RE: iSCSI: login issue - partial consensus call

["Eddy Quicksall" <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com>]

Thanks and sorry, I didn't realize that.

To simplify this ISID issue, would it make sense to make a change as
follows?

- make the InitiatorName be the name of the entity that maintains unique
ISID's. That could be an HBA or a driver controlling several NIC's.
- make a new name called the HostName that can be used for authentication.
The HostName could be optional because some special case HBA's may only be
used on closed connections and will not need authentication.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin, Nick [mailto:Nick.Martin@COMPAQ.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:47 PM
To: eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: login issue - partial consensus call


Eddy,

Yes, two HBAs in the same host could have different initiator names, but
are they really separate initiators?  It is likely that they could
provide two paths to the same target.  Perhaps one is an HBA and the
other is a software stack on a standard NIC.  Must they have separate
access rights?  Should the target have to maintain their identities
separately?  If all HBAs within a system share the same InitiatorName,
they can be used interchangeably for path fail-over.  If they do not,
then the target will need to maintain separate access rights for each
HBA within the same system.

I agree, that if they have different InitiatorName they can not have
ISID collisions, so there is no issue.

If they do share a common InitiatorName, can they peacefully co-exist in
the same ISID space within the protocol?  Can they establish sessions
with a common target without stepping on each other, and also without
requiring a common host based mechanism for partitioning the ISID space?

Today in Fibre Channel, permissions at the target are generally
administered using the unique WWUID of each HBA.  A host with multiple
HBAs must have permissions for each HBA to access the same storage or
identically wired HBAs still do not have identical privileges.  I hoped
that with iSCSI InitiatorName was identifying the host, not the HBA so
that identical permissions would normally be granted to all HBAs within
a single host.

Probably I have missed the point somewhere.  Perhaps this what
"AccessID" is for?

If no two HBAs (even in the same host) will share the same
InitiatorName, then their ISID spaces are not shared.  Even software
only iSCSI stacks must then invent unique InitiatorName.  The remaining
reason to maintain a difference between recovery login and initial login
would be ... I'm not sure.

Thanks,
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall [mailto:eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:57 AM
To: Martin, Nick; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: login issue - partial consensus call


But wouldn't the two different vendors you mention below have different
iSCSI Initiator Names? Remember, the Initiator is not the host, it is
the
HBA in this case.

If two different HBA's are going to play together then a common driver
would
be used and the driver would provide the iSCSI Initiator Name. Then, the
ISID would be properly maintained by the driver.

Think of the Initiator Name as the owner of the ISID's for that name.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin, Nick [mailto:Nick.Martin@compaq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:50 PM
To: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1); ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: login issue - partial consensus call


Marj,

You mention vendors not knowing how to play right.
The problem is that iSCSI does not and will not specify how two HBAs
from different vendors installed in the same Initiator should or could
get a range of ISIDs for their exclusive use.  This will be operating
system specific and vendor defined.  It is uncertain that the same tool
or repository would be used by all HBA vendors in any environment.
Given this, accidental overlap in ISID space is not unlikely.

Given that there is no one way to play right, we must make sure that
everyone can at least play nice.

My expectation is that sessions are infrequently established and long
lived.  ISIDs may be re-used at will by their current owners.  When no
"already owned" ISIDs are available, or an attempt to re-use an "already
owned" ISID failed, and HBA would need to a) "probe" for a new available
ISID or b) fail the request to establish the session.  Session recovery
should not be attempted unless a session is known to have failed.

If tools are available, and the administrator has used them correctly,
then HBAs will not collide in ISID space.  If the tools are not
available or were not used correctly, I would hope the second HBA can
still attempt to come up without impacting the sessions established by
the first.

Again, I state my support for a login with existing ISID harmlessly
fails (the Target state does not change) unless a session recovery
indicator is set.  Also if a session recovery indicator is set, and the
ISID is not in use (by this Initiator at this Target), the login also
fails.

Thanks,
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)
[mailto:marjorie_krueger@hp.com]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:09 PM
To: Martin, Nick; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: login issue - partial consensus call


> In particular this enables independent agents within the same
initiator to
> attempt a login without knowing all ISIDs in use by other agents.
Each
> agent would know the ISID of sessions it had successfully
established,
but
> not the ISIDs for sessions established by others.  It can use the
ISIDs it
> knows to recover sessions it owns.  If an agent gets a  failure
attempting
to
> establish a new session, it would pick a different ISID and
> retry (or just quit), rather than disrupting a session of another
agent.

The intent of the presentation on SCSI/iSCSI modeling, and the text in
the
draft, is to illustrate how this example is not a recommended
implementation
choice due to the probability of violating the SCSI/iSCSI rules pointed
out.
If the "independant agents" had partitioned the ISID space, there would
be
no collision on login and no time wasted.  Your illustrated
implementation
could spend significant time "trying" ISID's in use by the "other
agents".

However, I'm starting to have more sympathy with Julian's concerns due
to
the apparent risks of different vendors' initiator implementations not
following the rules.

I just imagined having vendor A's HBA installed and happily servicing
applications, installing vendor B's "plug-n-play" implementation, and
having
all A's sessions aborted cause B doesn't know how to play right :-(

Marj