Re: no DHCP-assigned InitiatorName
<[email protected]> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:37:22 +0530
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ips |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <46A00B48CC54E4468EF6911F877AC4CA019D6963@blrx3m10.blr.amer.dell.com> |
Thanks Gaurav. You are right. The fact that most of the pre-OS iSCSI initiators don't have iSNS clients, takes us away from the iSNS scenario atleast for the boot environment. On the other hand the scenario where in there are iSNS clients(or a more enterprise ready environment) we could probably think more on the lines of security since parameters with DHCP(clear text) is going to be less secure. Thanks, Shyam Iyer -----Original Message----- From: Chawla, G Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:16 AM To: Michael Howard; Iyer, Shyam Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chawla, G Subject: RE: [Ips] no DHCP-assigned InitiatorName My 2 cents based on my understanding of iSNS. - iSNS clients (initiators and targets) need to have an IQN address before they register with the iSNS server. - Most pre-OS iSCSI initiators available today are not iSNS clients i.e. they don't register with and/or query iSNS server. Given this, it seems better to have a DHCP based standardized mechanism for acquiring the initiator IQN. Based on initial email from Michael, most pre-OS iSCSI Initiators available today have the capability to be a DHCP client. Thanks, Gaurav Chawla Technology Strategist, Network Storage Architecture | Office of the CTO, Dell, Inc. Phone: 512.724.4064 (work) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Howard Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:29 PM To: Iyer, Shyam Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ips] no DHCP-assigned InitiatorName [email protected] wrote: > My 2cents on the issue. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you for participating in this discussion. > Shouldn't it be possible to configure the isns server with a set of > possibly regex rules for the control path. If this not possible today, > then it could possibly be the root to take towards standardizing. I am not familiar enough with iSNS to comment. I have been exposed to about about a dozen commercial environments with some level of iSCSI use/experimentation. I am not aware that any of them were running iSNS servers. > This can solve the problem of provisioning for dynamic boot > environments with minimum changes to legacy iqn implementations, many > of which would need to relearn to the new iqn mechanism that might end > up as a result of this discussion. Frankly, my concern is that Broadcom/IBM already have a non-standard DHCP Vendor Option work-around for this problem. Adding a new/standardized InitiatorName DHCP option would not break existing initiator implementations. Vendors would integrate support for this new InitiatorName option into their code/firmware releases over time. > Instead of changing numerous configurations we could simply change the > isns server control mechanism. I need to do some homework regarding iSNS. > Comments? iSCSI is still a very small part of the market. I advocate addressing this deficiency sooner rather than later. Michael _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips