SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: iSCSI gateways, proxies, etc.



    
    Julo,
    
    The Map/Unmap commands will not be needed (by the time the iSCSI standard
    gets approved).  I predict that the function you want will be part of SCSI
    (i.e., approved by T10) by the Jan. 2001 meeting.   Ed Gardner is proposing
    something along these lines to solve both the iSCSI and SVP (SCSI over VI
    Protocol) issues of names larger than 8 bytes.
    
    Jim Hafner
    
    
    julian_satran@il.ibm.com@ece.cmu.edu on 10-12-2000 12:26:47 AM
    
    Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    
    
    To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    cc:
    Subject:  Re: iSCSI gateways, proxies, etc.
    
    
    
    
    
    David,
    
    That is a fair summary and I agree with it.
    I think that one point of clarification is needed with regard to 2.
    To use the T10 addresses for third party we invented the (admittedly ugly)
    map and unmap
    messages. It should be clear that as we can't afford to synchronize with
    T10
    those will have to stay and get obsoleted in some later version when T10
    moves
    to a more flexible scheme.
    
    Julo
    
    Black_David@emc.com on 11/10/2000 21:17:51
    
    Please respond to Black_David@emc.com
    
    To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    cc:
    Subject:  iSCSI gateways, proxies, etc.
    
    
    
    
    Folks,
    
    We've been going around on the topic of these for
    a while without much visible progress.  I'd like
    to suggest a means to extricate ourselves from this
    situation.
    
    Jim Hafner correctly observed that there is a
    fundamental difference between:
    - A gateway that always exposes TCP/IP addresses for the
         iSCSI targets behind it, and
    - A gateway that must be dynamically configured to
         obtain connectivity to the iSCSI targets behind it.
    We don't need to do anything to support the first class
    of gateway.  For the second class, there's another
    crucial distinction in the second category, namely
    between in-band and out-of-band configuration mechanisms.
    
    From a protocol specification viewpoint, out-of-band
    configuration mechanisms are both more flexible and
    easier to deal with.  Flexibility comes from the
    variety of possible mechanisms, for example:
    
    [A] A NAT monitors DNS traffic to/from a DNS server in
    private address space behind the NAT.  When a DNS reply
    containing a translation is intercepted, the NAT sets up
    an external IP address that maps to the internal IP address
    in the DNS reply, and substitutes that external IP address
    for the internal IP address before forwarding the reply
    (in addition to the usual translation operations performed
    on the header).  Credit/apologies to whomever (Joshua Tseng?)
    originally described this example.
    
    [B] An encrypting firewall does not provide connectivity
    to hosts behind the firewall for general traffic outside
    the firewall.  If an encrypted IPsec tunnel is set up in
    accordance with the firewall's policies, then connectivity
    to some of the hosts behind the firewall is provided for
    traffic using the tunnel in accordance with the firewall's
    policies.
    
    Note that both the NAT and the firewall have to be configured
    by some means, and that both of these mechanisms work without
    any changes to the iSCSI protocol, as both the DNS lookup and
    IPsec tunnel setup happen before the first iSCSI packet is sent.
    The fact that we don't have to specify anything makes these
    easier to deal with, and gives iSCSI compatibility with all sorts
    of things we haven't thought of (yet).
    
    Both the current URL mechanism and the discussion of the
    CONNECT message are in-band configuration mechanisms.  In the
    context of proxy configuration (Julian's concern about views
    is a different, but related issue), this has been turning
    into a tarpit on the list.  From what I can see, the issues
    here are similar to the issues in naming for 3rd party
    commands, something that is not in particularly good shape,
    despite T10's best efforts. I find it hard to believe that
    people want to repeat T10's experience with this from scratch
    for iSCSI, but ... I see three possible paths forward
    from which the WG needs to choose:
    
    (1) Rely on out-of-band gateway/proxy configuration.
    (2) Reference T10's 3rd party naming formats for target naming.
         This WG would still define an iSCSI 3rd party naming format
         and recommend it to T10, and could define ways of using
         T10 naming formats with Internet protocols (e.g., LDAP).
    (3) Invent new ways of naming targets.
    
    I'm inclined to dismiss (3) as being out-of-scope, because
    if this really is analogous to 3rd party naming, then it needs
    to be left to T10 and iSCSI should follow what T10 adopts, BUT
    I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments.
    
    (1) and (2) are complementary rather than exclusive, but the
    protocol gets simpler if we don't have to do (2).  The 3rd party
    naming recommendations to T10 are needed regardless.
    
    Ok - comments are solicited, as I do intend to try to call
    consensus on this set of issues to make progress.
    
    Thanks,
    --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
    ---------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:06:42 2001
6315 messages in chronological order