Re: When IBoE will be merged to upstream?

Roland Dreier
2010-07-13T21:20:12Z

> 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: