From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Grover Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't allow multiple TPGs or targets to share a portal Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:09:01 -0800 Message-ID: <511C0EFD.9060702@redhat.com> References: <1360364708-26104-1-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> <1360787516.13707.59.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: target-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1360787516.13707.59.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Sender: target-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 02/13/2013 12:31 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 15:05 -0800, Andy Grover wrote: >> RFC 3720 says "Each Network Portal, as utilized by a given iSCSI Node, >> belongs to exactly one portal group within that node." therefore >> iscsit_add_np should not check for existing matching portals, it should >> just go ahead and try to make the portal, and then kernel_bind() will >> return the proper error. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Grover >> --- > > NACK. Your interpretation of RFC-3720 is incorrect. There is nothing > that says that a single IP address cannot be shared across multiple > TargetName+TargetPortalGroupTag endpoints. A Network Portal is ip:port, not just IP. I'd agree two TPGs can use the same IP as long as they listen on different ports. But that bit I quoted seems pretty clear. How should it be alternatively interpreted? Thanks -- Andy