SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    Re: iSCSI Autosense Consensus, Connection next steps



    Stephen Bailey wrote:
    > 
    > > 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.
    > 
    > For the purposes of shaping the consensus, here's my stance:
    > 
    >   1) SCTP should only be pursued if TCP does not admit a viable
    >      solution to the iSCSI requirements.
    > 
    > Given that there are many iSCSI community participants expressing the
    > belief that iSCSI on TCP IS possible, I believe iSCSI on SCTP
    > proponents are just going to be stuck holding an `I told you so'
    > card.
    > 
    
    I would rather have it in the spec and a option and then not have
    to say "I told you so" but instead say .. lets go try it with SCTP
    since it is allowed...
    
    > This gates my second statement:
    > 
    >   2) multiple connections per session should only be supported if the
    >      underlying transport (e.g. SCTP) layer supports it.
    > 
    > Obviously, TCP does not presently support this abstraction, so
    > assuming SCTP gets killed for now, I am against multiple connections
    > per session.
    
    I strongly concur here. We can NOT have multiple TCP connections and
    be able to stay TCP friendly to the rest of the internet...
    
    R
    
    > 
    > In general, I am dubious that connection bundling above the transport
    > layer, but below some more application-informed layer (e.g. a wedge
    > driver) will work acceptably.  However, if the transport layer
    > provides it, then, by definition, it must work (ha, ha), or at least
    > it's not iSCSI's place to say that it won't.
    > 
    > Steph
    
    -- 
    Randall R. Stewart
    randall@stewart.chicago.il.us or rrs@cisco.com
    815-342-5222 (cell) 815-477-2127 (work)
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:07:33 2001
6315 messages in chronological order