iSCSI: NIC interoperability

["Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>]

After seeing some of the emails on this topic from Dave 
Sheehy, David Black and Jim Hafner, I have some comments
and questions.

It appears to me that the following three are the major
issues that one has to deal with for building a multi-NIC
iSCSI Node, where the NICs are potentially from different
vendors.
	A. Each NIC MUST allow the Node name to be configurable.
	B. Each NIC MUST allow the ISID range to be configurable
           (if deployed in an initiator configuration). 
	C. In addition, if only one (initiator/target) portal group 
           is sought to be presented (i.e. session spanning across
           any and all of these NICs is a requirement), each NIC
           MUST allow itself to be managed by an externally-resident 
           "session manager" in some "TBD standard way".

Admittedly, C is is the hardest and till the "TBD standard way"
is defined to interact with a session manager, it cannot be 
mandated.  Failure to comply with C would only create multiple
portal groups in an iSCSI implementation - each portal group
limited to NIC(s) from a given vendor.

But, A and B above seem reasonable and in fact seem required
to be mandated - both to avoid the problems as with FC Node
Name, and also to address the concerns of not leaving target
with a deterministic way to enforce access control mechanisms 
and such.

I realize that the "no duplicate nexus" goal does not strictly
require A (hence neither B), but I recommend that A be mandated, 
thus automatically making B an additional requirement for initiator
configurations.  Rev08 iSCSI draft seems to refer to A and B 
in section 9 (implementation notes) as "should".  Was there a 
concern about the appropriateness of mandating A and B in the
main modeling discussion?  They appear fairly straightforward
to implement.  

If the reasoning was not to require _any_ configuration of an 
iSCSI NIC, I would argue that you require some "name" to be 
configurable anytime you want to build a logically monolithic 
entity (as in a node) from smaller components (each of which 
can act as a logically independent entity in its own right).

Comments from NDT and/or Julian would help.

Thanks.
-- 
Mallikarjun 

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions Organization
MS 5668 Hewlett-Packard, Roseville.
cbm@rose.hp.com