SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iSCSI: Wrapping up SendTargets



    
    Modified 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under a grandfather agreement since it is out there and should be carried in an Annex with a clear notation that it is obsolete and is there because of pre-standard implementations.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