Return-Path: X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) id h0MGSRH08783 for ips-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:28:27 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f Received: from mail.ivivity.com ([64.238.111.99]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0MGSLW08766 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:28:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by ATLOPS with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:28:05 -0500 Message-ID: From: Eddy Quicksall To: Julian Satran , Eddy Quicksall , ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:28:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk 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