Re: iSCSI Boot: Technical Issues

[Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com>]

--- Mark Bakke <mbakke@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> This all means that when specifying a first-level LUN, it
> would be (let's say LUN 4) 0004-0000-0000-0000.  So
> saying
> they are unspecified to the right would be the way to go.

Careful!

Tom, Dick and Harriet are used to just enter for a LUN a
number (and they think it's a number), so you'll have
ppl entering just `4'. Using ``to the right'' would make
this 4000-0000-0000-0000, contrary to your example.

Using ``to the right'' rule is kind of half way telling
users _what_ the SAM-3 LUN structure might be like and
I also don't think this is wise as Julian has suggested.

Natural ordering (e.g. what humans use) would
suggest ``to the left'' rule. So that the current
(physical)
addressing of LUN (`4') and the future (801F-0000-...) 
supported addressing are both easy on users.
(This was more or less my original argument for the
``to the left rule''.)

Q: is xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx supposed to be _just_ as
SAM-3 stipulates? (rhetorical question)

If so, then ``within each group of 4 hexacedimal digits
zeros are filled to the right, and groups of zeros
are filled to the left'' might be a wiser stipulation.

This ``right/left'' rule will be easy on the average user's
(the luser :-)) brain not to strain too much to understand
what it is (LUN) and that the good old '4' still
works just as the newer '801F-0000-...'.

-- 
Luben






=====
--

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com