|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] FC over IP: RequirementsHello all, The authors of the FC over IP draft are still in the process of trying to reformulate the requirements for the FC over IP draft. In addition, (according to what I have been told), the decision for where the FC over IP work item is to be hosted is still being discussed. It may be placed in the IPS working group, or the decision may be made to place it elsewhere. In order to try to minimize confusion, the other authors and I have been talking offline, while monitoring these lists. That said, we list below some of what we (the authors of the FC over IP draft) have been talking about wrt FC over IP requirements: The basic premise of the FC over IP draft remains unchanged -- Have a high speed IP based interconnect which will bridge FC traffic between two (or more) SAN islands, such that only the edge devices are aware of the fact that tunneling of FC frames over IP is being performed. Included in the initial draft was the following assumption: The backbone would be at least as reliable and at least as fast as the FC fabric itself. With such a restriction, it was expected that congestion control would not be necessary. At the Pittsburgh meeting, it was mandated that FC over IP would include congestion management of some form. In addition, a few people have indicated that they expect that this would be run over a lower speed backbone than the fabric itself. So, we are investigating options, including looking at the various transport mechanisms, as well as other non-transport related mechanisms to perform congestion management. As mentioned before, FC over IP is intended (i.e. being written with the assumption that) this protocol will be implemented in a switch device. There will be no prohibitions against implementing in a different type of device, such as an edge device, it will simply not be optimized for implementation in an edge device. Keeping that a switch topology is the target, the addition of transport support/mechanism to an otherwise level 2 type switch seems to the authors to be expensive, especially if retries as specified in many of the transports is required. Expensive in terms of additional overhead to add the transport to every FC frame as well as additional hardware requirements. Another issues that needs to be considered w.r.t. use of a transport is a transport level retry mechanism. Some transports do not provide a means by which retries can be turned off, plus are dynamic in their timeout values (e.g. when retries are invoked). If retries are required to be handled in the transport due to transport design (e.g. we use a transport such as TCP, where retries cannot be turned off), we feel it may conflict with upper level exception handling (as mentioned in the 02 draft) as well as create a cost (financial as well as engineering wise) prohibitive requirement for buffering of packets at the FC over IP SWITCH while waiting for acknowledgements. This is especially when RTT can be on the order of seconds (e.g. approaches RA_TOV). It is for this very reason we are trying to consider the various options available to us. We are considering ECM, ECN, SCTP, TCP as well as other mechanisms. We are monitoring the iSCSI threads regarding Transport for their applicability to this draft as well. While we cannot guarantee that the FC over IP draft will follow the transport method iSCSI selects, it will be considered in the analysis for FC over IP. There has never been any intention for this draft to be constrained to a private network, though that is a possible/plausible environment. There was the assumption of a well engineered network though. This requirement is being omitted, due to both feedback from attendees of the ipfc presentation as well as direction from the ADs. Summary of Requirements for FC over IP (from the authors' perspective) First Draft: (1) FC and IP devices can be used in conjunction with an 'FC over IP' compliant edge device UNMODIFIED to bridge traffic between FC islands over an IP based backbone. (2) FC over IP compliant devices will support some form of congestion management. (3) FC over IP compliant devices will support authentication of the FC over IP devices before the tunnel shall be established. Other possible requirements, which will most likely be deferred to a follow on draft: (4) Dynamic discovery of other FC over IP edge devices. (5) Data Encryption support. Additional requirements are also being sought from the Fibre Channel community. A new effort has recently been chartered in the T11 organization, FC-BB2 (Fibre Channel BackBone 2). This group will be used to solicit further requirements for FC over IP. FC-BB2 will be a companion specification to FC over IP and will leverage work done in FC over IP. It will not redefine/conflict with FC over IP, but instead will identify and define amendments to certain FC documents/values to allow greater distance and performance to be attained over an FC over IP backbone. FC devices will not be required to be FC-BB2 compliant in order to work with FC over IP (this would violate the basic premise of this work), but should a customer choose to upgrade their FC network to comply with FC-BB2, they could expect better performance and longer distances to be attained. Specifically, media specific issues, speed of light vs. timeout issues, BB credit issues, among others will be addressed in this specification. Notes: (1) Indicates that FC devices CAN be used unmodified in conjunction with FC over IP. FC-BB2 will address FC specific issues, and will identify and define amendments to certain FC documents/values to allow for greater distance/performance to be attained. (2) Retries need to be addressed. It needs to be determined if retries support at the transport level, should a transport be included, need to be required, optional or prohibited. The authors believe much of this decision is dependent on how retries are defined by the selected transport. If it can be insured that the selected transport retry mechanism will not conflict with other retry mechanisms, then it may be valuable to support. On the other hand, if requirement of retry support makes the FC over IP device an unattractive solution, due to prohibitive costs associated with implementing retry, then it should not be supported. The authors plan to come back with recommendations as well as an initial FC over IP draft that addresses the new requirements. Please direct any feedback or input to the authors (egrodriguez@lucent.com, muralir@lightsand.com, rajb@lightsand.com, and marjorie.krueger@vixel.com) as well as to the ips(ips@ece.cmu.edu) and ipfc(ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com) mailing lists. Thanks, Elizabeth G. Rodriguez Marjorie Krueger Lucent Technologies Vixel Corporation Murali Rajagopal Raj Bhagwat LightSand Communications LightSand Communications -----Original Message----- From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 5:42 PM To: ips@ece.cmu.edu; ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com Subject: RE: draft-otis-fc-sctp-ip-00.txt A couple of comments: - This discussion should be moved onto the ips mailing list (ips@ece.cmu.edu) as further IETF work on FC-over-IP will occur there. Despite it's name, the fcoverip draft has not been an official work item of the ipfc WG. The use of the ipfc list rather than ips is completely understandable, as the draft was misnamed, nonetheless, further discussion should be on ips. - Wayland wrote: > I guess, what I'm trying to say is that someone should clearly state the requirements for > FCoverIP. If the requirements are that it simply run on a private tuned network which can > virtually guarantee a loss-less medium, then I would argue that we don't need congestion > control and hence a retry mechanism. I would also argue that FCoverIP is a niche, proprietary > solution which probably does not belong in IETF since it is not intended for the internet. Not only is that a good argument, it is in fact basically the position of the IETF, as conveyed by the Area Directors to the authors of the FC-over-IP draft - congestion control is REQUIRED if the work is to advance in the IETF because otherwise the protocol would be unsuitable for the internet. Whether to have a retry mechanism is an engineering decision that can be made as the work progresses (an implementation that didn't have to buffer for retransmission might consume less memory than one that did), but congestion control is REQUIRED, period. Thanks, --David (co-chair of the ips WG-to-be) p.s. For those on ips and not ipfc, I'm going to forward the ipfc discussion in a separate message. --------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140, FAX: +1 (508) 497-6909 black_david@emc.com Cellular: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:07:42 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |