Re: iSCSI: Wrapping up SendTargets

[Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com>]

This thread turned out more interesting than I had expected,
but anyway, after reading through the messages sent while I
was gone, it looks like we at least have some consensus on
keeping SendTargets.

I would like to see John's option #2 as well.  Currently,
SendTargets is documented in the naming & discovery document;
where should we put it in the iSCSI spec?

We will also need to close on some of the previous threads
about aggregation tags, iteration, etc.

It looks like we should continue the thread on the future
(SLP, iSNS, etc.) discovery stuff, but I should have started
that one separately.

--
Mark

John Hufferd wrote:
> 
> iSCSI Team,
> I think that Jim has said it well.  I had a proposal about an Annex, for
> the SendTargets, but whether we do that or not, I am getting the feeling
> that most folks think, at least for this version of the protocol that we
> keep SendTargets, and the subset that can be used as a Report Portal
> Groups.  Even Mark, even though he thought he could Hack the SLP Source
> code to do a similar thing, thought that it was best to keep SendTargets.
> 
> I would like to propose that we Close on Keeping the SendTargets command,
> and the subset that is either Report Portal Groups or SendTargets <iSCSI
> Target Name> (which returns only the information for that target only).
> 
> Now as to where we put the command.  I suggested an Annex, but can clearly
> live with it in the Main document.  I seemed to get very little support for
> the idea of the Annex, and since I think that the functions of Report
> Portal Groups, must be part of the base,  I would like to suggest that we
> either
> 1) Place the SendTargets in the Annex, and put a Report Portal Groups in
> the main document, or
> 2) Keep the Send Targets in the Main Document and add the argument of
> <iSCSI Target Name>
> 
> Please state your positions
> 
> .
> .
> .
> John L. Hufferd
> Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
> IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
> (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
> Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
> 
> Jim Hafner/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS@ece.cmu.edu on 06/12/2001 04:56:10 PM
> 
> Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
> 
> To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
> cc:
> 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

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
mbakke@cisco.com
763.398.1054