Some Questions on the IPoIB - Connected Mode Draft

Hi,

I just finished reading the "IPoIB connected mode" I-D (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kashyap-ipoib-connected-mode-02.txt) and have some questions:

1. In 2.2  Outline of Address Resolution, it is stated that:
Every IPoIB-CM interface MUST have two QPs associated with it:
                1) A connected mode QP
                2) An unreliable datagram mode QP
I'm a little confused by the description of the first QP. Is this a really a UD QP used for connected mode address resolution (when the interface is not in the same scope and partition as the UD one) ? It is also later stated (in 3.0 Address Resolution) that IPoIB-CM can use the same UD QP as the one used by IPoIB-UD interface when they share the same partition and scope so it seems thiscontradicts the earlier statement. It seems like the UD QP for connected mode is only required when the same partition and scopeare not shared with the IPoIB-UD interface.2. In 3.1 Link Layer Address, it is stated that the RC and UC flags are mutually exclusive. Is this a requirement or more a configuration issue ? Is there something which would break with both flags on ? The only issue I see is if a IPoIB-CM subnetincludes some nodes supporting only RC and others only UC. That couldn't be mixed. I suppose setting both opens the door for that to occur.3. In 3.2 IB Connection Setup, it is stated that the node SHOULD NOT attempt another connection to the remote peerusing the same service ID as for an already existing connection. Wouldn't that potentially be useful for support of QoS ?Is this a recommendation (SHOULD NOT) just to reduce the number of connections (and QPs) ? 4. In 3.3 Service ID, wouldn't it be better if the QPN didn't overlap a 32 bit boundary ?5. In 5.1 Per Connection MTU, why does the peer need to REJ the connection the the REQ desired MTU is not acceptable(and is more than the minimum MTU) ? Couldn't we REP with the "MTU granted" for that case ? The active side whichissued the REQ could always REJ the REP if it didn't like the "MTU granted".-- Hal

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib