|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iscsi : OpParmresetMallikarjun, What you are suggesting is: abort for the initiator reject for the target. It is feasible but not nice. Let me think if we can have a better alternative. 07-98 still has OpParmReset. Julo "Mallikarjun C." To: ips <ips@ece.cmu.edu> <cbm@rose.hp.c cc: om> Subject: Re: iscsi : OpParmreset Sent by: owner-ips@ece. cmu.edu 27-09-01 19:10 Please respond to cbm Julian, > >From your answer it looks like you agree that we need a way to reset/abort > a negotiation Sure, I agree we need a mechanism. >but you object to the OpParmReset. Not specifically. I was only concerned that there seem to be several ways of aborting/terminating a negotiation. I can count three mechanisms for initiator - a) Abort Task b) Empty text command with TTT=0xffffffff c) OpParmReset And two for the target - a) Timing out the bookmark state, and Reject ("no bookmark for this ITT" - 0x09) the TTT. b) OpParmReset I suggest that we retain only the option-(a)'s for both, and drop the rest. For this to happen, the case (b) for initiator should probably be a Reject("Illegal bookmark") - since as you say, it does seem ambiguous. Regards. -- Mallikarjun Mallikarjun Chadalapaka Networked Storage Architecture Network Storage Solutions Organization MS 5668 Hewlett-Packard, Roseville. cbm@rose.hp.com Julian Satran wrote: > > Mallikarjun, > > >From your answer it looks like you agree that we need a way to reset/abort > a negotiation but you object to the OpParmReset. > Abort task has the disadvantage that the target can't issue it (so that > the target has no means to force an abort). > An empty task request or response is ambiguous. > We could introduce a binary field meaning goon/abort? Is that better that > OpParmReset (by which we can always introduce a richer semantics - like > rest to default). > > Julo > > > "Mallikarjun > C." To: ips <ips@ece.cmu.edu> > <cbm@rose.hp.c cc: > om> Subject: Re: iscsi : OpParmreset > Sent by: > owner-ips@ece. > cmu.edu > > > 27-09-01 03:26 > Please respond > to cbm > > > > Julian, > > I assume you mean terminate/end a negotiation by "rest a > negotiaion". If so, I can see two more ways to do the same - > - aborting the task (changes from rev06 to rev07), > - sending an empty text command with TTT=0xffffffff. > > Either should undo the results of the partial negotiation > in FFP, as we described in "Negotiation failures" section. > During the login, as Matthew pointed out, we don't seem to > need OpParmReset either. > > Can you please confirm if you see the same choices? If so, > I do not see the need for OpParmReset. > > Regards. > -- > Mallikarjun > > Mallikarjun Chadalapaka > Networked Storage Architecture > Network Storage Solutions Organization > MS 5668 Hewlett-Packard, Roseville. > cbm@rose.hp.com > > Julian Satran wrote: > > > > OpParmReset is the only way we have now to rest a negotiation in FFP > > (public or vendor specific). > > The restriction about R2T is related to a deadlock that can result when > you > > change from no to yes. > > > > Julo > > > > > > "BURBRIDGE,MATTH > > EW To: Julian > Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, > > (HP-UnitedKingdo ips@ece.cmu.edu > > m,ex2)" cc: > > <matthew_burbrid Subject: RE: iscsi : > OpParmreset > > ge@hp.com> > > Sent by: > > owner-ips@ece.cm > > u.edu > > > > > > 24-09-01 13:36 > > Please respond > > to > > "BURBRIDGE,MATTH > > EW > > (HP-UnitedKingdo > > m,ex2)" > > > > > > > > Is OpParmReset still needed now that there is no operational parameter > > negotiation until after the security phase? Why would both sides > > negoitiate > > a set of parameters only for one side to reset. Surely if one side > during > > login is not happy then it should close the connection. In FFP, as there > > is > > no way to re-negotiate (after the OpParmReset) again if one side is not > > happy then should it not close the connection and start a new one. > > > > Also if in FFP, if OpParmReset is sent then does it just reset those > > parameters that can be negoiated during FFP and not those restricted to > the > > login phase? If so would it be easier to negotiate those parameters > using > > the explicit name (e.g. InitialR2T) and remove the restriction of > (example) > > "Once set to no, it can not be set back to yes" - as this is what using > > OpParmReset permits. > > > > Matthew > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] > > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:34 PM > > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu > > Subject: Re: iscsi : OpParmreset > > > > Santosh, > > > > The main purpose of this key was to explicitly cancel the effects of a > > running negotiation and restart anew. > > As the draft stands now there is no much difference between the two - but > > on basic principles the purposes are different (as you well stated). We > > may change the value to be: > > > > OpParmReset=<default|current> > > > > to accommodate both semantics. > > > > Julo > > > > Santosh Rao > > > > <santoshr@cup. To: IPS Reflector > > <ips@ece.cmu.edu> > > hp.com> cc: > > > > Sent by: Subject: iscsi : OpParmreset > > > > owner-ips@ece. > > > > cmu.edu > > > > 20-09-01 22:19 > > > > Please respond > > > > to Santosh Rao > > > > All, > > > > Please refer the definition of OpParmReset login key. > > > > " 30 OpParmReset > > > > OpParmReset enables an Initiator or Target to request the operational > > parameters to be reset to the values they had before the negotiation." > > > > I suggest that the definition be re-worded to state that the OpParmReset > > enables an initiator or target to reset the operational parameters to > > their DEFAULT VALUES. [instead of the current definition that states > > that the parameters are reset to the values they had prior to the > > current negotiation.] > > > > The current definition requires the initiator to maintain 2 sets of > > operational parameter values, the current and the previous. In the case > > where initiator is just booting up, if the target sets OpParmReset to > > "yes", the initiator does not know what to set the op params to, since > > it has lost its prior state information. > > > > Comments ? > > > > Thanks, > > Santosh > > > > - santoshr.vcf
Home Last updated: Fri Sep 28 23:17:15 2001 6852 messages in chronological order |