I thought the original idea was that the address
and ip address were not required unless necessary
(which would cover the NAT case). I further thought that the change in the errata
was to fix that.
I understand where you're coming
from. But I don't have time now to write such a proposal. If anyone else
thinks it is an issue, then let me know and I'll
try to do that later.
I already thought about your solution (to
have the administrator name the IP address). The problem I have with that is
the fact that the NAT box may be using DHCP. In that case the administrator
would have to go to the NAT box each time it is booted and see what address it
got.
BTW, can you name a case that will involve
"additional complexity" where the proposal will not work. I just want to understand that.
Eddy
-----Original Message-----
From: Black_David@emc.com
[mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:39 PM
To: eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: NAT and SendTargets (was
Errata to -20)
I'm sorry, but that's
incorrect. If the target is running "behind a NAT
box", it is the
responsibility of the administrator(s) of the NAT box
and the target to assign a
stable public-side (of NAT) IP address to
the target (which may be
mapped to a different private-side IP address
if the NAT is being used for
something like renumbering), and configure
that address to be returned
by SendTargets. Your proposed approach to
NAT support will not work
for any configurations that have any additional
complexity that requires IP
addresses to be returned.
If you want to see iSCSI
change to support access through NATs, write
an Internet-Draft -
NAT support changes that result in behavior on
the wire changes and
potential breakage of initiator code are not
appropriate for the final 24
hours editorial changes prior to RFC
----------------------------------------------------
David
L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC
Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
+1
(508)
293-7953
FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com
Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Eddy Quicksall
[mailto:eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 8:40 AM
To: Julian Satran; Black_David@emc.com
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI - Errata - to
20
David,
The appendix change is
necessary for this reason:
Suppose the target is
running behind a NAT box. If the NAT box does not support UPnP, then the target
has no way to determine the actual IP address. If the initiator just logged in,
then it must already know the port and IP address.
Eddy
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran
[mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10,
2003 2:03 AM
To: Black_David@emc.com
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI - Errata - to
20
Thanks - minor comments in text - Julo
Black_David@emc.com
wrote on 10/09/2003 03:32:07:
> I've reviewed the set of changes on Julian's
web site.
> Here are my comments, explanations, and
instructions in some cases.
>
> > -several editorial glitches (wording,
typos)
>
> One of these glitches was a mistake in the
specification of TASK REASSIGN in
> Section 10.5.1. I suspect there are
very few implementations of this, as
> anyone who tried should have discovered that
the wording was reflexive -
> "Initiator Task Tag" refers to the
Task Management Request itself, making it
> only possible to reassign the TASK REASSIGN
Request (oops). That's clearly
> broken, and the fix is to change to
"Referenced Task Tag".
>
> Section 10.17.3 adds a sentence to say that
StatSN is advanced by a Reject.
> I don't believe that changes behavior and it
is a useful clarification.
>
> The third paragraph in Appendix D relaxes the
requirements on the amount
> of info returned by SendTargets when there is
only one target. While
> reasonable in design intent, this may break
initiator code that is not
> expecting to be short-changed in this
fashion, and hence I think this
> change should not be made (but I'll listen to
strong counterarguments).
>
I am sorry -
I added inadvertently this text when looking over and trying to digest all
TargetPortalTag key and value usages. I did no realize the "break
scenario" you suggested.
> > -version raised to 0x01 (that was
agreed/dictated on the list to happen
> > when RFC is issued to distinguish
RFC-level from pre RFC level).
>
> As stated earlier, this change to Section
10.12.4 is NOT to be made.
>
> > -IESG required text for CHAP
administrative domains
>
> Important catch, thanks.
>
> > -clarifying that some chap keys that can
have in theory an arbitrary
> number
> > of bits have in iSCSI a length that is a
multiple of 8bits
>
> This was done by disallowing keys that don't
have an appropriate length. At
> this stage, I think this is ok vs. the
alternative of requiring padding,
> esp. as a party who's confused enough to send
a weird length key may also
> be confused enough to get the padding wrong.
I think this falls into the
> "clearly broken, needs to be fixed"
category.
>
> There are also a number of clarifications to
the CHAP text in 11.1.4 that
> are ok as they make the required behavior
more explicit.
>
> > -clarifying that TargetPortalGroup does
not have to be returned in some
> cases
>
> This does change on-the-wire behavior, but
only by removing the requirement
> to return this value in cases where it is
clearly of no use to the party
> who receives it. I believe this is ok,
but will listen to objections.
>
> > -the UA related text for abort (in both
relevant places)
>
> Once WG Last Call closes on the command
ordering draft (assuming it closes
> without objection to this point) a sentence
saying which ASC/ASCQ code T10
> has defined for this case needs to be added
in both places.
>
I think that
the agreement reached at the time was that we won't give the codes (other
SCSI documents do the same - the argument being to minimize fixes needed in
case of change).
> -references
> >-port numbers (default unchanged but can
be overridden with the system port
> 860)
>
> Text is a little unclear - see my separate
response to Eddy.
>
> > Please have look and comment (before we
say good bye :-))
>
> Done,
> --David
>
----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA
01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953
FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> black_david@emc.com
Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
>
----------------------------------------------------
