RE: iSNS: Event registry and notification

[Joshua Tseng <jtseng@NishanSystems.com>]

JP,
> 
> Josh,
> 
> >  DD's define security/access control policy.  If a new node
> >  only had access permission to one other iSCSI node, then those
> >  two nodes would be the only members of the DD.  A node can be
> >  a member of multiple DD's.  If 255 devices are in the DD, that
> >  implies that all 255 devices have permission to access each
> 
> In my reading of the spec, my understanding was that DD only provided
> a higher level access control and security but the final 
> access control
> is
> actually decided by:
>     a) Per Target's  login access control
>     b) Target's  Logical Unit access control (i.e target 
> would only list
> the LUs
>         allowed for access in response to REPORT LU command)

Your a) is correct.  But by using iSNS, the target "slaves" its
login access control policy to the iSNS.  If the target is placed
into a DD with initiators A, B, and C by the management GUI, then
the administrator is configuring that target for access by initiators
A, B, and C.  The target's login access control policy would then
be configured by the iSNS to allow that access.

b) is a function of SCSI.  iSNS and iSCSI does not get involved
at that level.

> 
> Your clarification above seems to be saying that, if a target x, and
> target y
> exist inside of a DD of which initiator z is also a member, then both
> targets
> x and y must provide login and Logical Unit access to initiator 'z'.

Yes, this is correct if initiator 'z' were placed in the same DD
as target x and target y.

> 
> Is this correct ? If it is indeed true, then this results in 
> creation of
> a huge number
> of DDs even in small networks (which I hate to see) - I tend to think
> that
> more DDs you create, more you would need to administer and more you
> would
> need to manage (contrary to one's expectation)

Yes, in a large storage network, there will be a large number of DDs.
That is why we added Discovery Domain Sets (DDS) to iSNS.

Josh
> 
> -JP
> 
>