On Mar 31, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 10:44:11AM +0200, Christian Kauhaus wrote:
>> Hello *,
>> University of Jena (Germany). Our work group is digging into how to
>> connect several clusters on a campus.
> I think I'm also a member of this workgroup, though I am not
> working at University of Jena, but studying there.
>> First we are interested to integrate IPv6 support into the tcp btl.
>> Does anyone know if there is someone already working on this?
> I have a first quick and dirty patch, replacing AF_INET by AF_INET6,
> the sockaddr_in structs and so on.
Is there a way to do this to better support both IPv4 and IPv6? it
looks like you had to change an awful lot of interface declarations,
making the code IPv6 only...
> I think it is broken, the calculation of net1 and net2 in
> btl_tcp_proc.c isn't really ported and to be honest: I don't
> understand the details, i.e. do I have to port name lookups,
> are there high level structures relying on IPv4 structs
> and so on.
The port name information will all be in the modex share that I
talked about in the previous e-mail, so it's just a matter of looking
it up in the endpoint information. As for the code in
mca_btl_tcp_proc_insert(), which is what I think you're referring to
by the net1/net2 code, that's intended to be used to try to get all
the multi-nic scenarios wired up in the most advantageous way
possible. So we look at the combination IPv4 addr and netmask and
prefer to connect two endpoints in the same subnet. We also try not
to connect public and private addresses, as that rarely works the way
As an example, say we have two hosts, both with two NICs:
host1: 22.214.171.124/255.255.0.0, 126.96.36.199/255.255.0.0
host2: 188.8.131.52/255.255.0.0, 184.108.40.206/255.255.0.0
When host1 is trying to wire-up connections to host2, it's going to
figure out how to wire up the btl instance for the 79.200 address and
the 72.100 address separately. For the 79.200.1 address, we're going
to see we have two addresses we can connect to - 220.127.116.11 and
18.104.22.168. By looking at netmasks and addresses, we can make the
guess that the 79.200.2 address is on the "same" network and the
72.100.2 address is on a "different" network. I'm not sure how IPv6
deals with netmasks and routing, but I'm assuming there would be
> At least it compiles ;) (let's ship it)
> I don't know if this patched tcp-component can handle
> IPv6 connections, I've never tested it. I think it
> even breaks IPv4 functionality; we should make clear
> how IPv4 and IPv6 may work in parallel (or may not, if
> one considers IPv4 deprecated ;)
> You can retrieve the patch here:
> I'd also appreciate any suggestions, hints or even success stories ;)
From a practical standpoint, Open MPI has to support both IPv4 and
IPv6 for the foreseeable future. We currently try to wire up one
connection per "IP device", so it seems like we should be able to
find some way to automatically switch between IPv6 or IPv4 based on
what we determine is available on that host, right? I'll admit it
has been a year or so since I've looked at this, so I could be
completely off base there.
Open MPI developer