Current Meeting Report
2.3.5 IP over InfiniBand (ipoib)
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 54th IETF Meeting in Yokohama, Japan. It may now be out-of-date.
Last Modifield: 05/13/2002
H.K. Jerry Chu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Bill Strahm <email@example.com>
Internet Area Director(s):
Thomas Narten <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Erik Nordmark <email@example.com>
Internet Area Advisor:
Thomas Narten <firstname.lastname@example.org>
General Discussion: email@example.com
To Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org
In Body: subscribe ipoverib
Description of Working Group:
InfiniBand is an emerging standard intended as an interconnect for
processor and I/O systems and devices (see the Infiniband Trade
Association web site at http://www.infinibandta.org for details). IP
is one type of traffic (and a very important one) that could use this
interconnect. InfiniBand would benefit greatly from a standardized
method of handling IP traffic on IB fabrics. It is also important to
be able to manage InfiniBand devices in a common way.
The work group will specify the procedures and protocols to support
IPv4/v6 over an InfiniBand fabric. Further, they will specify the set
of MIB objects to allow management of the InfiniBand protocol.
The scope of this WG is limited to the definition of an encapsulation
format for carrying IPv4 and IPv6 over IB networks and for performing
address resolution between IP address and IB link-layer addresses. At
the present time, more advanced functionalities such as mapping IP QOS
into IB-specific capabilities is out of scope. Such work items may be
considered in the future, but will require a recharter.
1. Specify a standards track procedure for supporting ARP/ND packets,
and resolving IP addresses to IB link addresses.
2. Specify a standards track encapsulation for carrying IPv4 and IPv6
packets over IB.
3. Determine how to and specify a standard for transfering IP
multicast over IB. IB has an optional receiver join multicast
capability. Current working group plans are to use IB multicast as
part of ARP, so using it for IP multicast as well may be a
4. Specify a standards track channel adapter MIB that will allow
management of an InfiniBand channel adapter. There will also need
to be InfiniBand types approved and added to the ifType defined by
5. Specify a standards track baseboard management MIB that will allow
management of specified device properties
6. Specify sample counter MIBs to allow InfiniBand sample counters to
be exposed to external SNMP management applications
Goals and Milestones:
|Done|| ||Submit initial Internet-Draft of ARP encapsulation |
|Done|| ||Submit initial Internet-Draft of Requirements/Overview |
|Done|| ||Submit initial Internet-Draft of IP V4/V6 Encapsulation |
|Done|| ||Submit initial Internet-Draft of Infiniband-Like MIB |
|JUL 01|| ||Submit initial Internet-Draft of Channel Adapter MIB |
|Done|| ||Submit initial Internet-Draft of Multicast |
|NOV 01|| ||Submit initial Internet-Draft of Baseboard MIB |
|NOV 01|| ||Submit initial Internet-Draft of Sample Counter MIB |
|FEB 02|| ||Submit initial Internet-Draft of Subnet Mangement MIB |
|MAR 02|| ||Submit ARP/IP/Multicast encapsulation drafts for IESG Last
|MAR 02|| ||Submit Infiniband-Like MIB for IESG Last Call |
|MAR 02|| ||Submit Channel Adapter MIB for IESG Last Call |
No Request For Comments
Current Meeting Report
IP over IB WG minutes 7/14, as taken by Rob Thurlow
Jerry Chu co-chair present and presenting for others
WG last call - three drafts out for last call now; link and multicast,
encapsulation and DHCP over IB. Please add your comments - last good chance! You
have until end of July. WG wants to put these drafts on standards track and to
move these to proposed standard.
IPoIB MIBs - Sean Harnady's slides presented by Jerry. Six MIBs defined in WG
charter. Textual conventions MIB version 1 available. IPOIB Infiniband
Interfaces MIB version 3 available. IPOIB Subnet Management MIB version 2
available. [one more version 2, missed the name] IPOIB Baseboard Management
Agent MIB not yet published, and IPOIB Sample Counters MIB yet to be completed.
Need to complete two drafts at least to initial version, and the others need a
thorough review. Also need some implementation experience, though this is not
yet necessary to advance. Also: do we need more MIBs?
Poll for new agenda items met with silence.
Recharter discussion - current WG scope is limited to basic encapsulation
method. Some advanced features have been discussed - should this be added to
scope? IETF rules: WG needs to register sufficient interest, must have a concise
definition and scope, deliverables and milestones need to be clear, and IESG
Work items: IP datagrams in non-UD IB transports; Demuxing IP datagrams over
multipls QPs based on some TBD criteria; other client capability, e.g. SDP;
skipping/disabling TCP/UDP checksum when running over RC/UC (this is
Area director - do we have any idea of the ordering and desired delivery of
running IPoIB on top of a non-UD transport? Are we being clear enough about what
we might do? Answer: No, not clear enough. Supporting some of this on reliable
connections is the main thing. If we can use RC, a larger MTU could be used and
we could have better performance. Some ideas come from a previous draft. Take
this back to the mailing list?
Audience in room is not really familiar with the issues. Multiple QPs - could
introduce routing and session establishment problems, unclear if it is solvable.
Jerry polled the room for whether this item should be added to the WG charter.
Two were against it. Reasoning from Roger Cummings who is one of the two - see
no use of it. only want enough IP to be able to set up signalling, but want to
run SDP (Session Description Protocol) instead. Jerry asked if this feature is
only optional so only those who think it's useful will implement it, will he
oppose it? The reply is no. AD commented that there is a cost vs benefit
tradeoff one must weigh. "Other client capability - SDP" - is this even in
scope? Maybe not. Jerry - SDP out of scope, but a few bits to be able to
facilitate this could be OK. AD - bar is higher than "could be useful".
Bypassing checksums - lots of people have had this idea, and they always found
they had to add them back later on, so why? Attendees with an opinion all agreed
that bypassing was bad.
Next steps: Move 3 IPoIB drafts plus IB Interfaces MIB to standards track.
Need more reviewers plus volunteers for other drafts, Finally, expand WG charter
to address advanced features.
Questions and comments - none, done!