RE: iSCSI boot

["Douglas Otis" <[e-mail]>]

David,

I think you misunderstand where this code would exist.  It would not be
within the DHCP/PXE PROM code.

Use the existing environment and previously defined parameters in
conjunction with existing servers and existing protocols.

Doug


> Douglas Otis wrote:
> > If there already is a means of discovering either LDAP or SLP
> in conjunction
> > with DCHP together will some security features defined within the PXE
> > specification, then adding iSCSI specific information is not really
> > required.  If you assume there is security present within LDAP
> and there is
> > a defined schema, the ability to retrieve information related
> to things like
> > ISID, Initiator Name, Target Name, mount point, etc can be made
> available
> > through those standard services with security providing the
> initial filter.
> > LDAP can store state as it is commonly used to keep password
> counts and the
> > like. It is not a direct property of LDAP, but a well structured schema
> > should make this task easier.  I know that I will hear, "Send
> in the Draft"
> > but until there is consensus as to what is needed and how it is
> to be used,
> > it would be a likely futile venture.
>
> I think you are over complicating things Doug. We already have a well
> defined
> standard for Network Adapters to discover their identity and their
> "root"
> storage device using DHCP.  All that is really needed by the IPS WG is
> to define
> the syntax and semantics of the string that indicates where the iSCSI
> target is.
>
> While LDAP provides a lot of features and can easily be used as the
> directory
> service behind a DHCP server (and in fact is often is), it is highly
> unlikely
> that vendors will embed LDAP into the PROMs of their adapters to
> retrieve
> a simple string that can just as easily be served using their existing
> DHCP/PXE
> PROMs.
>
> Security is actively being worked on the the DHCP community so that
> is something that iSCSI can leverage.
> (draft-ietf-dhc-authentication-16.txt)
>
> So I won't say "Send in a Draft" but instead "The IESG won't let us
> reinvent existing protocols".
>
> 	-David
>