RE: iSCSI gateways, proxies, etc.

["Jim Hafner/Almaden/IBM" <hafner@almaden.ibm.com>]

Charles,

In some sense I agree with you.  But I'd turn it around. In your scenario,
it is MY OBLIGATION to give to A an identifier for B that is consistent
with A's view of the world.  I shouldn't be so myopic to think that A's
equals mine.   How I might discover A's view of the world is implementation
dependent.  In fact, one might argue that if I don't know A's view of B,
then I have no right to ask A to do something with the data on B!

In your second paragraph, you suggest WWN.  I have to ask "whose WWN?"  If
you mean the WWN of "logical unit" in question, then that is already
covered (at least in EXTENDED COPY, see section 7.5.6.6 of SPC-2, rev 18).
Unfortunately, the burden is then on A to find the logical unit with that
WWN among all the possible locations (in the internet?) by exhaustive
search (or dumb luck).  If you mean the WWN of the SCSI target device, then
can you be more specific?   FC has WWNodeName and WWPortname, so that's
cool.  Parallel has no such identifier (that I know of).   Some of the
threads in iSCSI seem to be asking exactly the question of what that WWN is
in the IP world.  In any case, it must be something that can be used by
some well-known method to find an address for the device. (In FC, I can
usually get from WWN to N_Port by clever queries to the nameserver, e.g.).
DNS has this property (within a given domain), so it's not universally
global.

Jim Hafner


Charles Monia <cmonia@NishanSystems.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 10-12-2000 11:28:51
AM

Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu


To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  RE: iSCSI gateways, proxies, etc.



Hi:

The naming issue is only one aspect of the problem.  Another factor is the
implicit assumption of how all devices see the world.  For example, if I
give device 'A' a third pary command referencing the network address of B,
I
am providing B's address in my frame of reference, under the assumption
that
A's view of the network is the same as mine.

Now, if I have followed the naming, addressing and tunneling discussions,
it
seems to me that this assumption may be troublesome.  So, perhaps an
alternate approach to the naming issue is to use the WWN of the device as
the common denominator and leave the translation to network addresses up to
some storage naming service.

Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hafner/Almaden/IBM [mailto:hafner@almaden.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:39 AM
> To: julian_satran@il.ibm.com
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: 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
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>