Subject: iSCSI: Require iSCSI to use packet formats similar to FC, etc??

From: "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:18:21 -0700

Robert Snively proposes that the iSCSI Requirements document include the
following requirement WRT gateway devices:

   iSCSI MUST use packet formats similar to the common
   packet formats used by other packetized SCSI protocols where
   possible to allow both simple bridging gateways and more
   sophisticated translating gateways.

Comments?

Marjorie Krueger
Networked Storage Architecture
Networked Storage Solutions Org.
Hewlett-Packard
tel: +1 916 785 2656
fax: +1 916 785 0391
email: [email-masked]

---

From: "Douglas Otis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:21:02 -0700

Marjorie,

As the rules change from technology to technology, there are issues involved
in this endeavor that will place into focus some potential problems.  I tend
to think that an independent delivery protocol could be developed.  So in
general, in my long winded way, I agree with Robert.

Doug

---

From: Mark Bakke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:27:41 -0500

Marjorie-

The word "similar" is pretty vague.  If it means that iSCSI should
include the same types of information that the other transports
provide, that's probably required just to get it working.  If it
means that iSCSI messages have to look like Fibre Channel frames
(I don't realy think that's what you mean), that would be a severe
and inappropriate limitation.

I would object to the use of the word "packet", since iSCSI is
built on top of a stream, and does not have packets.

As far as gateways are concerned, I don't see any reason to
be overly restrictive on formats; they will have to be ripped
apart and rebuilt between various SCSI transports anyway.  As
long as the right information is available in any form, there
should be no problem.  Having cobbled up a gateway myself, message
formats are the least of our challenges.

I think that the other requirements already specific (indirectly,
perhaps) that the right kind of information has to be present, so
I would not want to see this requirement added.

--
Mark

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

---

From: "Sriram Rupanagunta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:08:27 -0500

> and inappropriate limitation.

In concept, this requirement looks interesting, though I would
have the same concern as Mark, in that the similarity needs to
be elaborated more, before it can be further discussed here, IMO.