From: Kevin K. He <he...@ya...> - 2004-03-12 20:20:28
|
Can we update the processor node ID dynamically ? For example at the installation time I do "insmod tipc.o node=1", later can I update the node to 2 or 3, ..etc. ? Will TIPC tolerate such change ? Thanks Kevin --- "Ling, Xiaofeng" <xia...@in...> wrote: > currently nodeid is only 12bit, and a whole tipc address is 32bit, including zone,cluster, and > node three part. > Seems it is not so simple to change it to 64bit. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tip...@li... > > [mailto:tip...@li...] On > > Behalf Of Kevin Kaichuan He > > Sent: 2004Äê3ÔÂ12ÈÕ 12:57 > > To: tip...@li... > > Subject: [Tipc-discussion] 64-bit processor node id > > > > > > Currently I see the driver.c uses a "int node" to store > > the process node id. So it will be 32-bit node id on > > 32-bit processors. > > > > I am thinking that whether we can make it 64-bit. The reason is > > that 64-bit integer is enough to store ethernet MAC address. > > So in order to generate a cluster-wide unique node id the > > managment planes on different nodes don't need exchange any > > network packets because they can simply use MAC addresses > > as their node ids. > > > > One motivation of using TIPC in our project is that we can > > avoid the complexity of IP address managment in a stack of L2 > > switches. With 64-bit node id, I guess every node in our > > stack can start tipc totally independent from others. > > > > Will there be negative impact of 64-bit node id on the tipc ? > > > > Thank you! > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials > > Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President > > and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from > > fundamentals to system > > administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click > > _______________________________________________ > > TIPC-discussion mailing list TIP...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion > > |