|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: Wrapping up SendTargetsModified SLP should be the mandatory to implement. SendTargets is allowed under a grandfather agreement since it is out there and should be carried in an Annex with a clear notation that it is obsolete and is there because of pre-standard implementations. There is no need to mention iSNS - that is pretty nearly a vendor specific approach to solving their perception of a problem, open source available or not. At 06/12/2001, Jim Hafner wrote: 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
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:04:27 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |