SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: IPS and SCTP



    I agree, especially as data digests were separated from header
    digests to allow proxies to do the proverbial "right thing" for
    data integrity (CRC32C on data is preserved [end-to-end] through
    the proxy, rather than stripped and regenerated by the proxy),
    and iSCSI/SCTP to iSCSI/TCP proxies are quite likely to appear
    as one consequence of running iSCSI over SCTP.
    
    Thanks,
    --David
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Mark Bakke [mailto:mbakke@cisco.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 11:23 AM
    > To: Black_David@emc.com
    > Cc: bidulock@openss7.org; ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: Re: IPS and SCTP
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > Just one clarification; although header digests can be eliminated,
    > data digests must remain for the same reasons given in the
    > security draft.
    > 
    > --
    > Mark
    > 
    > Black_David@emc.com wrote:
    > > 
    > > Brian,
    > > 
    > > > Sure.  Perhaps a start would be (for me) to write an
    > > > individual submission extension draft for running, say,
    > > > iSCSI over SCTP.  Would that be of interest to this WG?
    > > > What would be the best timing for such a submission?
    > > 
    > > I can't speak for the WG as a whole, but that sounds like
    > > a reasonable course of action to me.  Getting a first
    > > version of your draft submitted far enough in advance
    > > of the Atlanta meetings so that people will have time to read
    > > and consider it (i.e., well before the "just prior to the
    > > deadline" draft deluge) ought to allow the WG the opportunity
    > > to decide whether to make it an official work item in Atlanta.
    > > 
    > > A few iSCSI over SCTP things to start with:
    > > - Header digests can be eliminated since SCTP now uses CRC32C,
    > >         and should result in a visible simplification of error
    > >         recovery.
    > > - Unless SCTP has changed to allow load balancing as part of
    > >         its multi-homing/failover support, iSCSI sessions will
    > >         need to support multiple SCTP sessions per connection
    > >         for load balancing.
    > > - SCTP's ability to avoid head-of-line blocking should be useful
    > >         when immediate delivery of iSCSI commands is requested.
    > > 
    > > Enjoy,
    > > --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
    > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > -- 
    > Mark A. Bakke
    > Cisco Systems
    > mbakke@cisco.com
    > 763.398.1054
    > 
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Dec 24 11:19:01 2002
12098 messages in chronological order