> > Keep in mind that this enum was Liran's response to Michael's original
> > patch. In the enum in Michael's patch, there was both USNIC and
> > USNIC_UDP.
>
> Right! That's why I'm confused. Seems wrong to drop it, right?
I think the original USNIC protocol is layered directly over Ethernet. The
protocol basically stole an Ethertype (the one used for IBoE/RoCE) and
implemented a proprietary protocol instead. I have no idea how you resolve
that, but I also don't think it's used anymore. USNIC_UDP is just UDP.
> Well, if RoCEv2 uses the same protocol enum, that may introduce new
> confusion, for example there will be some new CM handling for UDP encap,
> source port selection, and of course vlan/tag assignment, etc. But if
> there is support under way, and everyone is clear, then, ok.
RoCEv2/IBoUDP shares the same port space as UDP. It has a similar issues as
iWarp does sharing state with the main network stack. I'm not aware of any
proposal for resolving that. Does it require using a separate IP address?
Does it use a port mapper function? Does netdev care for UDP? I'm not sure
what USNIC does for this either, but a common solution between USNIC and IBoUDP
seems reasonable.
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a���
0��h���i
