RE: iSCSI boot - root path DHCP option

[email protected] Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:14:05 -0400
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.ips
Message-ID <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E0550A4D23F3@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
Yaron,
 
RFC 4173 essentially specifies the format of the root path option when
the path string begins with "iscsi:".  The implementation you refer to
has chosen to do something else - the result is likely to be
implementation-specific and have interoperability issues.
 
If there's interest in updating RFC 4173 to address additional issues
and/or standardize this format, please submit an Internet-Draft.  It
is not necessary to replace RFC 4173 in its entirety - a description
of what is new and/or changed will suffice.
 
Thanks,
--David (ips WG chair)
---------------------------------------------------- 
David L. Black, Senior Technologist 
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748 
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 
[email protected]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 
----------------------------------------------------


________________________________

	From: Yaron Haviv [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:26 AM
	To: Black, David; [email protected]
	Subject: iSCSI boot - root path DHCP option
	
	

	Guys, 

	 

	I'm trying to figure out something relating to the iSCSI
root-path DHCP option 

	 

	The iSCSI boot spec (RFC4173) seem to indicate that the iSCSI
root path option in the DHCP server should look like:

	   

	
"iscsi:"<servername>":"<protocol>":"<port>":"<LUN>":"<targetname>

	 

	While I saw an implementation that uses:

	(http://iscsi-init.sourceforge.net/README.html)

	 

	option root-path
"[if_name1:]<target_ip1>[,[if_name2:]<target_ip2>]:/<target_name>[/<init
iator_name>[/<lun_number>]]";

	 

	the RFC doesn't seem to address key issues which are enabled
through the 2nd alternative

	such as specifying an alternate IP address of a target (pretty
important for HA)

	and specifying the initiator Iqn (after all the LUN masking is
done on the target based on the initiator iqn)

	 

	Any idea if the RFC taken those into considerations, or has
changed recently ?

	 

	Thanks, Yaron

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips