Subject: Initiator port groups????

From: "Ostrowski, Stephen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:31:30 -0500

I would like to suggest a change in the initiator name. I would like to be
able to add an optional port group tag number at the end.
Example:
OLD: iqn.2001-03.com.service-provider.users.customer235.host90 
NEW: iqn.2001-03.com.service-provider.users.customer235.host90,10 
OLD: eui.02004567A425678D 
NEW: eui.02004567A425678D,11

The problem that I am trying to solve is how to build a San Management
Platform to do the initiator to target mapping and once a mapping has
occurred, how to make sure the right connection is being made.
 
For example: I have an initiator with 3 HBAs, and a target with 3 hbas. The
discovery information provided to the Management platform could see that I
have ONE initiator and a target with say 3 Port Groups.  
      With this I can map the initiator to the target, or the initiator to 1
or more port groups.  I would like to the same idea to the initiator name to
include a field like that so that I could easily expand the choices to maybe
map a target port group to an initiator HBA.
 
               1 --            -- 1
 Initiator(I)  2 --  Network   -- 2  Target(T)
               3 --            -- 3
 
 I.e. Before I could do the following:
 I -> T
 I -> T1
 I -> T2
 I -> T1, T2
 ETC...
 
 If I added the info to the initiator name I could also do the following
mappings:
 I1 -> T1, I2 -> T2
 I1 -> T, I2 -> T
 Etc..

 - Stephen

---

From: "John Hufferd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:18:58 -0800

The direction you are going, is not the direction we intended to take
iSCSI.  The Authentication and Masking should be done on an Initiator Node
Name value, NOT based on an HBA.  There may be multiple HBAs involved in a
single, iSCSI Session.  Also there might be more then one initiator in a
Initiator Node (perhaps each with more then one HBA), I do not see why
there would need to be management beyond the Node Name.  The Authentication
is suppose to be done on a Node Name Basis.  In any event the Initiator
does not have Portal Group Tags, and Target Portal Group tags are not
required to be Static from Target Startup to Target Startup.  This
Discovery process is suppose to Discover the current values of these items.
They are NOT part of the NodeName.  Also, the Node Names are suppose to be
Long lasting Names, portal groups have no such need.  So it is a twist to
bring both together and call that an iSCSI Name.

Now, if you just intend to do mapping for the purpose of rendering a
picture of the network and connections, I suggest you look at the iSCSI MIB
Drafts and see how that might be useful or the iSCSI Technical Work Group
in SNIA, which is defining APIs for the HBAs.

In other words you need to find another way to do what you want.

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
Internet address: [email-masked]

"Ostrowski, Stephen" <[email-masked]>@ece.cmu.edu on
12/20/2001 07:31:30 AM

Sent by:    [email-masked]

To:    "Ips ([email-masked])" <[email-masked]>
cc:
Subject:    Initiator port groups????

Example:

      With this I can map the initiator to the target, or the initiator to
1 or more port groups.  I would like to the same idea to the initiator name
to include a field like that so that I could easily expand the choices to
maybe map a target port group to an initiator HBA.

               1 --            -- 1

               3 --            -- 3

 I -> T

 I -> T1

 I -> T2

 I -> T1, T2

 ETC...

 I1 -> T1, I2 -> T2

 I1 -> T, I2 -> T

 Etc..

 - Stephen

---

From: "Ostrowski, Stephen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:23:18 -0500

John,

	I missed port groups are dynamic across boots.  I think that there
MIGHT be a need for static mapping (or preference) for configuration.  
	Example: I have an initiator with two HBAs.  If the connection is
made from HBA 1 to a certain target, then the connection would be secure,
but if the connection if mode from HBA 2 to that target, then it would be
insecure.  So I would want to be able to configure that, and then to verify
that the correct connection was being made during login.
	Also, I could also see the need to try to balance the traffic load
across the HBAs in a non random way. 

- Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hufferd [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 4:19 PM
To: Ostrowski, Stephen
Cc: Ips ([email-masked])
Subject: Re: Initiator port groups????

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd

Example:

               1 --            -- 1

               3 --            -- 3

 I -> T

 I -> T1

 I -> T2

 I -> T1, T2

 ETC...

 I1 -> T1, I2 -> T2

 I1 -> T, I2 -> T

 Etc..

 - Stephen

---

From: "Jim Hafner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:56:35 -0800

Stephen,

But the initiator name is naming the node and has nothing to do with the
lower level portal groups or HBAs or anything.
Your naming convention is NOT for initiator nodes; it's for initiator
portal groups.

The protocol and architecture let iniitator nodes discover target portal
groups and it then leaves it up to the initiator implementation to decide
what logins it will do from each of it's initiator portal groups to the set
of target portal groups it has discovered.  There is nothing in the
protocol or architecture (and their shouldn't be) that determines this
policy.  I think you're asking for a naming convention on which to
implement such a policy.

You can use your naming format as a way to name and manage your iSCSI
initiator portal groups.  You can then do that to coordinate (coerce?) your
initiator login policy to each target portal group.   But I think this is
outside the scope of the standard, though it may be embedded in the iSCSI
MIB.

Jim Hafner

12/21/2001 08:23:18 am

To:   John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   "Ips ([email-masked])" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  RE: Initiator port groups????

John,

- Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hufferd [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 4:19 PM
To: Ostrowski, Stephen
Cc: Ips ([email-masked])
Subject: Re: Initiator port groups????

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd

Example:

               1 --            -- 1

               3 --            -- 3

 I -> T

 I -> T1

 I -> T2

 I -> T1, T2

 ETC...

 I1 -> T1, I2 -> T2

 I1 -> T, I2 -> T

 Etc..

 - Stephen

---

From: "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:07:25 -0800

Stephen,

> MIGHT be a need for static mapping (or preference) for 

I don't think John said portal groups are dynamic, he simple said they are
not currently *required* to be static.  I think it's reasonable to ask that
targets use consistent numbering of portal groups across target boots, ie.
if a group of addresses are in portal group 1 today, next boot the target
should still report them as portal group 1 (unless the address configuration
has changed).

> across the HBAs in a non random way. 

This is a management task that exists today for initiator implementations -
HBA vendors are dealing with it in their "configuration tools" with
proprietary interfaces to their HBAs.

The change you suggest to "initiator name" is not appropriate - portal
groups are only a grouping of IP addresses that can be used for a
multi-connection session, they have no association to the construction of
"initiator port name" (other than indirectly, thru the session construct).

And even if the change you suggest was made, there is no protocol method for
"discovering" initiator names - as Jim points out, there is no protocol need
for such a thing.

Please review the iSCSI MIB and suggest changes the MIB structure which
would aid you in your management needs.

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