From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [Announce] rxe dev tree available (soft RDMAoE) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:46:46 -0800 Message-ID: References: <4B294BDD.3010405@systemfabricworks.com> <20091216213816.GV6188@obsidianresearch.com> <031b01ca7e99$38abf510$aa03df30$@com> <03d101ca7f62$0dea4560$29bed020$@com> <20091217220450.GA8383@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091217220450.GA8383-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> (Jason Gunthorpe's message of "Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:04:50 -0700") Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Robert Pearson , 'frank zago' , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, 'John Groves' List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > The ICRC isn't even necessary from a technical sense for DCE. The > underlying reasons for the ICRC/VCRC split are not really present for > ethernet. Considering RDMAoE isn't interoperable with existing IB anyhow > and DCE can't do routing, the best course would be to just get rid of > it entirely. Not sure I agree... it would be entirely possible and sensible to create an IBoE router (and if the IBoE GRH used global scope addresses, pretty much the same as routing IPv6), and I think you would want end-to-end ICRC protection in that case (since the router would be regenerating the ethernet CRC). Even in the ethernet case there are probably realistic cases of adding a VLAN tag or something that require the CRC to be recalculated by a switch -- and some switches probably cut corners and just recalculate the CRC of all packets on egress, just to avoid conditional cases. - R. -- 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