From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: using same IP subnet on multiple interfaces Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:19:45 -0600 Message-ID: <20100817031945.GA5251@obsidianresearch.com> References: <4C679C39.8060709@Voltaire.com> <20100815165946.GA2861@obsidianresearch.com> <4C69597C.2040008@Voltaire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C69597C.2040008-hKgKHo2Ms0FWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Or Gerlitz Cc: "Hefty, Sean" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Patrick McHardy List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 06:30:04PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > As for the original issue we were discussing here, Sean - the > conclusion is that with upstream 2.6.35 bits for the rdma connection > to go from hca1 port1 to hca1 port2 (or from hca1 port1 to hca2 > port1), the rdma-cm needs a neighbour, similarly to a ping -I ib0 to > ib1 address. > > A neighbour isn't created unless the responding NIC (ib1 in my > example) has both rp_filter set to 0 and accept_local set to 1, > Jason, does this makes sense? This description seemed reasonable to me. It is pretty confusing what binding means in RDMA CM, it is different then sockets, and is some combination of SO_BINDTODEVICE and bind to address. Also, you might find the fixes that were done lately for IPv6 tidied up some of the general routing and device select stuff that becomes noticable when you start doing funny routing things like this. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html