On 10/11/2018 10:00 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 05:16:28PM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> On 10/10/2018 3:53 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote: >>>> 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? >>> >>> I would maintain compatibility, maybe you can use the number of inputs to decide between port versus node guid. >> >> Yes, that's what I was thinking in terms of backward compatibility. > > Why not increase or remove the internal limit instead of making any > user visible change? I think there were 2 issues: 1. number of endpoints supported was limited to 4 2. using port guid rather than/in addition to node guid and port number in acm address config file I can see how #1 can be changed without user visible change but not sure if/what you had in mind for #2. -- Hal > Jason >
