On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 02:44:03PM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > 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 had understood that #1 was a side effect of #2 and using the port guid somehow avoided the limit? > I can see how #1 can be changed without user visible change but not sure > if/what you had in mind for #2. I was thinking if we fix #1 we don't even need to care about #2? For the most part this is all internal and automatic, right? Jason
