Subject: iSCSI: Rationale behind the SLP draft

From: Mark Bakke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:04:52 -0600

David Black has requested that I send something to the
list showing the rationale behind the SLP draft, including
its fit in the big picture and its relationship with iSNS.
Here's an attempt to do so.  I believe it to be consistent
with the Naming & Discovery, iSNS, and iSCSI/SLP drafts,
and their IETF-50 presentations.

The relevant drafts are:

  draft-ietf-ips-iSCSI-name-disc-00
  draft-ietf-ips-isns-00
  draft-bakke-iscsi-slp-00

Naming and Discovery Requirements

These are the discovery and name services requirements
from draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-name-disc-00.  From a discovery
requirements point-of-view, SLP and iSNS provide some
similar services.  SLP provides very simple discovery services
for smaller networks; iSNS provides more comprehensive
management services for larger networks.  Where they overlap,
SLP and iSNS can interoperate fairly easily.

1. Multicast method to discover targets, to allow zero-
   configuration of initiators and targets.

   SLP provides this.

2. A method to look up a WWUI, and get one or more addresses.
   "Where is target <wwui>?"

   SLP and iSNS both provide this.

3. A method to find targets that a given initiator should access.
   "I am initiator <wwui>; which targets should I access?"

   SLP and iSNS both provide this.

4. Ability to limit discovery to relevant initiators and targets.

   iSNS uses Discovery Domain, which are used to limit which initiators 
   and targets can discover each other.  Each target and initiator
   belong to Discovery Domain; the iSNS will not allow initiators to
   discover targets outside their domain.

   SLP uses a named Scope.  Each target and initiator is configured
   with one or more scope names; a target will only respond to an
   initiator who has a matching scope.  Note that this is not a
   security mechanism; an initiator can ask for any scope it wishes,
   and a target can respond to any scope it wishes.  This provides
   a simple mechanism to limit discovery, but does not attempt to
   provide security.
   
5. Access Lists by initiator WWUI

   SLP and iSNS both provide the ability to store a list of initiator
   WWUIs that are allowed access to a given target.

6. iSCSI Object Model support

   SLP registers only the targets
   iSNS registers targets, initiators, network entities, portals

7. TLV Message Format

   SLP and iSNS both do this.  However, SLP uses a text key and
   value for its attributes; iSNS uses a binary key value.

8. Authentication of discovery messages

   iSNS uses SLP's authentication mechanism

9. Registration and Query

   SLP registers targets only
   iSNS registers targets, inititors, network entities, portals

10. State Change Notification

   iSNS provides a state change service for which entities can
   register.

   SLP does not provide state change or event notification.  There
   is a draft on doing some notification, but it is not adequate for
   propagating attribute changes, which are necessary for an
   initiator to discover that it has gained (or lost) access to
   a target, or that a target has added a new address.

11. Light-weight Protocol

   Neither protocol should be too much of a burden to implement.

   Adding authentication to the protocol can be done later, and will be
   the same effort for both.  In the case that both SLP and iSNS are
   supported in the same product, they can share the code for this
   feature.

12. Compatibility with Boot Requirements

   Both the SLP template and the iSNS specification have worked to
   ensure that they fit in with the boot requirements.

   SLP has defined DHCP options that allow it to locate a directory
   agent, avoiding multicast traffic from initiators in a DHCP
   environment.

13. Compatibility with LDAP

   Although this is not a requirement, we have seen the desire for
   interworking with LDAP discussed on the list enough that it may
   merit a requirement at some point.  Both SLP and iSNS are designed
   with LDAP compatibility in mind.

14.  Entity Status Inquiry/Heartbeat

  iSNS provides an ESI/heartbeat ping message to monitor the
  availability of initiators and targets.  The heartbeat is
  originated by the iSNS server.

  We have not defined this capability for SLP.  It may be possible
  to do something similar if targets advertise themselves with a
  shorter lifetime, and initiators expire their discovered targets
  appropriately.  Adding a directory agent (DA) may be required for
  this to work properly.

15.  Distribution of X.509v3 Public Key certificates
  
  iSNS provides this capability.

  Our SLP template does not attempt to do this for two reasons:

    - SLP attributes are strings; the binary certificates would have
      to be escaped or uuencoded.

    - iSCSI only registers targets; there is no way for targets
      to discover an initiator's certificate.

16. Usage of Multicast

  SLP normally relies on multicast, for initiators to request
  advertisements from targets.  Multicast use can be eliminated
  at the expense of adding a DA, and configuring its address on
  each of the initiators and targets.
  
  iSNS does not use multicast.

We had originally started out looking for something to fulfill the
multicast requirements that iSNS did not do.  However, we found that
if one already had SLP, it was just as easy to find individual
targets, or at least canonical targets using it as it was to locate
an iSNS service.  SLP can then be used to handle discovery for
simpler host and device environments, and iSNS could be added later
to help manage these environments.      

SLP and iSNS both fulfill many of the requirements from
the naming & discovery draft.  However, they don't completely
overlap, and they take two different approaches to discovery.

SLP provides Discovery of Targets.

  SLP is used for discovery ONLY.  It uses a distributed
  model, that can start with initiators and targets, and
  no directory servers.  It can add Directory Agents to
  scale to medium-sized environments and reduce or eliminate
  the use of multicast.  Some work is underway on mesh-
  enhanced SLP (mSLP), which provides peer-to-peer information
  exchange between DAs for larger environments.  

  From a pure discovery point of view, SLP's chief weakness
  is that it does not yet have a notification mechanism.

  - Discovery of iSCSI targets
  - Discovery of iSNS services
  - Multicast-optional discovery mechanism for targets and
    other name services.
  - Open source implementations
  - Existing standard protocols

iSNS provides Centralized Management of Initiators and Targets.

  In addition to target discovery, iSNS provides higher-level
  functions such as centralized access management, active
  monitoring, public-key certificate management, and state-change 
  notifications.

  - Discovery of iSCSI targets
  - Centralized management of initiator and target access
  - Active monitoring of initiators and targets
  - State change notification

Using SLP with iSNS

Although SLP and iSNS solve several of the same problems, they
are fairly well-suited to interoperating.  They share a common
authentication structure, which is not something one would want
to code twice.  SLP can be used to do basic discovery where
configuring an iSNS server is not warranted, and can help
discover iSNS servers in environments where centralized management
is needed.  It is relatively simple for an iSNS server to
provide a proxy SLP service agent on behalf of the targets it
manages, allowing initiators to participate that implement only
the basic SLP.  Similarly, an iSNS server can work with gateways
to provide its services for targets that support only SLP.

When initiators and targets support BOTH SLP and iSNS, there
are a few rules that should be followed:

1. Initiators can use both SLP and iSNS concurrently to discover
   their targets.  In fact, an initiator should be able to use
   more than one iSNS, if it is accessing storage from two
   different providers.  This allows an initiator to discover
   its locally-managed devices using SLP, and its centrally-
   managed devices using iSNS.

2. Targets should be advertised using a single discovery method.
   A target should be advertised either with SLP, or with a
   single iSNS environment.  Targets discovered multiple ways
   would probably not break anything, but a target discovered
   via multiple services could produce conflicting information
   to the initiator.

3. Gateways or iSCSI proxies can be used to provide local SLP
   discovery of targets that are managed using iSNS.

Implementation Approach

I recommend a three-phase approach to implementing iSCSI
naming and discovery.  The first phase is to simply support the
WWUIs, and their use with the iSCSI protocol, and allow static
configuration of hosts and targets.  The second is to support
SLP for simple discovery.  This should be relatively quick to 
implement, as the source for SLP is readily available.  The third
would be to support iSNS as a storage management capability.

1. Simple naming and configuration

  - Admins configure targets with some form of access list, which
    may include the initiator WWUIs that are supposed to access
    them.

  - Admins configure initiators with the canonical target "iscsi"
    for targets that may provide them services.

  - Initiators use the SendTargets text command to discovery their
    targets.  This eliminates configuring target WWUIs in the
    initiator.

2. SLP for multicast and simple discovery

  - Instead of configuring initiators with target addresses, admins
    enable SLP on the initiator.

  - Targets also enable SLP, and are discovered by the initiators.

3. iSNS for centralized management

  - Initiators and targets are configured to be managed by an iSNS
    service.

  - Admins configure both hosts and targets from the iSNS server.

  - Initiators and targets use the iSNS protcol to discover each other.

Other Discovery Protocols

  There are several other discovery protocols; each has its
  strengths and weaknesses.  Here are some of them.  Take a look
  at "Building Networks on the Fly", IEEE Spectrum, March 2001
  for more information on these.

1. DNS SRV Records - these seemed too limiting, and there did
   not seem to be much point in making DNS do more.  The SLP
   folks started their work because DNS SRV records didn't meet
   their requirements.

2. LDAP, with an appropriate schema defined, could handle iSCSI
   registrations and queries, and distribute essentially the
   same information as SLP.  There are three reasons we didn't
   go directly to LDAP:

   1. LDAP would require a heavier implementation than SLP
   2. LDAP would not solve the multicast requirements
   3. SLP is built to be compatible with LDAP; SLP can be used
      by iniators and targets, with LDAP as a back-end database.
      This is left as an exercise for the implementor.

3. Jini is controlled by a single company, and is tied to a
   particular programming language, which is not appropriate
   for an internet standard.

4. UPnP from Microsoft is based on XML data with an HTTP transport.
   XML has a lot of merit for application interfaces like these, but
   the code for XML and HTTP could be a bit heavy for a really simple
   device.  It's company-controlled anyway, so we can't use it.

5. Salutation - Have not explored this in depth.  Salutation has
   been around longer than the other protocols.  It is made to be
   more flexible; it does not assume IP.

6. Bluetooth, HAVi - These are done by controlled-membership
   organizations, and are designed for specific non-IP environments.

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]
763.398.1054

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:45:57 -0800

Mark,

If I have two servers with similar information to promulgate and expectation
of multi-casts reaching the target, I may find SLP efforts greater than
desired over standard methods found using DHCP and LDAP.  DHCP can provide
information of the location of the LDAP server as already defined in
existing boot specifications.  The BOOTP-DHCP multi-cast request already
have relay provisions in routers and switches because of its common use and
has defined entries for LDAP server discovery.  You could have defined an
LDAP schema that would have covered both iSNS and SLP without adding
additional standards efforts for building yet another protocol that does the
same function as protocols already in common use.

For an overview see:
http://www.umich.edu/~dirsvcs/ldap/doc/guides/slapd/1.html#RTFToC1

Could you explain why LDAP is unsuitable for this application?  There are
many conventions within LDAP in terms of extensibility that seem to make it
more suitable than SLP and iSNS.  You will also find security extensions
already in place for LDAP merged with BOOTP-DHCP.  It seems you have
problems to overcome that have already been solved.  Not being clever, I
tend to ask dumb questions.

Doug

---

From: Mark Bakke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:21:34 -0600

Doug-

SLP provides the multicast discovery we were looking for, and does
not require DHCP, although it can work with it.  LDAP does not provide
service location; it provides database access.  SLP also looks like a
simpler protocol than LDAP, and a simpler way to specify the template
(schema) for our attributes.

LDAP provides database access; iSNS provides active management
services.  I could not see using LDAP to do what iSNS does.  Josh
could comment further on this one.

Both SLP and iSNS are designed to be used with LDAP; an SLP DA
can use LDAP as its back-end database, and clients can be served
using both protocols.  We felt that this capability gives us a
way for those who want to set up LDAP to make use of it, without
forcing it to be implemented in our devices.

Anyway, LDAP does meet several of our requirements, but it stands right
in the middle of what SLP and iSNS are used for.  It doesn't quite
give us what we want on the low end, and it doesn't do the management
on the high end.  It could, however, be utilized as an excellent
database access protocol for these other services to be built on,
but that would not have to be visible to hosts and devices.

SLP already has DHCP extensions, security extensions, etc., iSNS
borrows them.  All we had to do for SLP was to define a template,
which is just a simple version of a schema.

--
Mark

-- 
Mark A. Bakke
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]
763.398.1054

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:15:46 -0800

Mark,

The SLP multi-cast will not work to the same level as DHCP due to a lack of
co-operation with networking equipment.  LDAP can provide information based
on client attributes within 100k of code if embedded.  As LDAP can be
structured, the size of LDAP data can be constrained to fit within a switch
without much wasted code and with an ability to extend other devices.  For
small local domain only versions, see slapd and slurpd.

The principle aspect provided by iSNS is signaling of fabric configuration
changes. Such could be done by configuring IPS servers to run with a slave
to then signal affected clients based on login information.  iSCSI does not
but should provide signaling done by this external system that now relays
information out-of-band.  The iSNS describes LDAP as a possible source of
information so the same signaling between iSNS and LDAP could exist between
various IPS servers rather than all of their clients.  It would become the
task of the IPS server to signal clients already connected without a
keep-alive heart-beat needed for persistent iSNS connections otherwise.

As LDAP is extensible, provides needed features if a schema is defined, and
does not represent a burden for small to big configurations, the
justification seems weak.  From what could have been a simple schema
definition, there are now two inter-related beta servers with vendor unique
support to inter-operate with a beta protocol.  Do you see an advantage of
defining the schema as an alternative to these LDAP front-ends?  Such a
schema would help those wishing to make these front-ends and for the tools
to service them.  Without a schema, there can only be vendor unique
solutions to support iSNS and there will be no vendor inter-operability with
respect to configuration exchanges.

Doug