From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:01:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:01:03 -0400 Received: from mail2.megatrends.com ([155.229.80.11]:4359 "EHLO mail2.megatrends.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:01:00 -0400 Message-ID: <1355693A51C0D211B55A00105ACCFE6402B9DECF@ATL_MS1> From: Venkatesh Ramamurthy To: "'Alan Cox'" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: [RFC] Direct Sockets Support?? Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:55:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> technology is Infiniband . In Infiniband, the hardware supports IPv6 . For >> this type of devices there is no need for software TCP/IP. But for >> networking application, which mostly uses sockets, there is a performance >> penalty with using software TCP/IP over this hardware. > IPv6 is only the bottom layer of the stack. TCP does a lot lot more. Sorry to have confused you. IB supports the notion of connection over IPv6, not exactly TCP. I just interchanged TCP and notion of connection provided by infiniband. Infiniband is a cluster of technologies like VI, IP, etc. So i felt that we can take advantage of this to do networking. Because the speed of IB ranges from 2.5Gbps to 30Gbps, even a slight overhead in software will affect performance very badly.