|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: Some proposed vendor-specific (X-) keysOn Mon, 10 Jun 2002 pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote: > Bill, > > It is the place of MIBs and CIM objects to cover items like this. For > diagnostic problems, these are more useful because they are available to > management systems as well as at the two ends of the link. Then why do we have a SendTargets command? Can't that information be obtained from the MIBs? Isn't it the place of MIBs and CIM objects to cover items like that too? I mean, come on, SendTargets has had much more impact on iSCSI than the three keys we're talking about. It is, as I understand it, the main reason the text negotiation code supports responses over multiple PDUs. Yes, we found a lot more uses for this, but SendTargets was (AFAICT) the instigator. To answer my own question, I think we have a SendTargets command because the WG thought the information was useful and didn't want to have to go to SNMP to get it. Which is a fine reason (and one I agree with). But to say we shouldn't echo things in the MIB in a way we find useful when we have opened the door with SendTargets is hypocritical. > Generally, building a duplicate capability to exchange management objects in > protocols adds cost without benefit. For the general case, I agree. But last I understood of this thread, we were not talking about exchanging arbitrary management objects, we were talking about a key for the vendor, a key for the product name, and a key for the revision. These are static text strings exchanged once at login. What is so onerous about them? They strike me as as useful as aliases, which we permit. Also, why do you assume that the iSCSI MIBs will be available? While I expect product vendors will support them, 1) I don't think we can depend on it being available for iSCSI entities on general-purpose computers (like things running Windows, Linux, or any of the *BSDs), 2) what about sites where admins don't like SNMP, and so they either turn it off or firewall it? Finally, what about multi-vendor situations? Say I want to run target code from two vendors on the same box at once? Great for a head-to-head comparison. I fire one up on a different port (not 3260), and away I go. While I find it reasonable that each vendor will supply SNMP bits, I find it unlikely that they will work together. So you get one or the other showing up in SNMP. While I agree this isn't the common case, I mention it because it illustrates a case where, "It's available in the MIB," isn't true. Take care, Bill
Home Last updated: Mon Jun 10 18:18:48 2002 10645 messages in chronological order |