Remote Data Direct Placement Working Group Discussion Archive - Thread Index

• [rddp] Why IPsec is needed for iSCSI but might not be needed for RDDP/iWARP, John Hufferd
  • Re: [rddp] Why IPsec is needed for iSCSI but might not be needed for RDDP/iWARP, Caitlin Bestler
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • RE: [rddp] Why IPsec is needed for iSCSI but might not be needed for RDDP/iWARP, Barron, Dwight
    • RE: [rddp] Why IPsec is needed for iSCSI but might not be needed for RDDP/iWARP, John Hufferd
    • Re: [rddp] Why IPsec is needed for iSCSI but might not be needed for RDDP/iWARP, Mallikarjun C.
• [rddp] Long-lived Stags: Why?, Black_David
  • Re: [rddp] Long-lived Stags: Why?, Caitlin Bestler
    • Re: [rddp] Long-lived Stags: Why?, John Hufferd
      • Re: [rddp] Long-lived Stags: Why?, Caitlin Bestler
  • Message not available
    • Re: [rddp] Long-lived Stags: Why?, Michael Krause
      • Re: [rddp] Long-lived Stags: Why?, John Hufferd
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • RE: [rddp] Long-lived Stags: Why?, pat_thaler
    • Re: [rddp] Long-lived Stags: Why?, Caitlin Bestler
  • RE: [rddp] Long-lived Stags: Why?, Jim Pinkerton
• RE: [rddp] IPsec and RDDP as a transport -- one-shot STags, Carrier, John
• RE: [rddp] TCP offload - DO NOT RESPOND, Black_David
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • RE: [rddp] TCP offload - DO NOT RESPOND, john thodiyil
• [rddp] RDDP-enabled iSCSI "hole", Black_David
  • Re: [rddp] RDDP-enabled iSCSI "hole", John Hufferd
  • RE: [rddp] RDDP-enabled iSCSI "hole", Somesh Gupta
• [rddp] RDMAP specification - no interaction with ULP specified in clause 5.2 with reception of terminate, Barry Reinhold
• [rddp] TCP offload, john thodiyil
• [rddp] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rddp-rdma-concerns-01.txt, Internet-Drafts
• [rddp] Administrative Items, Black_David
• [rddp] IPsec and RDDP as a transport, Black_David