus volunteers for other drafts,  Finally, expand
WG
charter to address advanced features.

Questions and comments - none, done!

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