RE: iSCSI: re: SCSI device names

[Black_David@emc.com]

Marj,

It'll be on the agenda.  Please ensure that the
slides describing the proposal are clear about the
cross-transport SCSI motivations/aspects (i.e., provide a
clear description of the problem(s) that this proposal
is intended to solve).

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: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)
> [mailto:marjorie.krueger@hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:28 PM
> To: 'Black_David@emc.com'; cbm@rose.hp.com; Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com
> Cc: ELLIOTT,ROBERT (HP-Houston,Server Storage); erodrigu@brocade.com;
> John Hufferd (hufferd@us.ibm.com); IPS
> Subject: 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-e
> xt-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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>