|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iSCSI: re: SCSI device namesDavid, 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 |