Re: iSCSI Autosense Consensus, Connection next steps

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

David - an excellent and timely summary.

Indeed we need more feedback on the symmetric/asymmetric item and some
consideration
to the fact that - if we go for the asymmetric - we might need a longer
time as the rewrite is
more extensive (although not that complex).  The selection of a control
channel adds some
complexity - but not too much - as we have already agreed to replace the
implicit logout
with an explicit logout (done on a different connection).

Another item in which I feel that we need some more feedback is the reset
issue.
Mallikarjun has a good point - but I have a hard time finding a decent
(simple)
solution.

And with some vacation and holidays coming we are about to run out of time.

Julo

Black_David@emc.com on 03/09/2000 18:20:15

Please respond to Black_David@emc.com

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:   Black_David@emc.com
Subject:  iSCSI Autosense Consensus, Connection next steps




> It looks like we have consensus - but the chairmen have the call.

Indeed we do, and I apologize for the delay, due to an inability to
get connected.

First, on Autosense, I believe that rough consensus exists for
iSCSI to require Autosense.  I have seen only one objection;
If anyone other than Doug Otis disagrees with this, please
say so on the list.

Second, on connections, I haven't seen enough discussion to call
consensus, but I am going to try to narrow the option space and
structure the discussion.  Four models for sessions have been
proposed:

(1) Symmetric - all connections usable for command and data.
(2) Asymmetric - single command connection, others are data.
(3) Split - assign LUN sets to specific connections or pools of
     connections.
(4) SCTP - use SCTP's support for multiple connections.

I have only seen one message suggesting/supporting (3) Split, so
I believe rough consensus exists to not pursue that model
any further.  If anyone other than Paul von Stamwitz disagrees,
and believes that the Split model should be pursued, please
say so on the list with technical rationale.

I haven't seen enough discussion on use of SCTP instead of
TCP to call consensus.  I am concerned that this list is not
going to produce a consensus on the issue phrased in that
fashion (i.e., pick exactly one).  The one point on which there
does seem to be consensus is that SCTP is a considerably
younger protocol that TCP, and hence the likely timelines
to availability of hardware acceleration seem to favor TCP.
OTOH, this sort of future prediction can easily miss the mark.

I can see two possible ways to make progress in this area:
- An off-line design team to do an intensive evaluation of SCTP
     vs. TCP for iSCSI.
- Recognize the merits of SCTP as well as TCP, plan for both
     with the anticipation that TCP will be used first.
The latter makes more sense to me, because it appears to
be more amenable to consensus, avoids the investment
of effort in the design team, and avoids having the prospect
of abandoning TCP hanging over the heads of those engaged
in TCP-specific work.  The practical implication of proceeding
in this fashion is that SCTP-friendliness becomes an additional
criteria to use in evaluating iSCSI design proposals.  Proceeding
in this fashion is only a proposal at this juncture -- please
comment on whether this is the right way to proceed (to me
or on the list).

The specification of sessions for iSCSI over TCP needs to
proceed, so under the assumption that either the "plan for
both" path will be pursued, or that we can't wait for the
design team's conclusions, and hence need to work on TCP
in case it is selected, I want to summarize the tradeoffs
between the Symmetric and Asymmetric session models,
in the aim of simulating more discussions so that we can
get to consensus.

[X] The Symmetric model imposes additional work on implementations
     that do not use multiple connections because they will
     have to implement the command numbering.  The
     Asymmetric model does not do this.
[Y] The Asymmetric model makes dealing with a failed control
     connection more complicated than the symmetric model
     because agreement between the two sides is required
     to establish a new control connection (or use an existing
     data connection for control).

I have seen the discussion of [X] favoring Asymmetric for systems
that will not support multiple TCP connections per iSCSI session.
I also note (as an example of applying the SCTP-friendliness
from above) that [X] favoring Asymmetric also applies to SCTP, as
there seems to be no point in using multiple SCTP sessions in a
single iSCSI session.

We need to give the folks working on revising the iSCSI draft some
direction on this issue in fairly short order, so comments are hereby
solicited ...

Thanks,
--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140, FAX: +1 (508) 497-6909
black_david@emc.com  Cellular: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------