RE: FC/IP vs. iSCSI

[meth@il.ibm.com]

Doug wrote:

"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."

This is not correct. The original iSCSI proposal was meant (at least by
some of the authors) to provide a SAM-2 compliant native transport for SCSI
over (specifically) TCP. The ultimate goal is to have a single network
infrastructure for regular internet traffic and for storage traffic; i.e.
the ultimate goal is to not need a separate Fibre-Channel infrastructure.
(Sorry Fibre-Channel fans ;-).) The same management tools and off-the-shelf
components can then be used for both ordinary internet infrastructure and
for remote storage infrastructure.

Now the IP Storage WG charter is broader than what iSCSI provides. There is
no need for iSCSI to provide a universal solution to all IP storage
problems. Let's develop the iSCSI protocol to do well what it was
originally designed for: native SCSI over TCP. We have to keep in mind,
however, that in order for iSCSI to be adopted, we will probably have to
provide some support for existing storage SAN infrastructure (i.e. Fibre
Channel) bridging. There is no need, however, to make that the primary
focus of the iSCSI protocol.

- Kalman