From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bnx2i: Add bnx2i iSCSI driver. Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:39:31 -0400 Message-ID: <483CD3F3.6070308@garzik.org> References: <1211578969.26900.5.camel@dhcp-10-13-110-217.broadcom.com> <20080527.125247.73979652.davem@davemloft.net> <1211935729.18326.185.camel@dell> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from [207.36.208.214] ([207.36.208.214]:39654 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751304AbYE1DlS (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 23:41:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1211935729.18326.185.camel@dell> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Chan Cc: David Miller , rdreier@cisco.com, anilgv@broadcom.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, netdev , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, open-iscsi@googlegroups.com Michael Chan wrote: > If we change the implementation to use a separate IP address and > separate MAC address for iSCSI, will it be acceptable? The iSCSI IP/MAC > addresses will be unknown to the Linux TCP stack and so no sharing of > the 4-tuple space will be needed. > > The patches will be very similar, except that all inet calls and > notifiers will be removed. IMO a totally separate MAC and IP would definitely be preferred... Jeff