SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI Markers


    • To: "John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>, <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
    • Subject: RE: iSCSI Markers
    • From: "Glenn Dasmalchi" <glennd@chelsio.com>
    • Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:30:49 -0800
    • content-class: urn:content-classes:message
    • Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    • Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1"
    • Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    • Thread-Index: AcGZvy8bOurQKhHNSrajoDjTNhOJgwAOoUig
    • Thread-Topic: iSCSI Markers

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John Hufferd [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:27 AM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: iSCSI Markers
    >  
    > I see no relationship to COWS, except both have an 8 byte 
    > header.   If you
    > have TUFs, you do not need to have Word Stuffing.  The 
    > problem with COWS is
    > not is header it is the Word Stuffing and the Replacement Pointers.
    > 
    The random key marker approach in the TUF draft has a non-zero
    probability of generating a "false positive" in theory (requires
    resegmenting middle boxes + aliased data + exact length resegmentation,
    etc.). Personally I think the probability is so low as to not be a
    consideration, but a COWS approach using TUF-style segmentation does
    address the issue.
    
    The point about the iSCSI charter is interesting, do others feel that
    the segmentation requirements for TUF/PDU Alignment disqualify it from
    consideration for iSCSI?
    
    -Glenn
    


Home

Last updated: Thu Jan 10 15:17:50 2002
8346 messages in chronological order