RE: iSCSI: Wrapping up SendTargets

[Charles Monia <cmonia@NishanSystems.com>]

Hi Jim:

Thanks for bringing this back on point.

> The choices are, it seems, that *every* box would need to 
> support at least
> one of:
> a) SendTargets
> b) modified SLP
> c) iSNS
> 

As I recall, the issue was whether or not to require support for
SendTargets. I thought the consensus on that issue was 'yes', irrespective
of the other two issues.  So, in my opinion, the matter of SendTargets was
indeed 'wrapped up' as far as this thread is concerned.

That said, of course, the others remain open.

Charles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hafner [mailto:hafner@almaden.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 4:56 PM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: Wrapping up SendTargets
> 
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I think this thread is wandering off the field.
> 
> The question is the issue of SendTargets.  Let's remind 
> ourselves of the
> original purpose of this proposed protocol: namely, it's 
> designed for a
> storage box that contains one or more iSCSI target devices to 
> report about
> ITSELF, about what's in it!  This includes both a list of the 
> iSCSI targets
> it has PLUS the session coordination (via tags) of the various
> IPaddress/tcpport combos it supports.
> 
> In other words, it's job is to report about itself!  The use 
> of (unicast)
> SLP as an alternative to SendTargets was focused exactly on the same
> question: I ask a single box to tell me about itself.   This 
> function lies
> between the two extremes of (a) static configuration of 
> initiators and (b)
> centralized management via iSNS style services.
> 
> Somehow, someway, we need to define a protocol for a box to 
> "tell us about
> itself" in the absense of the centralized management 
> infrastructure.  That
> seems critical to me.  Even if I want to do static 
> configuration, the guy
> doing the configuration needs a way to get at the guts of each new box
> he/she rolls into the environment.
> 
> The choices are, it seems, that *every* box would need to 
> support at least
> one of:
> a) SendTargets
> b) modified SLP
> c) iSNS
> 
> What's the consensus on the protocol we aim for to solve this 
> middle ground
> discovery problem?
> Jim Hafner
>