[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <000101c8013a$41b374f0$a7cc180a@amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:11:49 -0700
From: "Sean Hefty" <sean.hefty@...el.com>
To: "'Kanevsky, Arkady'" <Arkady.Kanevsky@...app.com>,
"Sean Hefty" <mshefty@...ips.intel.com>,
"Steve Wise" <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <rdreier@...co.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <general@...ts.openfabrics.org>
Subject: RE: [ofa-general] [PATCH v3] iw_cxgb3: Support "iwarp-only"interfacesto avoid 4-tuple conflicts.
>What is the model on how client connects, say for iSCSI,
>when client and server both support, iWARP and 10GbE or 1GbE,
>and would like to setup "most" performant "connection" for ULP?
For the "most" performance connection, the ULP would use IB, and all these
problems go away. :)
This proposal is for each iwarp interface to have its own IP address. Clients
would need an iwarp usable address of the server and would connect using
rdma_connect(). If that call (or rdma_resolve_addr/route) fails, the client
could try connecting using sockets, aoi, or some other interface. I don't see
that Steve's proposal changes anything from the client's perspective.
- Sean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists