RE: iSCSI: reusing ISID for recovery

["Dev" <deva@stargateip.com>]

Marj,

You wrote:
IMO, if option B were provided, initiator implementations would always just
turn on the "logout" bit, "just to be safe" and therefore, it would
effectively be no different than option A (just more protocol bits). 

I concur with this.


Thanks

Deva
Platys Communications



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hafner [mailto:hafner@almaden.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 2:19 PM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: reusing ISID for recovery
> 
> 
> 
> Marj,
> 
> I agree (that is, I don't like option C).  I'm waffling 
> between A and B.  A
> is simpler and B is "more polite".
> 
> But I have a twist on option B that may make it a bit more palettable.
> 
> The problem with option B is that requires extra protocol to have the
> additional bit to force the logout of the "dead" session, 
> mostly because
> the initiator doesn't have the context left for the old 
> session.  Suppose
> we have the target reject but in the response it puts what it 
> is using for
> TSID in the usual place.  In effect, this is saying to the 
> initiator "I
> already have a session in place with this ISID/TSID value".
> 
> I think this gives the initiator the handle it needs to expressly do a
> logout of the old session (with a valid ISID/TSID pair) or at 
> least enough
> information for the initiator to figure out what's gone 
> wrong.  That is, it
> can do session recovery or whatever else is needed.  In this 
> way, we don't
> need anything like a "force" bit in the login.  He has more 
> steps to do,
> but they would be the same steps he would do if he just 
> wanted to cleanup a
> old session he did know about.
> 
> Jim Hafner
> 
>