iFCP: RE: FCIP: RE: iFCP

[Wayland Jeong <wayland@troikanetworks.com>]

[ stuff regarding differences between FCIP and iFCP deleted ]

> With regard to transparency, the decision to support FCP is a design
choice
> driven by the fact that this is the only application protocol supported by
> the vast majority of FC device implementations. If necessary, iFCP can be
> extended to support the small residue of implementations that support
other
> protocols, such as FC-VI.
> 
I must have missed something in the iFCP proposal. I still don't see how
this
gateway protocol precludes the use of any valid FC-4 mapping. The draft
describes
implications to addressing and hence some of the necessary "augmentation" of
ELS's, but I didn't see anything that deals specifically with FCP. There
were
some references to a multi-connection session model (MC) which implied that
future drafts would support separate FCP_CMD and FCP_DATA TCP connections
but the current draft mandates the single connection model (SC). In this
model,
a TCP session is established or bound when a device PLOGI's with another
device.
Once the TCP session is created, the gateway is fairly transparent to the
ensuing
conversations.

> Charles
>
-Wayland