Combined initiator & target names in SAM-2

[Elliott, Robert]

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Elliott, Robert" <Robert.Elliott at compaq.com>
*


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Johansson [mailto:PJohansson at acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Combined initiator & target names in SAM-2
> 
> 
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * Peter Johansson <PJohansson at ACM.org>
> *
> At 08:19 PM 11/9/2001 +0000, Jim Hafner wrote:
> ...
> >I think the sense of the WG was that there was no compelling 
> reason to have separate names [...]
> 
> Jim, since you and the WG seem ambivalent about two names vs. 
> one, I claim a compelling reason to keep the names distinct. 
> SBP has a 64-bit initiator name (or is it ID? I think they're 
> one and the same in SBP) BUT a 88-bit target name. A node 
> (similar, in some ways, to an FC port) is restricted to 
> one initiator but may have many targets.
> 
> Since functionality of initiator and target is completely 
> separable, why would one wish to model them in the same 
> name space?

In the new SCSI parlance, you're referring to the port names,
not the initiator device names that the WG was discussing.
Remember, 
	initiator = initiator port
	target = target port

See 01-084r4 for tables showing how these terms apply to
various protocols including SBP.  The only protocol that
has attempted to provide a device name so far is iSCSI, and
its target/initiator devices can share one name.

---
Rob Elliott, Compaq Server Storage
Robert.Elliott at compaq.com







*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org