SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iFCP vs FCIP



    With 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
    >
    
    

    • Follow-Ups:


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:06:15 2001
6315 messages in chronological order