> On 9 Oct 2018, at 18:54, Hefty, Sean <sean.hefty@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> In Oracle, we have some tests where we enable 16 VFs on an HCA >> (actually, any number), and use these VFs in a bare-metal fashion, >> i.e., we have 34 IPoIB devices and no VMs. >>>>> >>>>> In this case, the above ibacm limitation hits us. This because we >> will have 17 IP addresses associated with the triple Node GUID, Port >> #, and pkey. The Node GUID is the very same for all the VFs. >>>>> >>>>> Would it make better sense for ibacm to use the tuple Port GUID >> and pkey to designate and endpoint instead? >> >> Well, just chatted with Bjørn Dag (BD) here. He mentioned that the >> reason for choosing the Node GUID could be suport for APM. Is that so? > > No, APM wasn't a consideration. I think port guid would work okay. Thanks Sean. Should I then the remove the port number from the triple, or keep it for legacy reasons? Hal's concern about backward compatibility vs. the address file, does that need to be addresses in your opinion? Thxs, Håkon
