On 2018/5/15 23:42, Parav Pandit wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma-
owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Gunthorpe
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:46 AM
To: Yanjun Zhu <yanjun.zhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>; Moni Shoua <monis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] IB/rxe: exchange the 2 udp ports
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 08:24:37PM +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote:
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.
IBTA controls the port numbers that rocev2 uses, and how it should intereact if
there are suddently two port numbers.
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?
I don't think this is right direction.
I don't see there is any problem here that requires IBTA or IETF's attention.
In fact this method is creating more security issues and requires mores administrative hand holding where now administrator needs to block multiple UDP ports to disable RoCE.
Why is this method creating more security issues? Does another udp port
in this method cause more security issues?
Leon already explained this.
What is the inspiration for administrator to block port 4791 and not port 4891, where the service is offered on port 4791
Why vxlan UDP encapsulation doesn't face this problem, which likely/might have wider user base.
You intent to create a software extension which bypasses administrative policy; - not a good idea.
Again rxe will not be able have control of the udp ports that it intend to use, even if it is coded this way currently.
Sorry. I do not think it is a good idea that ib_core controls upd ports.
According to the layering principle, network should control udp port.
RDMA controls its affairs.
Network and RDMA should split.
Zhu Yanjun
It will be ib_core. So the patches in current form won't make progress until the ib_core rework is finished.
--
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
