|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iSNS, SLP, and FCIPThe interim meeting notes indicate that we need to make progress on this. Let me start by injecting a couple of things that either weren't discussed at or may not have been clear from the interim meeting: (1) SLP scopes are allowed to overlap in a fashion similar to Fibre Channel zones -- Service, User, and Directory Agents can each be in multiple scopes. (2) RFC 2610 specifies DHCP options for configuring SLP Directory Agent locations and SLP scopes for both User and Service Agents. This would allow DHCP to be used for centralized administration of an SLP infrastructure, and works even when DHCP is not used for IP address assignment. One caveat about the analogy in (1) above - Fibre Channel zones are above the level of FCIP and completely transparent to it. SLP and iSNS for FCIP would be used only for tunnel setup - telling each FCIP device about peers to whom it should establish TCP connections for FCIP. Also, both of these have some impact on iSCSI use of iSNS - I'll pick up that topic in a separate message. Going back over the meeting notes on this subject, I see the following topics: (1) Change notification (RFC 3082) (2) Scope vs. discovery domains (3) Periodic re-registration timing values (4) SLP only supports strings (5) Centralized administration Taking these up in order ... -- (1) Change notification There are two cases here, initial discovery and loss of connectivity. For initial discovery, FCIP may not need change notification *because* it's a peer to peer protocol (as opposed to client- server), so it doesn't matter who sets up the initial TCP connection. For the situation in which some FCIP devices are up and running and a new one comes up, SLP-based discovery at the new device is sufficient to set up everything. The FCIP draft doesn't appear to contain any words about how to deal with concurrent setup - i.e., both peers initiate setup at the same time, resulting in two parallel TCP connections that aren't associated with a single FC link. Some text on this topic should be added to the FCIP draft. For loss of connectivity, either FCIP or something running over it (e.g., FSPF) is going to heartbeat each connection, and so no external mechanism seems to be necessary. The one situation that doesn't seem to be covered here is a partial loss of connectivity (FCIP device loses touch with one of its peers, but not all of them). These scenarios tend to be messy, and I'm not sure how iSNS compares to SLP in dealing with them (loss of connectivity to an iSNS server seems to have more severe impacts than loss of connectivity to an SLP DA). -- (2) Scope vs. discovery domains For FCIP, these appear to be essentially the same concept since SLP scopes can overlap in the same fashion as iSNS discovery domains. iSNS is somewhat better at information hiding - with SLP, each agent knows what scope(s) it's in, whereas with iSNS, that information is private to the nameserver (similar to Fibre Channel). This may make a big difference if static configuration and more than a handful of scopes are involved, but appears to be less of an issue if DHCP is used. -- (3) Periodic re-registration SLP registrations with a Directory Agent carry a lifetime that defines both how long the DA can cache the registration and the period within which the registration must be refreshed. This results in additional traffic to do the refreshes. Lifetimes are measured in seconds, and RFC 2608 recommends a default of 5 minutes before an idle TCP connection is closed. This suggests that a few minutes for a re-registration period may be reasonable, and doesn't sound like a cause for a lot of traffic for moderate-sized configurations. iSNS usage should generate less traffic, regardless. -- (4) SLP only supports strings As does iSCSI. OTOH, turning an X.509 cert into a string is not exactly pleasant, but OTOH FCIP doesn't seem to have a requirement for distributing non-string parameters. This may change as FCIP security is more tightly specified. -- (5) Centralized administration RFC 2610 provides a way for DHCP to be used to centrally administer SLP (and do so in a fashion where the only multicast-like things are DHCP's link-level broadcasts). On the assumption that FCIP connectivity among N devices is considerably simpler in structure than typical FC zoning among N ports, this seems to scale up to reasonable-sized configurations (several dozen FCIP devices should not be a problem, I'm not sure about more than 100). This is all for further discussion and comment, although it does not appear to present a strong case for use of iSNS with FCIP. Thanks, --David --------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140 FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:38 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |