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 h0MIqLI18782 for ips-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:52:21 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0MIqHW18776 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:52:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from RLTEMPLE (vpn10-95-10-3.wrsec.fr [10.95.10.3]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA13449; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:51:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Rod Harrison" To: "Eddy Quicksall" , "Julian Satran" , Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:51:59 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk 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