On 2018/5/15 3:41, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 09:42:31AM +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote:
On 2018/5/13 19:49, Tom Talpey wrote:
On 5/12/2018 9:00 PM, Yanjun Zhu wrote:
On 2018/5/12 22:24, 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?
Yes. If this patch is merged, I will request it.
That is improper - the standards assignment must come first. In my
opinion the firewall reasoning will be rejected by the IANA, and
there's no guarantee what number will be assigned in any case. The
process is defined here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335
Do the hard stuff first; develop a solid justification why this is
a good and proper approach, before deploying it on the IP Internet
by making it part of Linux.
Thanks a lot for your suggestions. I will request the udp port now.
Hi, Jason
I checked the Annex 17: RoCEv2. From this spec, the udp is specified to
carry rdma.
This feature is based on the above. And it is transparent to RDMA. That
is, RDMA will
not detect udp port exchange. And this feature is helpful to RDMA.
So I do not know why IBTA do not want to give us a ROCE related port. I
will request the port
with IETF.
If I can get the port, will you merge these patches into mainline?
Zhu Yanjun
You need to start with IBTA as they control the standard and IETF
probably won't give you a ROCE related port without their approval
either.
Nor are we likely to add non-standard ROCE behavior to rxe.
Jason
--
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
