|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iFCP vs FCIPWith my TC hat off: Charles observation that FCIP's goal to maintain transparency within the switching FC Fabric is correct as far data transport is concerned. However, there is a clearly defined architecture defined in FC-SW-2 standards that allow a device such as FCIP to connect to a border switch. In other words, from a routing standpoint the FC fabric is certainly aware of a hierarchial network and is supported jointly by the FSPF routing protocol and the FSPF-backbone routing protocols. This OSPF-based hierarchial model provides a lot of flexibility to the nature of the FC backbone networks. TCP/IP happens to be one of the many possabilities. (Other possabilities include FC directly over ATM and SONET as defined in the ANSI T11 FC-BB standards) The second plus of this model is that it allows any type of traffic and allows for a very simple almost stateless (from FC point-of-view) behavior. This directly translates to scalability. The comment made by someone in this thread about FCIP being limited is inaccurate- it is in fact the opposite. Finally, Joshua's comment on the small number of switches in a FC SAN is an observation from the past and this is rapidly changing as evidenced by the growing size of SANs in Data Centers. -Murali Rajagopal LightSand Communications -----Original Message----- From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Charles Monia Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 7:19 PM To: Ips (E-mail) Cc: David Robinson (E-mail) Subject: RE: iFCP vs FCIP Hi Folks: The issue is that the design goals and underlying network models are fundamentally different. Essentially, FCIP's goal is to provide a transparent conduit between Fibre Channel fabrics while iFCP's goal is ULP transparency between N_PORTs. As a result, in iFCP, the fabric-wide services provided by FC fabric elements (and often implemented with proprietary protocols) are replaced by standard, IP-based equivalents. For that reason, an iFCP gateway does not need to recognize or provide facilities for servicing inter-switch FC protocols, such as those for zoning, naming and routing. Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Tseng [mailto:jtseng@NishanSystems.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:08 PM > To: David Robinson; Ips (E-mail) > Subject: RE: iFCP vs FCIP > > > Hi David, > > > > > I am no FCP expert so please correct me if I am wrong. In a pure > > FCP world, there is end-to-end traffic and there is traffic that is > > destined to go between AS's. The primary difference is that there > > is an explicit route to the border gateways in the latter > > case. In both > > the proposals, within the FCP realm the addresses are FCP > based until > > they hit an edge node. In iFCP the destination is > converted to an IP > > address that represents the end node address (which may actually be > > a gateway back into FCP on the other side), in FCIP the request is > > routed to the other AS's FC border gateway and this request is > > encapsulated > > in a TCP request. Given that we are moving between AS's (I > > believe that > > is an assumption in FCIP) can we not use iFCP and instead of > > specifying > > the IP address of the end node, specify the IP address of the > > other AS's > > border gateway since FCP should already be doing some encapsulation > > to route between AS's? > > > > -David > > Up until recently with the creation of the DMP routing protocol, the > concept of AS's (Autonomous Systems, right?) was foreign to Fibre > Channel networking. Most Fibre Channel networks are comprised of just > a handful of switches--the largest FC network I have ever heard of > being deployed is a 15 switch fabric. Perhaps somewhere there are > some fabrics which are bigger, but probably not by much. > (Architecturally, a single Fibre Channel fabric has a maximum capacity > of 239 switches) > > FCIP does not do anything to improve the scalability limits of > the Fibre Channel fabric. All it does is allow extension of the > FC fabric over distances using an IP network. The FCIP gateway is > completely invisible and non-intrusive to the Fibre Channel switches > and does not change or improve the scalability or interoperability > limits of FC fabrics. > > On the other hand, an iFCP gateway actively participates in > switching and routing traffic between FC fabrics and FC devices, by > mapping FC addresses to IP addresses and routing them using standard > IP routing protocols. Using iFCP, a storage network has the same > scalability limits as any other IP network (e.g., IPv4 address space, > etc...). > > Josh >
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:06:15 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |