RE: iSCSI:Can each do there own thing?

[Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>]

On Thu, 30 May 2002 pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:

> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Martins Krikis wrote:
>
> [very large snip]
>
> > Summary:
> >
> > 1. "no-originating on split-key scheme"
> > 2. "no-originating (except declarations) on split-key scheme"
> > 3. "no-originating on split-pair scheme"
> > 4. "no-originating (except declarations) on split-pair scheme"
> > 5. "empty-PDUs until end-of-data scheme"
> > 6. "empty-PDU on split-pair scheme"
>   7. "no-originating until end-of-data scheme"
>
> (I added 7)
> My preference is for 5 or 7.
>
> I think having to check for a split key or pair before making
> the decision on what to send is undesireable.

Agreed.

> However, I would also like to point out that 5 is almost
> equivalent to allowing an unlimited PDU size (or a PDU size up to
> the buffer size at the end of 4.1) during negotiation. The only
> difference is that the receiver can pace the arrival of the
> data by sending blank PDUs with 5 but it is not clear to me
> that that makes much implementation difference when one must be
> able to buffer the whole negotiation.

I agree that with 5 you do have to be able to buffer the whole negotiation
payload. But that size only has to be 16k if you don't do the long-key
cryptographic techniques, and 64k if you do.

If an extended negotiation payload weighs in at over 64k, I think it's
fair to indicate an error (if you're the target) and close the connection.

If you aren't doing long-key crypto negotiation (kerberos and SPKM AFAIK),
it would be fine to stop after 16k.

Thoughts?

Take care,

Bill