SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: iscsi : numerical negotiation wording is ambiguous



    Sanjeev,
    
    I do not believe your example is in line with the discussion. I'd rather
    you considered the case of an FC initiator that got back a PLOGI
    response with parameters that are not acceptable for that initiator. Do
    you expect the initiator to send a LS_RJT to the target ??? 
    
    I would hope not :)
    
    The FC initiator would give up on that Nx_Port and move onto another
    one. Ditto for iSCSI. Either re-negotiate parameters, or close the TCP
    connection. REJECTs are only sent from targets to initiators.
    
    Regards,
    Santosh
    
    
    
    "Sanjeev Bhagat (TRIPACE/Zoetermeer)" wrote:
    > 
    > Julian, Santosh,
    > 
    > Here is what i have to say
    > 
    > In either of the cases reject message is not needed if there is no double
    > check required.
    > 
    > A reject is needed in both cases to allow some flexibility and i will give
    > you an example for this
    > 
    > All SCSI devices today available have Sync options for more than 10MB/sec.
    > 
    > Consider a chip designed which works fine for sync negotiation rate of
    > upto40MB/sec but misbehaves or behaves illegally for sync options less than
    > 10 MB/sec. In such case a device driver for such a chip will start
    > negotiating with the SCSI device for 40 MB/sec. If the SCSI device returns a
    > value of 8MB/sec then in this case the device driver must send a reject
    > message for sync negotiation. (although it is an illegal condition but it
    > still allows room for slightly misbehaving devices to operate properly in
    > Non-SYNC mode). This is my basis of saying that we must have a reject
    > message in both cases although it is strictly not required.
    > 
    > Sanjeev
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Santosh Rao [mailto:santoshr@cup.hp.com]
    > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:38 PM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Cc: Sanjeev Bhagat (TRIPACE/Zoetermeer); 'Julian Satran'
    > Subject: Re: iscsi : numerical negotiation wording is ambiguous
    > 
    > Julian & Sanjeev,
    > 
    > Responding to both your mails......
    > 
    > Julian :
    > 
    > I think you may have mis-interpreted my comments. I believe Sanjeev has
    > clarified the intent of my suggestions.
    > 
    > I am *not* suggesting that the responder send back its values and these
    > be blindly imposed on the originator. On the contrary, my suggestion is
    > that the computation of the result of the negotiation (higher or lower
    > of the 2 values) be only performed by the responder and sent back to the
    > originator.
    > 
    > The result of the negotiation is the same in both cases and there is no
    > REJECT required in my case nor yours. The difference is the advantages
    > I've stated in my model.
    > 
    > Sanjeev, in response to your comment :
    > 
    > " [Sanjeev Bhagat (TRIPACE/Zoetermeer)] Although there is
    > >  no reject , but it can be a problem in future .
    > >  Consider your example of DataPDULength in your own
    > >  message. Suppose offering party sends a value of 16,384
    > >  (this is also lowest value it can send) and responding
    > >  party responds with 8,192. In this case the offering
    > >  party will have to reject the negotiation. So a reject
    > >  message is needed in this case also. "
    > 
    > There is NO need for any REJECT in the above case. If the initiator
    > is'nt satisfied with the value returned by the originator and cannot
    > function with the negotiated values, it can simply close the TCP
    > connection. There is no need to send any REJECT.
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > Santosh
    > 
    
    -- 
    ##################################
    Santosh Rao
    Software Design Engineer,
    HP-UX iSCSI Driver Team,
    Hewlett Packard, Cupertino.
    email : santoshr@cup.hp.com
    Phone : 408-447-3751
    ##################################
    


Home

Last updated: Mon Oct 01 16:17:21 2001
6940 messages in chronological order