Return-Path: <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Return-Path: <owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) id h0NIu5i12856
	for ips-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:56:05 -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 h0NItvW12841;
	Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:55:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ATLOPS with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <DQRLSB6C>; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:55:56 -0500
Message-ID: <AEC4671C8179D61194DE0002B328BDD20BF0@ATLOPS>
From: Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com>
To: Julian Satran <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu, Julian Satran <julian@cs.haifa.ac.il>,
   owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu, Rod Harrison <rod.harrison@windriver.com>
Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:55:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C311.0F0659D0"
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C311.0F0659D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

True and I apologize for that remark. 
 
I asked how the initiator would use it and what you pointed out was that the
target would use it to identify origin.
 
If the initiator is only required to echo it and not interpret it, then I
see no reason to force a target to fill it in. For example in my case, a
valid LUN is not readily available at the time that I want to send a ping.
Granted it is not in a fast path but, by my poorly thought out remark, I am
saying a spec should not mandate requirements that have no use.
 
Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:47 AM
To: Eddy Quicksall
Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; Julian Satran; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu; Rod Harrison
Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping



Eddy, 

We all appreciate you opinion - but this has been hotly debated more than 18
months ago. 
And I recall sending you an explanation regarding the middle boxes and how
they handle the LUN for routing in a "clustered" target. 
And your comment about a "requirement with no good reason" besides being
derogatory does not add any value to the discussion. 

Julo 



Eddy Quicksall <eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com> 
Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu 


23/01/03 17:19 


To
Rod Harrison <rod.harrison@windriver.com>, Julian Satran
<julian@cs.haifa.ac.il>, ips@ece.cmu.edu 

cc

Subject
RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping

	




For that, wouldn't the target generate REPORTED LUNS DATA HAS CHANGED
(3F/0E)?

It is my opinion that this is just another requirement that has been put on
the target for no good reason.

It should be up to the target as to if the LUN field has meaning and the
initiator should be the one that has a requirement to echo the value.

Eddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Harrison [mailto:rod.harrison@windriver.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:52 PM
To: Eddy Quicksall; Julian Satran; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping



The initiator might try to rediscover the LUN topology if it sees a NOP from
a
LUN that it previously thought was not present.

- Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
Eddy Quicksall
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Julian Satran; Eddy Quicksall; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping


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





------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C311.0F0659D0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=227574618-23012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>True 
and I apologize for that remark. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=227574618-23012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=227574618-23012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I 
asked how the initiator would use it and&nbsp;what you pointed out was that the 
target would use it to identify origin.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=227574618-23012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=227574618-23012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>If the 
initiator is only required to echo it and not interpret it, then I see no reason 
to force a target to fill it in. For example in my case, a valid LUN is not 
readily available at the time that I want to send a ping. Granted it is not in a 
fast path but, by my poorly thought out remark, I am saying a spec should not 
mandate requirements that have no use.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=227574618-23012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=227574618-23012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Eddy</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Julian Satran 
  [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, January 23, 2003 
  11:47 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Eddy Quicksall<BR><B>Cc:</B> ips@ece.cmu.edu; Julian 
  Satran; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu; Rod Harrison<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: iSCSI: LUN 
  in a ping<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Eddy,</FONT> 
  <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>We all appreciate you opinion - but this 
  has been hotly debated more than 18 months ago.</FONT> <BR><FONT 
  face=sans-serif size=2>And I recall sending you an explanation regarding the 
  middle boxes and how they handle the LUN for routing in a "clustered" 
  target.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>And your comment about a 
  "requirement with no good reason" besides being derogatory does not add any 
  value to the discussion.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif 
  size=2>Julo</FONT> <BR><BR><BR>
  <TABLE width="100%">
    <TBODY>
    <TR vAlign=top>
      <TD width="40%"><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>Eddy Quicksall 
        &lt;eddy_quicksall@ivivity.com&gt;</B> </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif 
        size=1>Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu</FONT> 
        <P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>23/01/03 17:19</FONT> </P>
      <TD width="59%">
        <TABLE width="100%">
          <TBODY>
          <TR>
            <TD>
              <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>To</FONT></DIV>
            <TD vAlign=top><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Rod Harrison 
              &lt;rod.harrison@windriver.com&gt;, Julian Satran 
              &lt;julian@cs.haifa.ac.il&gt;, ips@ece.cmu.edu</FONT> 
          <TR>
            <TD>
              <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>cc</FONT></DIV>
            <TD vAlign=top>
          <TR>
            <TD>
              <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Subject</FONT></DIV>
            <TD vAlign=top><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>RE: iSCSI: LUN in a 
              ping</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
        <TABLE>
          <TBODY>
          <TR vAlign=top>
            <TD>
            <TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><FONT 
  size=2><TT>For that, wouldn't the target generate REPORTED LUNS DATA HAS 
  CHANGED<BR>(3F/0E)?<BR><BR>It is my opinion that this is just another 
  requirement that has been put on<BR>the target for no good reason.<BR><BR>It 
  should be up to the target as to if the LUN field has meaning and 
  the<BR>initiator should be the one that has a requirement to echo the 
  value.<BR><BR>Eddy<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Rod Harrison 
  [mailto:rod.harrison@windriver.com]<BR>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:52 
  PM<BR>To: Eddy Quicksall; Julian Satran; ips@ece.cmu.edu<BR>Subject: RE: 
  iSCSI: LUN in a ping<BR><BR><BR><BR>The initiator might try to rediscover the 
  LUN topology if it sees a NOP from<BR>a<BR>LUN that it previously thought was 
  not present.<BR><BR>- Rod<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: 
  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of<BR>Eddy 
  Quicksall<BR>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:28 AM<BR>To: Julian Satran; 
  Eddy Quicksall; ips@ece.cmu.edu<BR>Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a 
  ping<BR><BR><BR>Yes, I remember that but the necessity for the target to set 
  it should be up<BR>to the target because the initiator should not be trying to 
  interpret it (it<BR>should only be required to echo it).<BR><BR>Is there a 
  case where the initiator will interpret the 
  LUN?<BR><BR>Eddy<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Julian Satran 
  [mailto:julian@cs.haifa.ac.il]<BR>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:43 
  AM<BR>To: 'Eddy Quicksall'; ips@ece.cmu.edu<BR>Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a 
  ping<BR><BR><BR>TTT &amp; LUN uniquely identify the "origin" (if target is a 
  "composite"<BR>each of the parts can issue their own TTTs - no coordination 
  needed).<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Julo<BR><BR><BR>-----Original 
  Message-----<BR>From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu] On 
  Behalf Of<BR>Eddy Quicksall<BR>Sent: 22 January, 2003 00:07<BR>To: 
  ips@ece.cmu.edu<BR>Subject: iSCSI: LUN in a ping<BR><BR><BR>Does anyone know 
  why we added "the LUN must be valid" for a target<BR>initiated ping? It would 
  seem that it is N/A when the ping is just being<BR>used to checkup on the 
  connection.<BR><BR>What will the initiator do with the LUN 
  anyway?<BR><BR>10.19.3 LUN<BR>A LUN MUST be set to a correct value when the 
  Target Transfer Tag is<BR>valid (not the reserved value 
  0xffffffff).<BR><BR>Eddy<BR>mailto: 
  Eddy_Quicksall@iVivity.com<BR><BR></TT></FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C311.0F0659D0--