Re: iSCSI: New iSCSI MIB draft

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

Michele Hallak - Stamler wrote:
> 
> My answers in-line also:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Bakke [mailto:mbakke@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:19 PM
> To: Michele Hallak - Stamler
> Cc: IPS
> Subject: Re: iSCSI: New iSCSI MIB draft
> 
> Michele-
> 
> Answers inline.  Basically, we have discussed making parts of the
> MIB writable, and need to start working on it some more.  Please keep
> posting anything that you think might be useful as a writable attribute
> or a creatable/deletable row.
> 
> --
> Mark
> 
> Michele Hallak - Stamler wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > 1.I see that the target access list is still read-only. How do you
> think
> > that it should be configured?
> 
> I had originally assumed that these would be configured by other
> means than SNMP, but it is certainly something that makes sense to
> configure.  I will post another message to start a thread on this.
> 
> Michele>> I think also that we should add an additional field describing
> the kind of access (read-only / read-write)
> I think also that it will be a good idea to have and enable/disable
> field as you and Keith suggested.
>
> > 2. Who should configure the aliases of the iscsi targets and
> initiators?
> 
> These could easily be writable as well.
> 
> > 3. Same question for the portals.
> 
> Have to think about this one.  Any ideas?
> Michele >> For the portals, I have to tell that I have some problems:
> 1. it seems correct to allow an administrator to define iSCSI portals
> from the iSCSI MIB.

That should be possible; the iSCSI MIB would likely be the
right place to do this for many implementations.  This could
work one of two ways, depending on the implementation:

- The management station could add the IP address via the iSCSI
  MIB, and have it automatically be added on the host or device.

- The managment station could add an existing IP address (one already
  configured on the host or device); adding it here would make it
  usable by the iSCSI implementation.

Incidentally, should we add something like iscsiTgtPortalSource
to these structures?  This would be an enumerated type indicating
whether an address was statically configured, or discovered through
DHCP.

> 2. in another way, a portal has some relation to a specific interface
> (IP Address/MAC Address) and for that relation we need the IP-MIB (if
> I'm not wrong)

Technically, we don't need to do this; the relationship between
an IP address and a physical interface is typically an indirect
one that makes use of the host or device's routing tables.  However,
anything supporting iSCSI ought to have all of the TCP and IP MIBs
anyway.

> 3. so it should be specified clearly: can we define "new ip addresses"
> via this MIB or only use the existing IP defined in
> ipNetToMediaTable?

Good question for debate; it can be done either way.

> 4. anyway, IMHO, it should be the only standard way to define a new
> iSCSI TCP Port.

I would guess that most target implementations will assume an iSCSI
TCP port as the default, and the user or management station will
only have to specify one if they want something different.

> Additional comments:
> Are there no needs to configure:
> 1. Max Number of Sessions (per instance? per target? per portal?)
> 2. Max Number of connections per session?

I don't think so.  These are generally limited by the implementation,
rather than by the user.

> 
> Thanks,
>         Michele

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054