RE: iscsi : target port definition

["KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>]

> Per the above definition, the I-T nexus target end point is that target
portal
> group, which is not the case when initiators choose to establish I-T nexi
> (sessions) to subsets of the target portal group, in order to export
multiple
> scsi paths to upper layer wedge drivers.

I think Jim is suggesting that the initiator would have to establish two
"SCSI initiator ports" to the same target portal group, which would
translate to two different ISIDs for this SCSI initiator node.  How does
that conflict with this definition?  Upper layer wedge drivers shouldn't
know the difference between two separate initiator ports providing the
multiple paths or one initiator port connecting to two different target
ports, right?

> Do you see any reasons why the definition of a target port should not be
> symmetric with the definition of the initiator port ? i.e. (iscsi target
name
> + TSID) = target port. (= both port name & port identifier). This would
more
> accurately model the target port to be the end point of the I-T nexus
(session).

Of course there are a number of combinations of possibilities for defining
what comprises the SCSI port within iSCSI.  Initially the model did specify
TSID as part of the target port identifier, but this seemed to create more
"rules" to enforce at the target side (more restrictive than necessary) and
the benefits of TSID vs target portal group were not compelling.  The idea
of target portal group as the target port endpoint seemed to provide the
necessary protection (against parallel nexus, etc) with the least amount of
enforcement rules.

Marj