SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: iFCP



    IMHO, the most interesting thing about this proposal is that
    "SAN"s can be had without a single FC switch anywhere. This
    is quite different from bridging FC switch based SANs over
    IP.
    
    All the n*n stuff can happen in IP based switches without 
    changing hosts or devices (in theory ;-). The "edge connects"
    do the conversion for hosts and devices.
    
    -- mark
    
    "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
    > 
    > With my HP hat off :-)
    > 
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: John Hufferd [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com]
    > > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 5:51 PM
    > > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > > Subject: iFCP
    > ..snip..
    > > In this FC SAN to FC SAN environment, the thing that I find  interesting
    > is
    > > that the iFCP protocol will Encapsulate each FC "Session" separately
    > > instead of Tunneling all the "Sessions" that arrive on a single FC cable
    > to
    > > a single remote Target.  This means that Each "Session" can
    > > be individually routed by normal IP routing techniques.
    > >
    > > The reason I think this is interesting is that SAN Edge
    > > connect Devices (Gateways) when used with Tunneling requires (n*(n-1))
    > Edge
    > > Connects, where n is the number of SANs being interconnected.  That is, 2
    > SAN
    > > needs 2  Edge Connects (ECs), 3 SANs need 6 ECs, 4 SANs need 12 ECs, 5
    > need
    > > 20 ECs, etc.  The Encapsulation techniques of iFCP, on the other
    > > hand, require only "n"  ECs.  (A significant difference).   This maybe
    > very
    > > useful for companies that have a lot of distributed FC based systems.
    > 
    > Please explain how you've arrived at this notion of tunneling (FCoverIP)
    > requiring n*(n-1) "edge connects" and what you mean by "edge connects".
    > 
    > Implementation experience is a pair of "edge devices" (FCoverIP switching
    > devices) for a WAN link between remote SANs.  This is a proximity
    > requirement only - ie, you have to have a physical device at a location to
    > connect to the local physical wiring(s).  So if there are several SANs at a
    > physical location, it still requires only one FCoverIP device (with N FC
    > ports) to handle the WAN connection.
    > 
    > Marjorie Krueger
    > Networked Storage Architecture
    > Hewlett-Packard Storage Organization
    > tel: +1 916 785 2656
    > fax: +1 916 785 0391
    > email: marjorie_krueger@hp.com
    

    • References:
      • RE: iFCP
        • From: "KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:06:20 2001
6315 messages in chronological order