RE: Request to exclude FC over IP from storage over IP working group charter

[somesh_gupta@hp.com]

Why would they do that and not just do a native implementation?
This would require them to pay the price of two seperate protocols,
and the bridging between them to get one (and having to deal with
all loop issues etc). 

Also what you are mentioning is still a bridge (in a seperate
device or in a chip in the drive). The Lucent proposal was
for a tunnel.

Storage over IP should not be looked as a bridge between TCP/IP
and FC or parallel SCSI domains. It is a native transport for SCSI
commands. There will exist bridges (externel or for some reason
embedded) to bridge these 3 different transport protocols.

Somesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sob@harvard.edu [mailto:sob@harvard.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:16 PM
> To: somesh_gupta@hp.com
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: Request to exclude FC over IP from storage over 
> IP working
> group charter
> 
> 
> > You are talking about (I am making an assumption here so 
> correct me if
> > this is not the case) a bridge here (which typically would 
> mean storage
> > on IP on one-side and FCP on the other). 
> 
> that is not correct
> I assume that vendors will innovate and a logical innovation is to 
> move the FC/IP gateway into the drive itself
> 
> Scott
>