RE: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> Stephen Bailey
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:10 PM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: Towards Consensus on TCP Connections
> > For details on proposed Fibre-Channel over IP which does not impose
> > additional catastrophic error states as does iSCSI, please see:
> >
> > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfc-fcoverip-02.txt
>
> FCIP does not provide congestion avoidance, so it does not appear to
> satisfy the requirements defined in the iSCSI Requirements document.
>
> Steph

Place FC over IP/SCTP and it adds additional security, congestions control
and address space via the tunnel addressing.  You missed the point in
reducing reliability with compromises lead by a desire to place a controller
mid-stream.  The protocol should be appropriate to the end device.  An
intervening controller should be transparent, if present.  Errors are then
contained to the single device.  Why compromise reliability?

Doug