RE: iSCSI: Connection status summary corrections

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

David,

Has EtherChannel technology been investigated?  As far as redundant paths,
SCTP already provides this feature.  What is missing?

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Black_David@emc.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:32 AM
> To: julian_satran@il.ibm.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: Connection status summary corrections
>
>
> > Regarding the requirement to have multiple connections or not I
> would not
> say that it
> > precludes ONE connection for control and ONE for data as many other
> > transport mechanisms (some buses, some protocols like FTP) use.
>
> And as the person who called that consensus, I am informing Julian that he
> is incorrect.  I know that Matt Wakeley has a standing objection to this
> consensus, and now Julian makes two (although I hope that's a
> misunderstanding).
> I continue to be amazed at the lack of ability to make progress on these
> session issues - does anyone else want to reopen the issue of whether
> more than one TCP connections will be REQUIRED in an iSCSI session?
>
> At the moment, continued discussion of sessions appears to be making
> negative progress ...
>
> --David
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------
>