RE: iSCSI Naming and Discovery (Bootstrapping)

["Mark S. Edwards" <marke@muttsnuts.com>]

Douglas,

At 05:17 PM 10/6/2000 -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
>Charles,
>
>Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol is the first step in bootstrapping;
>Lightweight Directory Access Protocol should be the second.  With these very
>powerful tools, all overhead needed to communicate with SCSI is done prior
>to making any connections.  LDAP would contain knowledge of SCSI defined as
>a SCSI service schema.


I'm having trouble with your use of the term LDAP.  It's a while since I 
last played with directories, in fact before LDAP was defined, so excuse me 
if I've got this wrong.

As far as I know, LDAP is just a protocol for accessing a 
database.  Originally, the database was one based on X.500, though I guess 
that with the success of LDAP as a protocol this is now somewhat 
blurred.  However, just because LDAP can be used to access a database does 
not mean that any one database looks like another.  I have a lot of trouble 
when I find the terms LDAP and database used inter-changeably - they are 
NOT the same thing.

As far as I can see, there are two methods of storing iSCSI config 
data.  Either in a simple flat database or in a more mature hierarchical 
database.  Your proposals seem to assume a dedicated server to implement 
the former.

If iSCSI has to use an LDAP mechanism, won't users wish to incorporate 
their iSCSI configurations within existing deployed databases with LDAP 
mechanisms such as NDS and AD (two I am more familiar with) ?  This 
potentially requires some knowledge in the iSCSI target of the structure or 
schema of the remote database.  It also requires initial configuration to 
insert the iSCSI target in to the tree - though I guess that this could be 
considered to be quite outside the scope of iSCSI.  The only useful thing 
that iSCSI could define would be the schema, then at least all 
implementations should be guaranteed the same basic info and ought to be 
interoperable with respect to configuration tools.

To be honest, I don't see too much worth in an iSCSI dedicated database 
server.  Surely this is just yet another machine to maintain and it is just 
a fancy way of holding a text file configuration.

LDAP would be nice to have if it allows for integration with deployed X.500 
databases, but having it for its own sake seems a little over the top for 
me.  If the naming scheme allows for several levels of service starting at 
local text file configuration up to full-blown X.500 integration then I 
think I'm with you.

Just my $0.02.

regards,

Mark.