One document matched: draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-reqmts-00.txt
IP Storage Working Group M. Krueger
R. Haagens
Internet Draft Hewlett-Packard
Corporation
Category: Informational
C. Sapuntzakis
M. Bakke
Cisco Systems
Document: draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-reqmts-00.txt November 2000
iSCSI Requirements and Design Considerations
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1].
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
1. Abstract
The IP Storage Working group is chartered with developing a protocol
to transport the Small Computer Systems Interface (SCSI) protocol
over the internet. The iSCSI protocol will define a mapping of SCSI
transport protocol over TCP/IP so that SCSI storage controllers
(principally disk and tape arrays and libraries) can be attached to
IP networks, notably Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) and 10 Gigabit Ethernet
(10 GbE).
This document specifies the requirements the iSCSI protocol should
satisfy and the design considerations guiding the iSCSI protocol
development effort. In the interest of timely adoption of the iSCSI
protocol, this group has chosen to work with the existing SCSI
architecture and commands, and the existing TCP/IP transport layer.
Krueger Informational û Expires May 2001 1
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
Both these protocols are widely-deployed and well-understood. The
thought is that using these mature protocols will entail a minimum
of new invention, the most rapid possible adoption, and the greatest
compatibility with Internet architecture, protocols, and equipment.
The iSCSI protocol is a mapping of SCSI to TCP, and constitutes a
"SCSI transport" as defined by the ANSI T10 document SCSI SAM-2
document [SAM2, p. 3, "Transport Protocols"].
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [2].
Paragraphs marked with [R] or [D] are still undergoing development.
3. Definitions
Certain definitions are offered here, with references to the
original document where applicable, in order to clarify the
discussion of requirements. Definitions without references are the
work of the authors and reviewers of this document.
Logical Unit (LU): A target-resident entity that implements a device
model and executes SCSI commands sent by an application client [SAM-
2, sec. 3.1.50, p. 7].
Logical Unit Number (LUN): A 64-bit identifier for a logical unit
[SAM-2, sec. 3.1.52, p. 7].
SCSI Device: A device that is connected to a service delivery
subsystem and supports an SCSI application protocol [SAM-2, sec.
3.1.78, p. 9].
Service Delivery Port (SDP): A device-resident interface used by the
application client, device server, or task manager to enter and
retrieve requests and responses from the service delivery subsystem.
Synonymous with port (SAM-2 sec. 3.1.61) [SAM-2, sec. 3.1.89, p. 9].
Target: An SCSI device that receives SCSI command and directs such
commands to one or more logical units for execution [SAM-2 sec.
3.1.97, p. 10].
Task: An object within the logical unit representing the work
associated with a command or a group of linked commands [SAM-2, sec.
3.1.98, p. 10].
Transaction: A cooperative interaction between two objects,
involving the exchange of information or the execution of some
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 2
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
service by one object on behalf of the other [SAM-2, sec. 3.1.109,
p. 10]. [A transaction seems to be a smaller unit than a task.]
4. iSCSI Design Considerations
4.1. General Discussion
The iSCSI standard SHALL specify how SCSI volume/block-oriented
devices interact when attached to IP networks. The SCSI-3 command
sets (defined by the ANSI NCITS T10 committee) will be mapped to
TCP. TCP has been chosen as the transport protocol because it is
well defined, well respected, and widely implemented in the internet
community. In addition, the TCP transport provides the necessary
congestion management behavior necessary to be a "good internet
citizen".
Traditionally, volume/block-oriented storage controllers (e.g., disk
array controllers, tape library controllers) have supported the
SCSI-3 protocol, and have been attached to computers through the
SCSI parallel bus or through Fibre Channel. File-oriented storage
controllers have supported the NFS and/or CIFS protocols, and have
been attached directly to IP networks such as Ethernet.
The IP infrastructure offers compelling advantages for volume/block-
oriented storage attachment compared to current approaches. It
offers the opportunity to take advantage of the cost/performance
benefits provided by competition in the internet marketplace. This
reduces the cost of storage infrastructure by:
-- Increasing performance (market driven by networking demand)
-- Offers richer array of management, security and QoS solutions
-- Economies arising from the need to install and operate only
single type of network
In addition, mapping SCSI over IP provides:
-- Extended distance ranges
-- Connectivity to "carrier class" services that support IP
The following applications for iSCSI are contemplated:
-- Local storage access, consolidation, clustering and pooling (as
in the data center)
-- Client access to remote storage (ex. a "storage service
provider")
-- Local and remote synchronous and asynchronous mirroring between
storage controllers
-- Local and remote backup and recovery
iSCSI must support the following topologies:
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 3
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
-- Point-to-point direct connections
-- Dedicated storage LAN, consisting of one or more LAN segments
-- Shared LAN, carrying a mix of traditional LAN traffic plus
storage traffic
-- LAN-to-WAN extension using IP routers or carrier-provided "IP
Datatone"
-- Private networks and the public Internet
Local-area storage networks will be built using Ethernet LAN
switches. These networks may be dedicated to storage, or shared
with traditional Ethernet uses, as determined by cost, performance,
administration, and security considerations. In the local area,
TCP's adaptive retransmission timers will provide for automatic and
rapid error detection and recovery, compared to alternative
technologies.
IP LAN-WAN routers will be used to extend the IP storage network to
the wide area, permitting remote disk access (as for a storage
utility), synchronous and asynchronous remote mirroring, and remote
backup and restore (as for tape vaulting). In the WAN, TCP end-to-
end will avoid the need for specialized equipment for protocol
conversion, ensure data reliability, cope with network congestion,
and automatically adapt retransmission strategies to WAN delays.
The full realization of iSCSI will involve the following elements:
(1) Completion of Requirements (this document) and Specification
documents;
(2) Development of Ethernet storage NICs and related driver and
protocol software; [NOTE: high-speed applications of iSCSI are
expected to require significant portions of the iSCSI/TCP/IP
implementation in hardware to achieve the necessary
throughput.]
(3) Development of compatible storage controllers; and
(4) The likely development of translating gateways to provide
connectivity between the Ethernet storage network and the
Fibre Channel and/or parallel-bus SCSI domains.
Products will initially be offered for Gigabit Ethernet attachment,
with rapid migration to 10 GbE. For performance competitive with
alternative SCSI transports, it will be necessary to implement the
performance path of the full protocol stack in hardware. These new
storage NICs will perform full-stack processing of a complete SCSI
task, analogous to today's SCSI and Fibre Channel HBAs. They
typically also will support all host protocols that use TCP,
including NFS, CIFS and HTTP.
A key goal is not to require modifications to the current IP and
Ethernet infrastructure to support storage traffic over TCP.
Nevertheless, the performance and security requirements of storage
will create opportunities for improvement in security protocols and
QoS implementations. The addition of storage traffic to local- and
wide-area internets (and even to the public Internet) may introduce
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 4
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
increased requirements for traffic monitoring and engineering in
those environments.
It is contemplated that many organizations initially will choose to
operate storage networks based on iSCSI that are independent of
(isolated from) their current data networks except for secure
routing of storage management traffic. These organizations will
benefit from the high performance/cost of IP equipment and a unified
management architecture, compared to alternative means of building
storage networks. As security and QoS evolve, it will become more
reasonable to build combined networks with shared infrastructure;
nevertheless, it is likely that sophisticated users will choose to
keep their storage subnetworks isolated, for the best control of
security and QoS.
The charter of the IETF IP Storage Working Group (IPSWG) describes
the broad goal of mapping SCSI to IP. Within that broad charter,
many transport alternatives may be considered. Our initial work
focuses on TCP, and this requirements document is restricted to that
domain of interest. At the current time, the working group does not
seek a more generic requirements statement that would justify the
choice of TCP (or another protocol) as transport, since the merits
of using TCP are readily evident to the working group participants.
4.2. Framing
Framing refers to the addition of information in a header, or the
data stream to allow implementations to locate the boundaries of an
iSCSI protocol data unit (PDU). There are two technical
requirements driving framing: interfacing needs, and accelerated
processing needs.
A framing solution that addresses the "interfacing needs" of the
iSCSI protocol will facilitate the implementation of a message-based
upper layer protocol (SCSI) on top of an underlying byte streaming
protocol (TCP). Since TCP is a reliable transport, this can be
accomplished by including a length field in the iSCSI header. That
assumes that the receiver will parse from the beginning of the
stream, and never make a mistake (lose alignment on packet headers).
The other technical requirement for framing, "accelerated
processing", stems from the need to handle increasingly higher data
rates in the physical media interface. Two needs arise from higher
data rates -
(1) LAN environment - NIC vendors seek ways to provide "0 copy"
methods of moving data directly from the wire into application
buffers.
(2) WAN environment- the emergence of high bandwidth, high latency,
low bit error rate physical media places huge buffer
requirements on the physical interface solutions.
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 5
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
First, vendors are producing network processing hardware that
offloads network protocols to hardware solutions to achieve higher
data rates. The concept of "0 copy" seeks to store blocks of data
in appropriate memory locations (aligned) directly off the wire,
even in when data is reordered due to packet loss. This is
necessary to drive actual data rates of 10G and beyond.
Secondly, in order for iSCSI to be successful in the WAN arena it
must be possible to operate efficiently in high bandwidth, high
delay networks. The emergence of multi-gigabit IP networks with
latencies in the tens to hundreds of milliseconds presents a
challenge. To fill such large pipes, tens of megabytes of
outstanding requests from the application are needed. In addition,
some protocols potentially require tens of megabytes at the
transport layer to deal with buffering for reassembly of data when
packets are received out-of-order.
Consider that a network pipe at 10 Gbps . 200 msec holds 250 MB.
[Assume land-based communication with a spot half way around the
world at the equator. Ignore additional distance due to cable
routing. Ignore repeater and switching delays; consider only a
speed-of-light delay of 5 .sec / km. The circumference of the globe
at the equator is approx. 40000 km (we need to consider round-trip
delay to keep the pipe full). 10 Gb/sec . 40000 km . 5 .sec / km . B
/ 8b = 250 MB]. In a conventional TCP implementation, loss of a TCP
segment means that stream processing must stop until that segment is
recovered, which takes at least a time of <network round trip> to
accomplish. Following the example above, we would be obliged to
catch 250 MB of data into an anonymous buffer before we could resume
stream processing; later, this data would need to be moved to its
proper location. Some proponents of iSCSI seek some means of
putting data directly where it belongs, and avoiding extra data
movement in the case of segment drop. This is a key concept in
understanding the debate behind framing methodologies.
The framing of the iSCSI protocol impacts both the "interfacing
needs" and the "accelerated processing needs", however, while
including a length in a header may suffice for the "interfacing
needs", it will not serve the "accelerated processing needs". The
framing mechanism developed should allow resynchronization of packet
boundaries even in the case where a packet is temporarily missing in
the incoming data stream.
4.3. Performance/Cost
EDITORS NOTE: Performance/Cost is frequently, but inaccurately,
referred to as Cost/Performance. The Performance/Cost formulation
is the correct representation, demonstrating that increasing
Performance/Cost is good.
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 6
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
In general, iSCSI should allow implementations to equal or improve on
the current state of the art for SCSI interconnects.
[R] Low delay communication.
[D] Conventional storage access is of a stop-and-wait or remote
procedure call type. Applications typically employ very little
pipelining of their storage accesses, and so storage access delay
directly impacts performance. The delay imposed by current storage
interconnects, including protocol processing, is generally in the
range of 100 microseconds. The use of caching in storage
controllers means that many storage accesses complete almost
instantly, and so the delay of the interconnect can have a high
relative impact on overall performance.
[R] High bandwidth, bandwidth aggregation.
[D] The bandwidth (transfer rate, MB/sec) supported by storage
controllers is rapidly increasing, due to several factors: (1)
Increase in disk spindle and controller performance; (2) Use of
ever-larger caches, and improved caching algorithms; (3) Increased
scale of storage controllers (number of supported spindles, speed of
interconnects). Not only must the iSCSI provide for full
utilization of available link bandwidth, it also must exploit
parallelism (multiple connections) at the device interfaces and
within the interconnect fabric.
[R] Low CPU utilization, equal to or better than current technology.
[D] For competitive performance, the iSCSI protocol must allow three
key implementation choices to be realized: (1) iSCSI must make it
possible to build I/O adapters that handle an entire SCSI task, as
alternative SCSI transport implementations do. (2) The protocol
must permit "zero-copy" memory architectures, where the I/O adapter
reads or writes host memory exactly once per disk transaction. (3)
The protocol must not impose complex operations on the host
software, which would increase host instruction path length relative
to alternatives.
[R] Cost competitive with alternative storage network technologies.
[R] Possible to move data directly f EDITORS NOTE: Performance/Cost
is frequently, but inaccurately, referred to as Cost/Performance.
The Performance/Cost formulation is the correct representation,
demonstrating that increasing Performance/Cost is good.
In general, iSCSI must allow implementations to equal or improve on
the current state of the art for SCSI interconnects.
[R] Low delay communication.
[D] Conventional storage access is of a stop-and-wait or remote
procedure call type. Applications typically employ very little
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 7
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
pipelining of their storage accesses, and so storage access delay
directly impacts performance. The delay imposed by current storage
interconnects, including protocol processing, is generally in the
range of 100 microseconds. The use of caching in storage
controllers means that many storage accesses complete almost
instantly, and so the delay of the interconnect can have a high
relative impact on overall performance.
[R] High bandwidth, bandwidth aggregation.
[D] The bandwidth (transfer rate, MB/sec) supported by storage
controllers is rapidly increasing, due to several factors: (1)
Increase in disk spindle and controller performance; (2) Use of
ever-larger caches, and improved caching algorithms; (3) Increased
scale of storage controllers (number of supported spindles, speed of
interconnects). Not only must the iSCSI provide for full
utilization of available link bandwidth, it also must exploit
parallelism (multiple connections) at the device interfaces and
within the interconnect fabric.
[R] Low CPU utilization, equal to or better than current technology.
[D] For competitive performance, the iSCSI protocol must allow three
key implementation choices to be realized: (1) iSCSI must make it
possible to build I/O adapters that handle an entire SCSI task, as
alternative SCSI transport implementations do. (2) The protocol
must permit "zero-copy" memory architectures, where the I/O adapter
reads or writes host memory exactly once per disk transaction. (3)
The protocol must not impose complex operations on the host
software, which would increase host instruction path length relative
to alternatives.
[R] Cost competitive with alternative storage network technologies.
5. Ease of implementation/complexity of protocol
Experience has shown that adoption of a protocol by the internet
community is inversely proportional to its complexity. In addition,
the simpler the protocol, the easier it is to diagnose problems.
The designers of iSCSI shall strive to fulfill the requirements of
the interconnect effort, while keeping the protocol as simple as
possible.
In the interest of simplicity, iSCSI should minimize optional
features. When features are deemed necessary, the protocol should
allow for feature negotiation at session establishment (login) and
provide for rejection when an implementation does not support a
requested feature.
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 8
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
6. Reliability and Availability
ISCSI protocol design, while placing an emphasis on simplicity,
should lead to timely recovery from failure of initiator, target, or
connecting internet infrastructure (cabling, data path equipment
such as routers, etc). This would provide a basis for layered
technologies like high availability and clustering. The protocol
specification should take into account fail-over schemes for
mirrored targets or highly available storage configurations that
provide paths to target data through multiple "storage servers".
7. Multiple Paths for Throughput
History has shown that any single link can be saturated by storage
traffic. Scientific data applications, asynchronous and synchronous
data replication are examples of applications that have pushed and
continue to push the limits of throughput.
The iSCSI standard MUST allow the initiator and target to use
multiple network interfaces and multiple paths through the network
for increased throughput.
Some applications, like log updates, streaming tape, and
replication, require ordering of updates and thus ordering of SCSI
commands. An initiator may maintain ordering by waiting for each
update to complete before issuing the next (a.k.a. synchronous
updates). However, the throughput of synchronous updates decreases
inversely with increases in latency of the operation.
To allow an initiator to maintain throughput, the SCSI task queuing
mechanism allows an initiator to have multiple commands outstanding
at the target simultaneously and to express ordering constraints on
the execution of those commands. The task queuing mechanism is only
effective if the commands arrive at the target in the order they
were presented to the initiator (FIFO order).
The iSCSI standard MAY provide a FIFO transport of SCSI commands,
even when commands are sent along different paths. This FIFO
transport mechanism MAY wish to minimize the amount of communication
necessary across multiple adapters doing transport off-load.
There are a few potential ways to satisfy the multiple path and
ordering requirements.
A popular way to satisfy the multiple-path requirement is to have a
driver above the SCSI layer instantiate multiple copies of the SCSI
transport, each communicating to the target along a different path.
ôWedgeö drivers use this technique today to attain high performance.
Unfortunately, wedge drivers must use stop-and-wait to do ordered
updates.
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 9
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
Another approach might be for the iSCSI protocol to use multiple
instances of its underlying transport (e.g. TCP). The iSCSI layer
would make these independent transport instances appear as one SCSI
transport instance and maintain the ability to do ordered SCSI
command queuing. The document will refer to this technique as
"connection binding" for convenience.
The consensus of the working group is that support for connection
binding is NOT a requirement for initiators and targets. (ref e-mail
of David Black to ips reflector on Oct 11, 2000) There has been no
explicit decision on whether the protocol is required to support
connection binding.
In the presence of connection binding, there are two ways to assign
features to connections. In the symmetric approach, all the
connections are identical from a feature standpoint. In the
asymmetric model, connections have different features. For example,
some connections may be used primarily for data transfers whereas
others are used primarily for SCSI commands.
Another point in the design space for connection binding has to do
with the data transfer associated with a SCSI command. The data
transfer is said to have allegiance to the command if it occurs on
the same connection on which the command was sent. A data transfer
can also potentially have allegiance to a channel which is different
from the command was sent (and perhaps even specified in the command
request). Finally, a data transfer can have no allegiance and appear
across number of any connection.
The question of symmetric or asymmetric has yet to be resolved by
the working group. The symmetric approach potentially requires less
communication between the interfaces and has simpler recovery
semantics in the case of a connection failure. The asymmetric
approach can simplify some aspects of the protocol and potentially
yields greater throughput. The symmetric approach with command
allegiance is currently being pursued.
8. Recovery
The iSCSI protocol MUST provide the ability to recover from a
failed, hung, or timed-out TCP connection, without the loss of the
session between the initiator and target. This must particularly
work for non-idempotent requests, such as operations on tape drives.
If all TCP connections for a session fail, and no connections can be
established, the iSCSI session shall be aborted.
The iSCSI protocol SHALL attempt to provide recovery in a timely
fashion from initiator and target reboots and failovers to other
physical devices.
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 10
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
The iSCSI protocol MUST also provide a method for sessions to be
gracefully terminated and restarted that can be initiated by either
the initiator or target. This provides the ability to gracefully
fail over an initiator or target, or to gracefully reset a target
after upgrading software or performing other maintenance tasks.
8.1. Interoperability
It must be possible for initiators and targets that implement the
required portions of the iSCSI specification to interoperate.
8.2. Internet infrastructure
The iSCSI protocol MUST:
-- be compatible with both IPv4 and IPv6
-- use TCP connections conservatively, keeping in mind there may be
many other users of TCP on a given machine.
The iSCSI protocol MUST NOT:
-- require changes to existing internet protocols
8.3. SCSI
Since iSCSI is a SCSI transport, the iSCSI standard SHOULD comply
with the requirements of the SCSI Architecture Model [SAM2] and
SHOULD support all current SCSI command sets. Furthermore, it MUST
be possible to create bridges from iSCSI to other SCSI
interconnects.
track changes to SCSI and the SCSI Architecture Model.
iSCSI is a new SCSI "transport" [SAM2]. Being the intersection of
SCSI and TCP, iSCSI has potential impact on T10 as well as on IETF.
However, a stated requirement (below) is that iSCSI shall have no
impact on T10 architecture or command sets. Collaboration with T10
will be necessary to achieve this requirement.
Collaboration with T10 concerns three phases of T10 activity:
(1) Past. For T10 work completed in the past, and well-document
in T10 standards publication, the IPS working group will seek
assistance in properly interpreting those standards;
(2) Present. For T10 work that is ongoing, or recently completed
(but not widely published), the IPS working group will seek
review of our work by individuals active in T10, and/or the
participation of those individuals in the IETF process;
(3) Future. For compatibility with future T10 work, it is
essential that iSCSI be a legitimate and recognized "SCSI
transport", no less so than the several other SCSI transports.
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 11
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
SCSI command standards must evolve within the context of all
existing SCSI transports.
Storage attachment to IP networks will engender an unprecedented
potential for device sharing. This alone may impact future T10
work.
The iSCSI protocol MUST support all SCSI-3 command sets and device
types. The primary focus is on supporting ôlargerö devices: host
computers and storage controllers (disk arrays, tape libraries).
However, other command sets (printers, scanners) MUST be supported.
These requirements must not be construed to mean that iSCSI must be
natively implementable on all of todayÆs SCSI devices, which might
have limited processing power or memory.
The iSCSI protocol MUST not require changes to the SCSI-3 command
sets and SCSI client code except to reflect lengthier iSCSI target
names and potentially lengthier timeouts.
The iSCSI standard MUST allow for the construction of gateways to
other SCSI transports, including parallel SCSI [SPI-X] and to SCSI-
FCP[FCP, FCP-2]. It MUST be possible to construct "translating"
gateways so that iSCSI hosts can talk to SCSI-X devices; so that
SCSI-X devices can talk to each other over an iSCSI network; and so
that SCSI-X hosts can talk to iSCSI devices (where SCSI-X refers to
parallel SCSI, SCSI-FCP, or SCSI over any other transport).
This requirement is implied by support for SAM-2, but is worthy of
emphasis[D] These are true application protocol gateways, and not
just bridge/routers. The different standards have only the SCSI-3
command set layer in common. These gateways are not mere packet
forwarders.
The iSCSI standard MUST reliably transport SCSI commands from the
initiator to the target. According to [SAM-2, p. 17.] "The function
of the service delivery subsystem is to transport an error-free copy
of the request or response between the sender and the receiverà"
[SAM-2, p. 22]. The iSCSI standard or its transport MUST correctly
deal with packet drop, duplication, corruption, stale packets, and
re-ordering.
The iSCSI standard MUST support FIFO delivery of SCSI commands from
the initiator to the target, so as to enable support for task
ordering in SCSI Task Queuing.
9. Security Considerations
9.1. Authentication
The iSCSI protocol MUST support authenticated login. Authenticated
login aids the target in blocking the unauthorized use of SCSI
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 12
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
resources. Since block storage is considered critical in many
environments and many IP networks provide easy connectivity, many
organizations will want to protect their IP SCSI resources.
The iSCSI authenticated login MUST be resilient against passive
attacks since many IP networks are vulnerable to packet inspection.
Simple, US-exportable techniques exist to satisfy this requirement.
In addition, the iSCSI protocol MUST support optional authentication
of its communications. This requirement may be met using IPsec or
SSL/TLS or with some iSCSI-specific mechanism. The endpoints may
negotiate the authentication method, optionally none. The endpoints
will not be required to support any authentication algorithms.
Authentication of the communications is critical since IP networks
are vulnerable to source spoofing, where a malicious third party can
pretend to send packets from the initiatorÆs IP address.
9.2. Data Integrity
Requirements:
-- The iSCSI protocol shall support the negotiation of data
integrity schemes during connection login.
-- The iSCSI protocol shall support the negotiation of a data
integrity mechanism for SCSI data, blocks, separable from data
integrity mechanisms performed on commands, status, and iSCSI
headers.
-- The iSCSI data integrity negotiation scheme shall be extensible
to include other data integrity check mechanisms.
-- The iSCSI protocol shall not preclude the use of stream data
integrity mechanisms provided by IPSec.
The iSCSI protocol must provide the ability to select data integrity
mechanisms that are appropriate for each environment in which it is
to run. For example, a layer 2 network (such as Ethernet) uses a
CRC to protect each IP packet that is comparable to the CRC used to
protect Fibre Channel frames. When running in this environment, it
is likely that no additional data integrity mechanisms need be
provided by iSCSI, so a data integrity scheme of "none" might be
used.
However, in a L3 or L4 routed network, the Ethernet (or other layer
2) CRC is removed and replaced at each router, and the iSCSI stream
is protected only by the 16-bit TCP checksum. In some applications
and networks, this still may be acceptable, but in many cases a
stronger check is needed. Some of the options that have been
discussed rely either on adding a TCP option for CRC, which would
require work on the implementorÆs TCP stack, or would rely on data
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 13
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
integrity checks from a security layer such as IPsec. These are
both technically workable solutions, but will not work across iSCSI
proxies or gateways.
In an iSCSI proxy or gateway situation, the iSCSI headers are
removed and re-added, and the TCP stream is terminated on either
side. This means that even the TCP checksum is removed and
recomputed within the gateway. To ensure the protection of
commands, data, and status, a CRC or other mechanism is required to
operation on the SCSI data block itself, as well as on each command
and status message. Since the iSCSI headers can be stripped and
remade, the iSCSI headers cannot be included in these CRCs, and
must have their own.
9.3. Data Privacy
Block storage is used for storing sensitive information, like
medical records, where data privacy is critical.
Encrypting the data blocks before writing them to storage provides
the best protection for the application. Even if the storage or
communications are compromised, the attacker will have difficulty
reading the data.
However, for certain environments, link encryption may be sufficient
or provide an extra layer of assurance of privacy. An iSCSI
implementation MAY use protocols such as TLS or IPsec to provide
data privacy over a link.
10. Management
iSCSI devices should be manageable using IP-based management
protocols (ex. SNMP, RMI).
iSCSI devices may also be manageable using SCSI commands for
management (ex. SCSI Enclosure Services, SES commands).
The iSCSI protocol document will not define the management
architecture for iSCSI networks.
10.1. Naming
Whenever possible, iSCSI shall support the naming architecture of
SAM-2. Deviations and uncertainties will be made explicit, and
comment/resolution invited.
The iSCSI protocol shall provide a means of identifying iSCSI
targets by a flexible path address (URL), where the path is the
combination of a DNS name or IP address, a TCP port, and an optional
ASCII path name identifying the target.
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 14
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
The iSCSI protocol shall provide a means of identifying iSCSI
targets by a world-wide unique identifier (WWUI), that is
independent of the path on which it is found. This will be used to
correlate alternate paths to the same device. Implementation
support for the WWUI is strongly recommended, but optional.
Note that LU names are discovered through SCSI-level inquiries, and
are not just for Fibre Channel. There is nothing to prevent iSCSI
(or parallel SCSI) from implementing the LU WWN. As such, this is
outside the scope of the iSCSI protocol specification.
Standard internet lookup services should be used to resolve names.
For example, the Domain Name Service (DNS) MAY be used to resolve
the <hostname> portion of the URL to one, or multiple IP addresses.
When a hostname resolves to multiple addresses, these addresses
should be equivalent for functional (possibly not performance)
purposes. This means that the addresses can be used interchangeably
as long as performance isnÆt a concern. For example, the same set
of SCSI targets must be accessible from each of these addresses.
[R] Deal with the complications of the new SCSI security
architecture [99-245r8].
[D] Pay attention to the proxy naming architecture defined by the
new security model. In this new model, SCSI Logical Unit Numbers
(LUNs) can be mapped in a manner that gives each host (more
correctly, each AccessID) a unique LU map. Thus, a given LU within
a target may be addressed by different LUNs.
[R] Support SCSI 3rd-party operations.
[D] The key issue here relates to the naming architecture for SCSI
LUs. We need to determine a method of passing a name or handle
between parties
10.2. Topology Discovery
iSCSI shall have no impact on the use of conventional IP network
discovery techniques. Various network management platforms have
ways of discovering IP addresses. These techniques will be used,
and will find all of the IP end points that contain iSCSI nodes.
The iSCSI protocol shall provide appropriate discovery mechanisms
which scale from adding single devices to an iSCSI-internal storage
subsystem, up to the deployment of multi-customer, multi-utility
storage outsourcing environments.
iSCSI shall provide some means of determining that a discovered IP
end point is an iSCSI node. It is expected that iSCSI is a point of
service in a host, just as SNMP, etc are points of services, and are
associated with a well known port number. One solution to this
problem would be to produce an iSCSI device MIB specification.
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 15
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
The iSCSI protocol shall provide a method of discovering, given an
IP end point on its well-known port, the list of SCSI targets
available to the requestor. These targets can either be path
addresses, or WWUIs. The use of this discovery service shall be
optional.
SCSI protocol-dependent techniques shall be used for further
discovery beyond the iSCSI layer. Discovery is a complex process.
SCSI provides specific hooks for doing the work, so the commands
associated with this process will also work over iSCSI. Generally
the SCSI discovery process involves using the Report LUNs command to
determine which LUs are addressable at a given service delivery
port. Subsequently, the true identity of each LU (ie, name) is
discovered by reading Vital product data page 83h. By comparing LU
IDs, the discovery process can find that a given LU is accessible
through multiple paths.
11. Internet Accessibility
11.1. Denial of Service
As with all services, the denial of service by either incorrect
implementations or malicious agents is always a concern. All
aspects of the iSCSI protocol should be scrutinized for potential
denial of service issues, and guarded against as much as possible.
11.2. Firewalls and Proxy servers
During the login phase, any login or connect command must include
the full iSCSI address of the target to which the initiator wishes
to connect. This includes the IP Address (or DNS name), TCP port
number, and iSCSI PATH (target name), and allows an initiator to
connect to a target through an iSCSI proxy server.
The iSCSI protocolÆs use of IP addressing and TCP port numbers must
be firewall friendly. This probably means that all connection
requests should be addressed a specific, well-known TCP port. That
way, firewalls can filter based on source and destination IP
addresses, and destination (target) port number. The source
(initiator) port number also should be well-known for the initial
TCP connection. Additional TCP connections would require different
source port numbers (for uniqueness), but could be opened after a
security dialogue on the control channel.
ItÆs important that iSCSI operate through a firewall to provide a
possible means of defending against Denial of Service (DoS) assaults
from less-trusted areas of the network. It is assumed that a
firewall will have much greater processing power for dismissing
bogus connection requests than do the end nodes.
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 16
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
11.3. Congestion control and Transport Selection
The iSCSI protocol MUST be a good network citizen with TCP-
compatible congestion control (as defined in RFC 2309). In addition,
iSCSI implementations MUST not use multiple connections as a means
to avoid transport-layer congestion control.
12. Virtualization
Virtualization of targets and LUNs is generally handled by
intelligent gateways, storage controllers, or other devices. Many
vendors, especially those that build storage devices, include very
advanced virtualization features that are beyond the scope of a SCSI
transport layer to define, and are usually closely guarded as
intellectual property.
Requiring the iSCSI protocol to work within an environment that
includes proxies and gateways (see earlier requirements) will
provide a SCSI transport that will enable vendors to add their own
virtualization features without breaking the protocol or causing
interoperability problems.
13. References
1 Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
2 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
1 [SAM-2] ANSI NCITS. Weber, Ralph O., editor. SCSI Architecture
Model -2 (SAM-2). T10 Project 1157-D. rev 13, 22 Mar 2000.
2 [SPC-2] ANSI NCITS. Weber, Ralph O., editor. SCSI Primary
Commands û 2 (SPC-2). T10 Project 1236-D. rev 18, 21 May 2000.
3 [CAM-3] ANSI NCITS. Dallas, William D., editor. Information
Technology û Common Access Method û 3 (CAM-3)). X3T10 Project
990D. rev 3, 16 Mar 1998.
4 [99-245r8] Hafner, Jim. A Detailed Proposal for Access Controls.
T10/99-245 revision 8, 26 Apr 2000.
5 [SPI-X] ANSI NCITS. SCSI Parallel Interface û X.
6 [FCP] ANSI NCITS. SCSI-3 Fibre Channel Protocol [ANSI
X3.269:1996]
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 17
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
7 [FCP-2] ANSI NCITS. SCSI-3 Fibre Channel Protocol û 2 [T10/1144-
D]
14. Acknowledgements
<TBD>
15. Author's Addresses
Address comments to:
Marjorie Krueger
Hewlett-Packard Corporation
8000 Foothills Blvd
Roseville, CA 95747-5668, USA
Phone: +1 916 785-2656
Email: marjorie_krueger@hp.com
Randy Haagens
Hewlett-Packard Corporation
8000 Foothills Blvd
Roseville, CA 95747-5668, USA
Phone: +1 916 785-4578
Email: Randy_Haagens@hp.com
Costa Sapuntzakis
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134, USA
Phone: +1 408 525-5497
Email: csapuntz@cisco.com
Mark Bakke
Cisco Systems, Inc.
6450 Wedgwood Road
Maple Grove, MN 55311
Phone: +1 763 398-1054
Email: mbakke@cisco.com
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 18
ISCSI Reqmnts and Design Considerations Nov. 2000
Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into
Krueger Informational û Exp. May 2001 19
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-19 19:14:09 |