RE: FC/IP vs. iSCSI

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

Costa,

For FC over IP, the implementers must make it compliant for use on the
Internet in obtaining IETF approval.  As the IPS charter would encompass
such an effort, there is no reason for excluding FC over SCTP/IP.  In
reality, the iSCSI proposal was to a be a modification for a Fibre-Channel
controller.  A complete and unaltered encapsulation is the most
straightforward approach and likely with the lowest overhead and risk.

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
> csapuntz@cisco.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 12:38 PM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Cc: csapuntz@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: FC/IP vs. iSCSI
>
>
>
> "Rodriguez, Elizabeth G (Elizabeth)" <egrodriguez@lucent.com> writes:
>
> > All,
> >
> > The purpose of FC over IP is to extend FC networks with minimal
> impact to
> > existing devices and existing installations.
> > It is not intended to be an iSCSI equivalent/counterpart, e.g.
> I would not
> > expect someone to put FC over IP into an end device.  It is
> really intended
> > to be something put into a switch, not at an endpoint.
>
> Elizabeth,
>
> You have never represented FC/IP as anything but a tunneling/bridging
> solution.  I believe tunneling is an application where FC/IP has
> interesting story to tell.
>
> My e-mail was meant to respond to those who would propose FC/IP as
> an alternative to iSCSI for other applications, e.g. connecting
> storage to the Internet.
>
> I apologize if it came across as an assault on your good work in this
> area.
>
> -Costa
>