SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    iSCSI ACA requirement



    I'm having heartburn with the statement in iSCSI rev 10 clause 9.2:
    "As iSCSI can have many commands in-flight between initiator and target,
    iSCSI mandates support for ACA."
    
    My understanding of the above statement is that iSCSI target must indicate
    support for NACA=1.
    
    Requiring ACA is problematic and normally not necessary for implementations
    for a variety of reasons.
    Examples:
    a. A small number of devices actually support NACA=1.
    b. In practice FC applications do not require command ordering (i.e., use of
    the Simple Queue Tag). If ordering is a consideration the application will
    issue the command and wait for the response.
    c. The FC/FCP standards do not require NACA=1.
    d. Complicates bridging implementations
    	- bridge must proxy NACA=1 for a device that does not support NACA=1
    	- bridge must maintain NACA behavior when the end device does not support
    NACA=1
    
    I do understand the benefits to requiring NACA=1 especially when command
    ordering and stateful operations are desired, but its not realistic at this
    time, IMHO.
    As such this use of ACA should be a SHOULD, not a must or mandate.
    
    Dave
    
    


Home

Last updated: Sat Feb 02 03:18:13 2002
8606 messages in chronological order