Re: When IBoE will be merged to upstream?

[Roland Dreier <rdreier-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

 > A quibble about multicast - AFAIK this is unsolved. I think some spec
 > needs to be agreed that documents what sort of multicast snooping
 > operations switches need to do, ie if IGMP joins imply that IBoE
 > traffic for the same DMAC is included in the join, or if IBoE requires
 > a seperate IGMP type process on its own ether-type. That would make it
 > much clearer what to do with MGIDs.

I agree -- the current spec is rather broken for multicast.  Choosing a
different ethertype and then saying that all switches will just flood
multicast traffic is half-baked at best.

 > It would be nice to at least have a plan on how to integrate a
 > non-link local address, if that is ever necessary in future. An
 > extended AH with an additional 48 DMAC field seems reasonable to me?

You mean have a next-hop destination + a final destination?  Could be
done I guess.  But I'm not sure how having a routing table where you
have to look up 48-bit Ethernet addresses is all that different from
just having a standard Ethernet forwarding table.

I suppose something based on MAC-in-MAC (a la 802.1ah) could be done but
to be honest the IBoE spec that the IBTA came up with looks rather
broken for routing.

 - R.
-- 
Roland Dreier <rolandd-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> || For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
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