Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] IPoIB/DHCP

From: "Larsen, Roy K" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:09:14 -0800

Kanoj,

I tend to agree.  The client-id issues was thrashed on the list and it
basically devolved to what was stated in the last paragraph of 2.1

"This document does not preclude the use of other 'client identifier' type,
such as fully qualified domain name(FQDN) or the EUI-64 value associated
with the interface."

However, the QPN+GID *IS* the IPoIB MAC address so it technically fits the
bill.  However, for the reasons you state, we do not plan on using in our
implementation.

Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: Kanoj Sarcar [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 9:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ipoverib] IPoIB/DHCP

Hi,

I have an issue with section 2.1 of
draft-ietf-ipoib-dhcp-over-infiniband-04.txt.
I think it should be reworded to allow the following two formats for the
client-id:

     Code  Len   Type  Client-Identifier
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------------------....----+
   |  61 | 21  |  0  | Unique-value(4 octets) |   GID (16 octets)          |
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------------------....----+

    Code  Len   Type  Client-Identifier
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------------------....----+
   |  61 | 21  |  32 | QPN  (4 octets) |   GID (16 octets)          |
   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------------------....----+

Note that if the 20 byte client identifier does not represent the MAC
address
of the interface, the type should be 0. The type can be 32 only if the mac
address is being used as the identifier.

In fact, I doubt the neccesity of specifying the second format, since it
represents
an unstable address (QPN), which is likely to change whenever a port is 
rebooted.

For the rationale, please see section 9.14 of RFC 2132:
"A hardware type of 0 (zero) should be used when the value field
contains an identifier other than a hardware address (e.g. a fully
qualified domain name)."

Thanks.

Kanoj
_______________________________________________
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: Kanoj Sarcar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:25:38 -0800

> such as fully qualified domain name(FQDN) or the EUI-64 value associated

Roy,

> However, the QPN+GID *IS* the IPoIB MAC address so it technically fits the

The client identifier format suggested in the document does not use the QPN,
rather a "Unique-value(4 octets)"; thus the 20 bytes does not represent the
MAC address, thus the type should not be 32, but should be 0.

I do agree that if an implementation does use the QPN as the 4 octets, it
should set the type to 32.

I think something like this would be more appropriate:

"If an implementation uses the QPN of the interface as the 4 octet Unique-value,
alongwith the 16 octet GID to create a 20 octet client-identifier, then it
should set the Type value to 32 [ARPPARAM]"

Thanks.

Kanoj

---

From: Kanoj Sarcar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:25:38 -0800

Roy,

Thanks.

Kanoj

---

From: "Yaron Haviv" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 01:27:32 +0200

One observation on the DHCP issues,

If we eventually don't use the real IPoIB MAC address (GID+QP) why not to
just settle for
Uniqe Value (4) + GUID (8) = 12 < 16
This way we will have a unique address, which also enable determining the
node (Base GID = Subnet Prefix + GUID)
And avoid all the hassle of dealing with long 20 byte addresses

This way we don't need to change DHCP at all
Also we see many other implementation issues that prevent using the 20 Byte
address without messing with the OS code
In some OS's it is even not practical

Not to mention that some network monitoring and diagnostic tools fail to
work in such an environment (20 bytes)

Yaron

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Kanoj Sarcar
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:26 PM
To: Larsen, Roy K
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ipoverib] IPoIB/DHCP

Roy,

"If an implementation uses the QPN of the interface as the 4 octet
Unique-value,
alongwith the 16 octet GID to create a 20 octet client-identifier, then it
should set the Type value to 32 [ARPPARAM]"

Thanks.

Kanoj

---

From: "Yaron Haviv" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 01:27:32 +0200

Yaron

-----Original Message-----

Roy,

Thanks.

Kanoj