an iSCSI name format for gateways?

[Robert Grant <Robert.Grant@mcdata.com>]

Hello,

The gateway "sub-group" has had a few discussions around node naming - and I
thought I would see what the wider community thought about one of the ideas.
Note that this issue doesn't concern the current iSCSI documents (which
aren't attempting to address gateway issues) - so I definitely do not intend
to de-rail their march to closure/last call!

I'd like to gage people's reaction to having a form of the iSCSI node name
for gateways. I think this idea was mentioned at Huntington Beach in
reaction to Dave Petersen's presentation on portal groups. Dave's
presentation suggested that two separate gateways presenting the same FC
node could present a single node (with an "eui." name) with 2 portal groups.
An alternative suggested was the gateways should present the FC node as two
separate iSCSI nodes (so that each gateway would be an entirely separate
I_T_nexus). 

One drawback of this alternative is that the configuration of the iSCSI
network couldn't extend to the FC node but rather only to the gateway (for
example, there'd be no way to have the FC node be a member of an iSNS
discovery domain - only each individual gateway).

An iSCSI node name format for gateways might be like the "eui." form - along
the lines of "gw.nodeEUI64.gatewayEUI64". This could allow the separate
node/I_T_nexus presentation as suggested but still provide a "handle" (the
root "gw.nodeEUI64") to be configured for discovery (i.e. iSNS or SLP). Or -
rather than a new "gw." form, maybe just an expanded "eui." form or an
expanded "iqn." form by setting aside a specific URL 
(like iqn.2002-04.com.fciscsigateways.nodeEUI64.gatewayEUI64).

Having a name format like this doesn't address some aspects (like setting a
mode page on "gw.nodeEUI64#1.gatewayEUI64#1" might also effect
"gw.nodeEUI64#1.gatewayEUI64#2"), but it could be helpful for configuration
of discovery.

All comments welcome.

Regards,
Rob
 
Rob Grant
McDATA Corporation