|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iSCSI: Yokohama meeting technical issuesThe following iSCSI technical issues were discussed at the Yokohama meeting (minutes are coming ...). The following paragraphs report the rough consensus of the room in Yokohama and I believe they are the rough consensus of the IP Storage WG. In Yokohama, some of these consensus calls were over the objection of one person (not the same person each time). This is an opportunity for those who couldn't make it to Yokohama to voice a different opinion: (1) Long Lived Discovery sessions. Support for these is not intended. The only PDUs that an initiator is allowed to send on a Discovery Session are a Send Targets text request and a logout request that specifies "close the session". Targets MUST reject all other PDUs. (2) Decimal encoding. Follows the rough consensus on the list, decimal encoding can only be used when the parameter being encoded has a fixed size (bits that the decoded value occupies) and that size is 64 bits or less. If one of the authentication bignums happens to have a value that fits in 64 bits, decimal cannot be used because the bignum has a considerably larger size. (3) Size requirements for negotiation. Compromised on 8kb as the minimum amount of text that MUST be accepted during a negotiation (consensus called over one person's objection). 64k limit applies only when an AuthMethod is supported that requires large binary values - in the meeting, this was thought to be only SPKM, but a quick check of the draft suggests that the 64k limit also has to apply apply to Kerberos - it does not apply to CHAP or SRP. (4) Error Recovery Level 0.5. An implementation that does not support both of the major features required for ErrorRecoveryLevel 1 (within-connection and within-command recovery) MUST negotiate ErrorRecoveryLevel 0, as to negotiate 1 would promise support for both. When 0 is negotiated, an initiator MAY try within-connection recovery or within-command recovery, but it MUST be prepared for a target to reject the attempts, as the target may be strictly operating at ErrorRecoveryLevel 0. A new value of the ErrorRecoveryLevel key will *NOT* be defined to enable partial support of level 1 to be negotiated. (5) BidiInitialR2T. This key will be removed, InitialR2T will also cover the bidirectional case, in part because this corresponds to Fibre Channel's behavior. (6) Resegmenting Data SNACKS - an intrepid design team came up with a compromise solution between the Monday and Tuesday sessions (including a trans-pacific conference call). Summary of the problem situation: - SCSI Read or similar command is active on an iSCSI connection. - The initiator reduces the Maximum Data PDU size it is willing to accept. - The initiator discovers that it's missing some of the inbound data and requests retransmission. iSCSI's data retransmission is based on resending the same PDUs that were sent the first time. That doesn't work in this case because they may be too large. When they're made smaller, the count of Data PDUs in the SCSI Response PDU may have to be changed. This should be a rare case. A rough summary of the compromise solution: - Existing Data SNACK MUST NOT resegment. Targets MUST check this. - A new R-Data SNACK code is defined for the resegmenting case. It always requests transmission of all unacknowledged data, and of a new SCSI Response since the count of Data PDUs may have changed. The new SCSI Response uses the same StatSN number. - A new SNACK tag is sent in an R-Data SNACK and returned in the new SCSI Response to ensure that the new response with the correct count of Data PDUs is used, as there may be one or more SCSI Responses to this command with the the wrong count in flight when the R-Data SNACK is issued (if you're wondering how multiple SCSI Responses could be in flight, think about Status SNACKs and large delays). There are a number of additional details that can be found in the working draft. I believe the above six items represent the rough consensus of the IP Storage WG, but this is an opportunity for those who differ (and could not make it to the Yokohama meeting) to object (quickly, please). Thanks, --David --------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 249-6449 FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------
Home Last updated: Tue Jul 30 10:39:11 2002 11481 messages in chronological order |