|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI Markers and FramingAs you were looking for more votes from those on the reflector... I would vote for either 5 or 6, where 6 is defined as - FIM optional to use, separately enabled/disabled for tx and rx paths, and should implement on the tx path. -- James John Hufferd wrote: >Now that I have punished you all with the notes defining what is Framing >and COWS. I will lobby for one. > >Here again are the choices > >1. FIM now, and Bare Framing later >2. FIM now, and COWS Framing later >3. COWS now, and Bare Framing later >4. COWS now, and COWS Framing Later >5. Nothing now, and some kind of Framing Later >6. FIM now, and some kind of Framing Later > >Two arguments one for FIM now and one for Bare Framing later: > >Let me start with "Framing Later": > >The more I have seen of the work going on defining RDMA/iWARP, and the work >that is going into the Framing Experimental Status, the more I believe, we >can NOT now know how this will work out. Let me give you an example. The >only significant concern, with Bare Framing, is the case of a false >positive indicator only when the network has re-segmented the TCP Segment. >The Bare Framing protocol has a 48-bit Random number and a 16 bit length >field to detect this. I believe this has a lower probability of false >positives then passing an undetected error through the 16 bit TCP/IP XOR >Checksum, and possibly even the 32-bit CRC. So the Experimental work was >started to prove that this was not an issue. Now, even though Bare Framing >is the easiest to implement, and probably statically just fine (at least in >my opinion), some folks are attempting to come up with a fool proof >approach, which probably causes more implementation costs. (You can bet >that will be a major shoot out.) No one yet has been able to do the needed >math to prove that Bare Framing is a problem or not a problem (volunteers >anyone?). But sooner or later some one will do that. There is even a >chance that another word could be added to the Random Number to make it >even stronger. In the mean time we have two Different COWS proposals, >and no one knows if something now unknown will bleed over from the RDMA >work. > >We simply do not know how the Framing will work out. > >iSCSI choosing a Marking approach to match one of the perceived Framing >approaches, will not cause that approach to happen, and it is probably >going to cause turf wars, and other non productive interactions. > >Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that Markers and Framing are >disjoint issues. Further, we have no control over the direction of >framing. > >Now my arguments for "FIM now": > >FIM is the lowest overhead Marker approach we have been able to come up >with. I think we need something that can easily be placed into SW ( In >this context I am talking about SW that does not "OWN" the Host TCP/IP >stack.). As I have stated before, FIM is simple to implement and can >greatly help some HW. It needs to be Sent only if requested, and not >other wise. It has been in the spec for some time, is therefore well >understood and I think it has been scrubbed my a number of different >vendors. Some of which have told me that they have either placed it in >their product or are working on that. This is NOT to say that we can not >change it, but that because of its longevity in the spec, has undergone a >lot of study. And we should have important reasons not to do FIM (such as >if it doesn't work). >Now, Jonathan Stone, has stated that "transatlantic can regularly show 50% >drop rate". I would like the vendors to have some approach to enable a >reasonable solution, to this and other long haul requirements, which keeps >the Adapter cost as low as possible. Also, that would mean that it can NOT >wait until 10 Gig. > >Now to the issue of MUST or SHOULD implement. > >I have been persuaded that "SHOULD implement on Send" but optional to use, >would be a more acceptable position, since vendors with good and just >reasons would not have to implement it, yet the customer could find >solutions if they needed them. > >Therefore, based on the above reasoning, I am recommending: > >Choice 6, with "SHOULD implement on Send". That is, > >Leave FIM in the Spec, and add an enabling statement about "SHOULD >implement on Send if requested by the receiving side". > > >. >. >. >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, Cell: (408) 499-9702 >Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com >
Home Last updated: Wed Jan 30 15:17:59 2002 8569 messages in chronological order |