SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    iSCSI: re: SCSI device names



    David,
    As you suggest, I've written a draft proposal to add an "naa." format to
    iSCSI name formats and posted it before the draft-00 cutoff.  The draft is
    available at
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-krueger-iscsi-name-ext-00.txt 
    
    Could we please have 30 minutes of agenda time at the Atlanta IETF to
    discuss this proposal?  
    
    Thank you 
    Marjorie Krueger
    Networked Storage Architecture
    Networked Storage Solutions
    Hewlett-Packard
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com] 
    > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:53 PM
    > To: cbm@rose.hp.com; Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com; Black_David@emc.com
    > Cc: elliott@hp.com; marjorie_krueger@hp.com; erodrigu@brocade.com
    > Subject: RE: SCSI device names
    > 
    > 
    > Mallikarjun (and Rob),
    > 
    > Turning the iSCSI naming architecture into a T10 standard is 
    > fine, but it looks like there's an item going back the other 
    > way to bless the use of "naa." names with iSCSI.  I think the 
    > window is closed on functional additions to the main iSCSI 
    > draft, so any addition of "naa." should be written up as a 
    > separate draft including all of the explanations of and 
    > references to use of names for the same device across 
    > multiple protocols.  The WG would need to discuss whether to 
    > allow use of "naa." as a full iSCSI name vs. as a unique ID 
    > returned only by VPD mode page access and the like.
    > 
    > There's still time to get a -00 draft in by the
    > Atlanta cutoff (9am, Monday, October 28th) - I strongly 
    > suggest doing so in order to get this onto the Atlanta IPS 
    > agenda. Don't worry about fully polishing the draft, as the 
    > major point is to tee up a discussion.
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > --David
    > ----------------------------------------------------
    > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    > +1 (508) 293-7953 **NEW**     FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
    > black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    > ----------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Mallikarjun C. [mailto:cbm@rose.hp.com]
    > > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:34 PM
    > > To: Julian Satran; Black_David@emc.com
    > > Cc: Rob Elliott; Marjorie
    > > Subject: Fw: SCSI device names
    > > 
    > > 
    > > Julian and David,
    > > 
    > > Don't know if you're following this thread on T10, FYI.
    > > 
    > > Rob and I talked about this, I think it's a good idea to turn iSCSI's 
    > > naming architeture into a T10 standard (if it's agreeable to T10 CAP).  
    > > This also gets us out of the predicament of having LU WWNs contain 
    > > (implicit) iSCSI-dependencies (because LU WWNs are keyed off of the 
    > > unique device/port name).
    > > 
    > > If iSCSI's enhancements that Rob refers to below could not be
    > > added to iSCSI rev19, then I suppose it'd have to wait for iSCSI's
    > > standards status.  David, can you please comment?  In any case,
    > > it shouldn't prevent T10 from adopting this into SPC-3.
    > > --
    > > Mallikarjun
    > > 
    > > Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
    > > Networked Storage Architecture
    > > Network Storage Solutions
    > > Hewlett-Packard MS 5668
    > > Roseville CA 95747
    > > cbm@rose.hp.com
    > > 
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <Elliott@hp.com>
    > > To: <t10@t10.org>
    > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:23 PM
    > > Subject: SCSI device names
    > > 
    > > 
    > > The current rule in SAM-3 is that a device may have one
    > > device name per
    > > transport protocol.  This means, for example, that a target 
    > > device with
    > > both SAS and iSCSI target ports has two device names - the 
    > iSCSI name
    > > and the SAS device name.
    > > 
    > > Assuming 02-254 (WWNs for W-LUNs) passes, these would be
    > > returned as two
    > > device identifiers in VPD data:
    > > 1. SAS device name
    > > association=target device (2h)
    > > protocol identifier=SAS (6h)
    > > identifier type=NAA (3h)  
    > > identifier=IEEE Registered format (NAA=5h), 8 bytes long
    > > 
    > > 2. iSCSI device name
    > > association=target device (2h)
    > > protocol identifier=iSCSI (5h)
    > > identifier type=iSCSI name-based (7h)    (to be proposed in 02-419)
    > > identifier=UTF-8 format string, up to 224 bytes long
    > > 
    > > It would be simpler if there were only one device name for a device.
    > > 
    > > Since only iSCSI has defined device names to date (SAS is
    > > just planning
    > > to include a device name now, and FCP-3 might define one 
    > too), we have
    > > an opportunity to make all device names follow the iSCSI name-based
    > > format and let each device have a single device name regardless of
    > > protocol.  
    > > 
    > > The iSCSI name format is a UTF-8 (similar to ASCII) string 
    > that starts 
    > > with a naming authority: "iqn."  for an iSCSI-defined 
    > reverse domain 
    > > name string (e.g.
    > > "iqn.2001-04.com.acme:storage.disk2.sys1.xyz")
    > > "eui."  for a hexadecimal representation of an EUI-64 
    > identifier (e.g.
    > > "eui.02004567A425678D")
    > > 
    > > iSCSI could easily add an "naa." type to carry a hexadecimal 
    > > representation of an NAA identifier (e.g. "naa.52004567A425678D"), 
    > > needed to carry the format used by SAS and Fibre Channel port names.
    > > 
    > > Then, a target device with target ports of different
    > > protocols could use
    > > any string format it likes as its sole device name. 
    > > 
    > > Likely choices:
    > > iSCSI-only device: "iqn." (it may have no hardware names available) 
    > > SAS-only device: "naa." FC-only device: "naa."
    > > SRP-only device: "eui."
    > > SBP-2-only device: "eui."
    > > iSCSI/SAS combination device: "naa." since it is already using NAA
    > > identifiers available for port names
    > > SRP/iSCSI/SAS combination device: "naa." or "eui." since it 
    > > already has
    > > NAA and EUI-64s for port names
    > > 
    > > This would divorce the device name concept from the transport
    > > protocols.
    > > Transport protocols could still require their devices have a device
    > > name, but wouldn't comment on the format.
    > > 
    > > --
    > > Rob Elliott, elliott@hp.com
    > > Industry Standard Server Storage Advanced Technology Hewlett-Packard
    > > 
    > > 
    > > 
    > > 
    > 
    


Home

Last updated: Wed Oct 30 23:19:07 2002
12001 messages in chronological order