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 h0NJSCu14906 for ips-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:28:12 -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 h0NJS6W14889 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:28:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by ATLOPS with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:28:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: Eddy Quicksall To: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: FW: iSCSI: LUN in a ping Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:28:02 -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 Another thing to be said here ... after a login, there may not be any LUN except the required LUN 0 and that may not have any devices attached. But a ping may be necessary if no additional traffic ensues. I assume is acceptable to just always report LUN 0 even though it doesn't have any peripheral devices (peripheral qualifier = 011b). Eddy -----Original Message----- From: Eddy Quicksall Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:56 PM To: 'Julian Satran' Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; Julian Satran; owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu; Rod Harrison Subject: RE: iSCSI: LUN in a ping 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 Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu 23/01/03 17:19 To Rod Harrison , Julian Satran , 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