On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 09:53:00AM -0400, Vitaly Mayatskikh wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:10 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > But is it iWarp? > > > > I'm not keen on seeing people abuse iwarp stuff for some non-standards > > based thing. iwarp is already in a disused state, there isn't enough > > community energy there to police something non-standards based. > > No, it is IP-based, but not iWarp. Using CM implementation for > IP-network (IW_CM) was a logical decision. In fact, IW_CM can be > rebranded as IP_CM as it is not tightly coupled with iWarp per se and > can serve any IP-based protocols. And what happens if one of your non-standard nodes points its IWCM at an IP that is actually running iWarp? Jason
