RE: single vs multiple channels for iSCSI commands

[JoeBre@exabyte.com]

Title: RE: single vs multiple channels for iSCSI commands

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hughes, James P. (MRDC) [mailto:HugheJP@nsc-bridge.network.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 10:23 PM
> To: scsi-tcp@external.cisco.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: single vs multiple channels for iSCSI commands
>
>
> I agree. One TCP connection with command and data mixed. Keep
> it simple. The
> need to go out of order is so small that we should not let
> this "wag the
> dog".

By this, do you mean that the requirement to execute CDBs in the order that they were issued, is so small as to be negligible? If so, I would ask you to re-evaluate your position.

>
> In addition, we need to have centralized control of devices.
> That is, a tape
> drive needs to be given out by a controlling authority, and
> this needs to be
> stronger than just cookies. IPSEC and SSL need another layer
> to determine
> who owns a peripheral.
 
SCSI contains commands for this purpose. See the RESERVE, RELEASE, PERSISTANT RESERVE, and PERSISTANT RELEASE CDBs. They allow a given initiator to claim exclusive access to a target. This is enforced by the target. This can be administrated by a third party SCSI device. Would this fulfill your requirement?

Joe Breher
Exbyate Corp