Micha Nelissen [off-list ref] wrote:

=20
Bounine, Alexandre wrote:

quoted

1. The destid for the switch needs an additional mechanism to share

it

quoted

among processors in the RIO network,

=20
? See comment for 2)
=20

quoted

2. It takes ID value away from the pool of available IDs, what will

=20
It does not take an ID away, it shares it with a connected endpoint to
that switch. The tag uses one extra bit to identify the device as a
switch instead of an endpoint. This provides the information to
unambiguously identify a switch from an endpoint.

OK taking away #2. But do not see how it justifies storing two values of
destid.

And you have just confirmed using CT for unique identification. We
simply have differences in interpretation of CT: you are using component
tag to pass unique identification and I am using CT as a unique
identification. I prefer not to assume any relationship between routing
information and the component tag.

Alex.