Re: iSCSI Boot Last Call - Technical Comments

[Luben Tuikov <luben@splentec.com>]

"Mallikarjun C." wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> >I don't think most
> > users will ever want (or need) to see more than a 16-bit LUN.
> 
> Having a 32/48/64-bit LUN, I believe, doesn't mean that there are
> more than 2^16 LUNs.  IIRC, the 64-bit LUN address space
> can be sparsely populated, depending on how many levels of
> addressing a target supports and which specific LUs are distributed
> into which level.  So, I cannot agree with this statement.

Agreed completely with Mallikarjun on all 2 points.

A LUN _is_ 64 bit and so it should be used.

The argument regarding the error-prone user input and GUI problems
has NOTHING to do with the issue. Those are HCI (human computer
interaction) issues and should be raised as such elsewhere.

E.g. Let blank mean a default LUN (maybe 0, or in the future if T10 defines
a well-known to boot from LUN), else a 64 bit lun should be entered.
(IPv6 argument as well...)

-- 
Luben

P.S. I raised the exact same argument on Linux SCSI a month ago --
the move towards 64 bit LUN for the exact same points: sparce space,
LUN mapping, etc.