RE: iFCP: FC-BB exists, why invent something new?

["Y P Cheng" <ycheng@advansys.com>]

> > restricted to FCP). What does iFCP bring to the table that
> > FC-BB does not already provide?
> > -Matt
> >
> iFCP allows routing storage traffic between individual
> FC devices over an IP network.  FC-BB only bridges SAN islands.
> As you are aware, there is a very significant difference
> between bridging and routing.
>
> The former (FC-BB) requires the routing to be performed by
> FC switches.  The latter (iFCP) has the routing performed by IP
> switches.  Since I work for Nishan, my opinion is the latter is
> much superior, but I have to admit there may be situations where
> a simple bridging/tunneling implementation will be sufficient to
> address a particular requirement.  BUT, I also believe
> there will be situations, especially with increasing storage
> networking demands, that the latter will be needed to achieve
> the required scale of storage networking deployments that will
> be needed in the near future.
> Josh

Taking my technical hat off, as a business person, may be I can say
something that Josh did not say. Nishan is in business of routing.  They
wish to connect IP networks directly to FC nodes (N, NL, F, and E) that do
not have FC-BB functions.  They are in business to replace BSW ports
Therefore, they propose iFCP, like a NAT device, to map the S-ID and D-ID
into unique fibre channel addresses in other FC domains.

On the other hand, by saying an FCIP device being a bridge and tunneling
device in connecting to the E-port with FC-BB functions, Josh simply says
that FCIP depends on BSW for routing which is not scalable to IP network.
There are companies making FCIP devices.  But, the FCIP device is inferior
to iFCP in its capability of routing.  Nishan certainly is not interested in
FCIP devices.

From an end user point's of view, should there be a winner between FCIP and
iFCP?  I believe they will coexist.  As an HBA manufacture, I would like to
be able to connect to either iFCP or FCIP device without having two sets of
microcode.  This is why I believe we should have a single specification for
iFCP and FCIP.  May be all we need is a common frame format between them.
The N- or NL-nodes can care less about routing or tunneling. Just make sure
FLOGI and name services for discovery staying transparent.

Am I right in this assessment?

Y.P. Cheng