RE: iFCP

[julian_satran@il.ibm.com]

Sure - FCoverIP has the distinct advantage of moving arount all sorts of
"widely used protocols"
(even if not defined yet like FC-VI) while iFCP has to say something
only(!) about FCP :)-

Julo

Vi Chau <vchau@gadzoox.com> on 22/11/2000 02:35:09

Please respond to Vi Chau <vchau@gadzoox.com>

To:   "'mark.carlson@sun.com'" <mark.carlson@sun.com>, "KRUEGER,MARJORIE
      (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>
cc:   John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS, ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject:  RE: iFCP




If you have an iFCP gateway that connects multiple
FC nodes to the IP network, and if you want these
FC nodes to talk to one another, you need an FC
switch inside the gateway. An FCoverIP device
works in exactly the same way; but it is not
limited to shipping FCP frames around. It can do
FC-VI, for instance, in addition to FCP. SANs (and
more) can be had with FCoverIP.


Vi Chau
Gadzoox Networks, Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark A. Carlson [mailto:mark.carlson@sun.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 3:16 PM
> To: KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)
> Cc: 'John Hufferd'; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: 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
>