Return-Path: <owner-ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>
Received: from newbox.ece.cmu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by newbox.ece.cmu.edu (Cyrus v2.1.12) with LMTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:59 -0400
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Received: from osgood.ece.cmu.edu (OSGOOD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.25])
	by newbox.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB757324A
	for <ipsml@ece.cmu.edu>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953)
	id 580416E; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27])
	by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5D2416A; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix)
	id A5DCB8A18; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: ips-outgoing@sos.ece.cmu.edu
Received: from hazard.ece.cmu.edu (HAZARD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.24])
	by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2268A0F
	for <ips-outgoing@sos.ece.cmu.edu>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix)
	id 6EE9B120; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu
Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953)
	id DEE2113E; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27])
	by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74019120
	for <ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 363)
	id 4A2FA8A1A; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:36 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu
Delivered-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu
Received: from hazard.ece.cmu.edu (HAZARD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.24])
	by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CE38A0F
	for <ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix)
	id 43850120; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:34 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953)
	id E515F140; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from palrel12.hp.com (palrel12.hp.com [156.153.255.237])
	by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB61120
	for <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:44:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rosemail.rose.hp.com (rosemail.rose.hp.com [15.96.64.26])
	by palrel12.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B34981C01D4A; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from swathi (dhcp-roseor-bdj047.rose.hp.com [15.23.139.47]) by rosemail.rose.hp.com with SMTP (8.7.1/8.7.3 SMKit7.02) id RAA02710; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <020c01c357c6$0a21e340$18a4f40f@rose.hp.com>
From: "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>
To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>, <rddp@ietf.org>
References: <B9503F50-C2F3-11D7-81E7-003065D48EE0@asomi.com>
Subject: Re: [rddp] Re: iSCSI/iWARP drafts and flow control
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:43:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-16.1 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_10,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,QUOTE_TWICE_1,REFERENCES
	autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)

> No new wire protocol is required.

Please explain to me how credit can be replenished
in the following example - without new positive flow 
control protocol.

An initiator sends an immediate command in an untagged
message to the target (and thus consumes one "fringe" credit).

Considerations: a) CmdSN is not unique, can't be acked.
b) target may discard it, or may process it c) no assumptions
can be made based on  subsequent command processing.

The other specific iSCSI PDU types that I listed present
a similar "problem" - for both directions.
--
Mallikarjun

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions
Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 
Roseville CA 95747
cbm@rose.hp.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Caitlin Bestler" <cait@asomi.com>
To: "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>
Cc: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; <rddp@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:10 PM
Subject: [rddp] Re: iSCSI/iWARP drafts and flow control


> 
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 07:49 PM, Mallikarjun C. wrote:
> 
> >
> >> There is an identical flow control issue for
> >> RDMA Reads.
> >
> > Not true.  There's a built-in credit renewal in an RDMA Read.
> > The Peer issuing the RDMA Read knows it can reuse the
> > Read credit when it receives an RDMA Read Response.
> > Send Messages carrying the "fringe" iSCSI PDUs need both
> > new wire protocol and cross-layer chit-chat within an end-node
> > between iSCSI and iSER - in order to renew credits.
> 
> No new wire protocol is required.
> 
> Restoration of no-CmdSNs credits could be piggy-backed on top
> of the existing CmdSN credit system.
> 
> Basically each Cmd reply restores one "Cmd Credit". It could
> also restore an implicit number of "NoCmd" credits. Basically
> if Cmd X had been proceeded by Y "NoCmd" messages, then the
> reply to Cmd X would restore Y "NoCmd" credits.
> 
> It is simple credit counting, suitable for implementation in
> hardware or software at any number of layers, and requires
> no additional wire messages or even fields.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rddp mailing list
> rddp@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
> 

