RE: iFCP vs FCIP

[Joshua Tseng <jtseng@NishanSystems.com>]

Hi David,

> 
> I reading the two proposals it appears that FCIP is a 
> restricted subset
> of FCP functionality (border GW to border GW) and iFCP could be
> used to replace that subset.
> 
> If my reading is correct, is there any advantage to the WG considering
> both a general and a specific proposal? If iFCP is missing something
> that
> FCIP has, can we add in the missing functionality?
> 
> 	-David

I would say your assessment from a high level is generally correct.
They are both gateway-to-gateway protocols used to internetwork
Fibre Channel devices.  But a major difference as discussed in
previous messages is that FCIP relies on two separate routing
planes (FSPF for end-to-end and IP routing to tunnel), while iFCP
maps the Fibre Channel addressing to IP, which allows consolidation
of all routing and switching functions to the IP routing plane.

If the authors of FCIP are open to expanding the functionality
of FCIP to include mapping of Fibre Channel addresses to IP addresses,
then I would see a basis for consolidation.  FCIP would thus no longer
be merely a tunneling protocol, but an end-to-end protocol that routes
Fibre Channel frames over an IP network.

Josh