Re: IPS and SCTP

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

Just one clarification; although header digests can be eliminated,
data digests must remain for the same reasons given in the
security draft.

--
Mark

Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> > Sure.  Perhaps a start would be (for me) to write an
> > individual submission extension draft for running, say,
> > iSCSI over SCTP.  Would that be of interest to this WG?
> > What would be the best timing for such a submission?
> 
> I can't speak for the WG as a whole, but that sounds like
> a reasonable course of action to me.  Getting a first
> version of your draft submitted far enough in advance
> of the Atlanta meetings so that people will have time to read
> and consider it (i.e., well before the "just prior to the
> deadline" draft deluge) ought to allow the WG the opportunity
> to decide whether to make it an official work item in Atlanta.
> 
> A few iSCSI over SCTP things to start with:
> - Header digests can be eliminated since SCTP now uses CRC32C,
>         and should result in a visible simplification of error
>         recovery.
> - Unless SCTP has changed to allow load balancing as part of
>         its multi-homing/failover support, iSCSI sessions will
>         need to support multiple SCTP sessions per connection
>         for load balancing.
> - SCTP's ability to avoid head-of-line blocking should be useful
>         when immediate delivery of iSCSI commands is requested.
> 
> Enjoy,
> --David
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 249-6449            FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018
> black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------

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