|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: is TargetName always mandatory or not?Andre, Your picture isn't quite right. The portal group tag is relative to the iSCSI target and that target is *uniquely* identified by it's name. So, in your picture, there are two targets (not one). Each can label its target portal group any way it wants (independent of the other). Each has independent control over the TSIDs it uses. Each may *share* use of a network portal, but that's a different issue. The model implies two independent targets (even if they live in the same network entity and share resources) in your scenario. In other words, the portal groups are wrt targets not the network entity. In your scenario, whatever layer (you put it in the network code) has to decide what session to add the connection to has the initiator name, the ISID, the TSID *and* the target name (you left this out) in the login request. That fully qualifies both the target and the session as well. Jim Hafner Andre Asselin 11/01/2001 12:15 pm To: Jim Hafner/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu From: Andre Asselin/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS Subject: Re: is TargetName always mandatory or not? (Document link: Database 'Jim Hafner', View '($Inbox)') Jim, I agree with what you say, except for the part that mapping TSID=target portal group tag will work. Let's assume the following architecture: I have a network entity with one network portal (and thus one portal group). Inside this entity lives two iSCSI targets. Scenerio: An iSCSI initiator opens a connection to the network portal in order to add a connection to an already existing session (the network entity's networking code knows this because TSID in the initial login request is 0). The networking code needs to determine what session the initiator wants to add to, so it compares some items from the initial login request to each of the established sessions until it finds a match. The question is what items should it compare to identify a match? Section 3.12.9 of the spec reads: The TSID is the target assigned tag for a session with a specific named initiator that, together with the ISID uniquely identifies a session with that initiator. As you say, this is clearly target centric (because, for example, an initiator could have 2 different sessions open to two different targets that have the same TSID). But from a target point of view, what that text means to me that the network entity's networking code should compare ISID + InitiatorName + TSID to determine a match. That implies that TSID must be unique per TargetName and per portal group ID. If TSID is just the target portal group tag, then the comparison wouldn't work. For example, using the architecture above where there is just one portal group, the target could have two sessions open: session A (InitiatorName=foo, ISID=1, TargetName=bar, TSID=0) and session B (InitiatorName=foo, ISID=1, TargetName=foobar, TSID=0). If it receives a login request with (InitiatorName=foo, ISID=1, TSID=0), which session is it for? Andre Asselin IBM ServeRAID Software Development Research Triangle Park, NC Jim Hafner To: 10/31/2001 cc: 06:33 PM From: Subject: (Document link: Andre Asselin) Andre, First, your comment "SSID + InitiatorName must be enough to uniquely identify a session" is target-centric. It would be different from the initiator's viewpoint. However, from the target's viewpoint, the target name is implicit and from the initiator viewpoint, the initiator name is implicit, so globally, the triple of the two names + SSID (made up of the ISID and TSID) form the identifier of the session. Locally (between two specific guys), the names are implicit so only the SSID is required. It's all a matter of point of view! As for the difference in identifiers, as I mentioned in the private note, the session is an iSCSI construct and is identified by iSCSI things. The nexus is a SCSI thing and is identified by SCSI constructs (based on how we've mapped the iSCSI things to SCSI things). However, you've brought to the fore again a related question: "what value does the TSID provide to the protocol?" I'm not going to answer that, but I will note that one target implementation that (I think) works is that the TSID = target portal group tag. The other thing to ask is "what value is there in the nexus identifier?" This is never really used in SCSI at all, so it's not a critical issue what composes it. However, it is important (IMO) that the SCSI ports have names and the logical derivative of that statement is that the nexus is identified by the concatenation of the SCSI port names (hence the definition we have). Jim Hafner Andre Asselin/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS@ece.cmu.edu on 10/31/2001 03:00:53 pm Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu To: John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: Re: is TargetName always mandatory or not? John, WHOOPS! I was wrong; you are absolutely right that the spec says "TargetName" and not "TSID". When I was reading through it, I saw "TargetName", but read to myself "TSID". Apologies... In my defense (confusion?), however, 3.12.9 says TSID rather than TargetName is used to uniquely identify a session. Going by that, SSID + InitiatorName must be enough to uniquely identify a session. Jim Hafner pointed out to me that the I_T nexus is identified by one thing and the session is identified by another. If the two must have a 1-1 mapping in iSCSI, why are there two different identifiers? Why not just use the current definition of the I_T nexus to uniquely identify both the nexus and session (i.e. get rid of TSID)? Andre Asselin IBM ServeRAID Software Development Research Triangle Park, NC John Hufferd To: Andre Asselin/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 10/31/2001 cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu 04:42 PM From: John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS Subject: Re: is TargetName always mandatory or not?(Document link: Andre Asselin) Andre, I looked again through the document and No where could I find a statement that you claimed as "a nexus, and therefore an iSCSI session, is uniquely identified by the InitiatorName, ISID, TSID, and portal group tag". It is the InitiatorName, ISID, TSID, with the TargetName and PortalGroup. Please point out to me in the Spec (8 or above), where I can find your statement on I_T Nexus. I did find the following (please ignore for this conversation the "i" and 't" stuff): "- Session: The group of TCP connections that link an initiator with a target, form a session (loosely equivalent to a SCSI I-T nexus). TCP connections can be added and removed from a session. Across all connections within a session, an initiator sees one "target image". " " - I_T nexus: According to [SAM2], the I_T nexus is a relationship between a SCSI Initiator Port and a SCSI Target Port. For iSCSI, this relationship is a session, defined as a relationship between an iSCSI Initiator's end of the session (SCSI Initiator Port) and the iSCSI Target's Portal Group. The I_T nexus can be identified by the conjunction of the SCSI port names; that is, the I_T nexus identifier is the tuple (iSCSI Initiator Name + 'i'+ ISID, iSCSI Target Name + 't'+ Portal Group Tag). NOTE: The I_T nexus identifier is not equal to the session identifier (SSID). " I have not found a place where Session ID is tied to the TSID. Hence my comment that we also need to have the TargetName in the Initial Login on all Connections. . . . John L. Hufferd Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) IBM/SSG San Jose Ca Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403, eFax: (408) 904-4688 Home Office (408) 997-6136 Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com Andre Asselin/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS@ece.cmu.edu on 10/31/2001 10:40:55 AM Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu To: ips@ece.cmu.edu cc: John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS Subject: Re: is TargetName always mandatory or not? John & Julian, How about this for the section 5 text: The initial Login request of the first connection of a session (leading login) MUST include the InitiatorName key=value pair. The initial login request of the leading Login MAY also include the SessionType key=value pair, in which case if the SessionType is not "discovery", then the initial login request MUST also include the key=value pair TargetName. John, I disagree with your second statement: I don't see any way you could have 2 different sessions established within the same portal group with the same InitiatorName, ISID, and TSID. The spec. says that a nexus, and therefore an iSCSI session, is uniquely identified by the InitiatorName, ISID, TSID, and portal group tag. There is no mention of TargetName contributing to the identificaiton of a session. In my opinion, a non-leading connection should NOT have the TargetName, since it doesn't contribute anything. Andre Asselin IBM ServeRAID Software Development Research Triangle Park, NC John Hufferd/San To: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu Sent by: Subject: Re: is TargetName always mandatory or not? owner-ips@ece. cmu.edu 10/31/2001 04:20 AM Julian, I think the TargetName should be included on the Initial Login Request on the Leading Login. It seem strange to permit the Authentication functions to proceed if perhaps the intended Target is different then the one doing the Authentication. The way it currently is written, you could pass all the Security test and then find out just before going into Full Function Phase, that it was intended for some other Target. Seems like a waste. My I think that TargetName should also be on all connections on the Initial Login Request. Here is my thinking: The SSID (ISID+TSID) is unique only with regards to a Specific Initiator and Target Node Pair. It is therefore not clear that just knowing the SSID and InitiatorName is enough to understand what session the subsequent connections are being attached to. And it is possible that the CID could be also overlapped with another session. Therefore, I think it make since to determine all this on the initial Login on every Connection, so you know at the beginning what values can be negotiated, or that are being set to the right Session. . . . John L. Hufferd Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) IBM/SSG San Jose Ca Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403, eFax: (408) 904-4688 Home Office (408) 997-6136 Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL@ece.cmu.edu on 10/30/2001 11:33:50 PM Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu To: ips@ece.cmu.edu cc: Subject: Re: is TargetName always mandatory or not? It is the leading login: The section 5 paragraph will read: The initial Login request of the first connection of a session (leading login) MUST include the InitiatorName key=value pair. The leading Login request MAY also include the SessionType key=value pair in which case if the SessionType is not "discovery" then the leading Login Request MUST also include the key=value pair TargetName. Julo Andre Asselin/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu 31-10-01 02:08 Please respond to Andre Asselin To: "IPS Reflector (E-mail)" <ips@ece.cmu.edu> cc: Subject: is TargetName always mandatory or not? In section 5 of the spec, it says "If the SessionType is not "discovery" then the initial Login Request MUST also include the key=value pair TargetName.". However, in Appendix D, the description for TargetName says it is Leading Only. Should TargetName not be Leading Only, or should the text in section 5 say that TargetName must be in the initial Login Request of a leading connection? Andre Asselin IBM ServeRAID Software Development Research Triangle Park, NC
Home Last updated: Thu Nov 01 17:17:32 2001 7521 messages in chronological order |