SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI: ISID issue




    I agree that LU mapping might be tricky but topology mapping is not affected by ISID allocation. You have to get a consistent mapping of target ports (and the model does that) and Initiators that know how to reach targets. Initiators have to know the physical identity of the portal when they open the connection (or they can get it through a local service) and the ISID has no role in topology mapping.  

    I would also say that for any practical purpose we may request the LU mapping - for  iSCSI - be defined only by the InitiatorName part of the InitiatorPortName.

    Julo


    "ERICKSON,SHAWN (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <shawn_erickson@hp.com>
    Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

    02-10-01 19:25
    Please respond to "ERICKSON,SHAWN (HP-Roseville,ex1)"

           
            To:        santoshr@cup.hp.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu
            cc:        "'Black_David@emc.com'" <Black_David@emc.com>
            Subject:        RE: iSCSI: ISID issue

           


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
    > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:11 PM
    > To: santoshr@cup.hp.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: RE: iSCSI: ISID issue
    >
    >
    > Santosh Rao wrote:
    >
    > > I think comparisions to FC's mess-up of the node WWN are
    > not fair to the
    > > current ISID rule, since, unlike in FC, the worst case
    > scenario with the
    > > ISID rule, is that each iscsi driver on the system will take up a
    > > different iscsi initiator name.
    >
    > At least FC had the Port WWN to fall back on.  This is headed for a
    > situation
    > where the iSCSI Initiator Name is unusable for access control
    > configuration
    > because whether it corresponds to the network interface, the
    > HBA (e.g.,
    > suppose
    > there are two interfaces on the HBA), the driver, or the OS image is
    > implementation-dependent.  In FC it is completely unambiguous what the
    > Port WWN corresponds to, and that's why it's usually used for
    > LUN masking
    > and mapping solutions.  We're at risk of screwing that up, e.g. ...

    I would like to second David's concern about not leaving targets with a
    deterministic way of knowing who/what the initiators identifier relates to.
    This is not only bad for access control mechanisms but it make topology
    mapping (and related concepts) more difficult for management software
    developers.

    -Shawn

    -------------------------------------------------------
    Shawn Carl Erickson           (805) 883-4319 [Telnet]
    Hewlett Packard Company         OV NSSO Joint Venture
     Storage Resource Management R&D Lab (Santa Barbara)
    -------------------------------------------------------
               <http://ecardfile.com/id/shawnce>
    -------------------------------------------------------




Home

Last updated: Wed Oct 03 14:17:26 2001
6998 messages in chronological order