On 2018/5/13 14:17, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 09:05:45AM +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote:
On 2018/5/12 22:55, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:24:03AM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote:
On 5/12/2018 9:54 AM, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
When udp port 4791 is blocked, the udp port 4891 is used and vice versa.
Port 4891 is currently unassigned in the IANA registry. Do you intend
to request this? Strongly suggest that this not merge without such a
standard.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.txt
The whole idea looks to me like a hack, what will we do once the second
port blocked too? Will we introduce option to add more ports?
The second port is a backup. When the first port 4791 is blocked, the port
4891 will be used. At the same time,
some cleanup work will be done to make udp port 4791 work again. When 4891
is blocked, 4791 is used again.
It is like failover in bonding.:-)
Right, so why don't you use bonding for that?
Based on my test results, there is a performance loss with bonding
compared with this feature because
the packets will pass bonding driver before directly pass to the real
physical NIC driver.
So it is necessary to use this feature.
Zhu Yanjun
Thanks
Zhu Yanjun
Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
