RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping

[Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com>]

True and I apologize for that remark.

 

I asked how the initiator would use it and what you pointed out was that the target would use it to identify origin.

 

If the initiator is only required to echo it and not interpret it, then I see no reason to force a target to fill it in. For example in my case, a valid LUN is not readily available at the time that I want to send a ping. Granted it is not in a fast path but, by my poorly thought out remark, I am saying a spec should not mandate requirements that have no use.

 

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:47 AM
To: Eddy Quicksall
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; Julian Satran; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu; Rod Harrison
Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping

Eddy,

We all appreciate you opinion - but this has been hotly debated more than 18 months ago.
And I recall sending you an explanation regarding the middle boxes and how they handle the LUN for routing in a "clustered" target.
And your comment about a "requirement with no good reason" besides being derogatory does not add any value to the discussion.

Julo

Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com>
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu

23/01/03 17:19

To	Rod Harrison <rod.harrison@windriver.com>, Julian Satran <julian@cs.haifa.ac.il>, ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc
Subject	RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping

For that, wouldn't the target generate REPORTED LUNS DATA HAS CHANGED
(3F/0E)?

It is my opinion that this is just another requirement that has been put on
the target for no good reason.

It should be up to the target as to if the LUN field has meaning and the
initiator should be the one that has a requirement to echo the value.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Harrison [mailto:rod.harrison@windriver.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:52 PM
To: Eddy Quicksall; Julian Satran; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping



The initiator might try to rediscover the LUN topology if it sees a NOP from
a
LUN that it previously thought was not present.

- Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
Eddy Quicksall
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Julian Satran; Eddy Quicksall; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping


Yes, I remember that but the necessity for the target to set it should be up
to the target because the initiator should not be trying to interpret it (it
should only be required to echo it).

Is there a case where the initiator will interpret the LUN?

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:julian@cs.haifa.ac.il]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:43 AM
To: 'Eddy Quicksall'; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping


TTT & LUN uniquely identify the "origin" (if target is a "composite"
each of the parts can issue their own TTTs - no coordination needed).

Regards,
Julo


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu] On Behalf Of
Eddy Quicksall
Sent: 22 January, 2003 00:07
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: iSCSI: LUN in a ping


Does anyone know why we added "the LUN must be valid" for a target
initiated ping? It would seem that it is N/A when the ping is just being
used to checkup on the connection.

What will the initiator do with the LUN anyway?

10.19.3 LUN
A LUN MUST be set to a correct value when the Target Transfer Tag is
valid (not the reserved value 0xffffffff).

Eddy
mailto: Eddy_Quicksall@iVivity.com