RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

[Joshua Tseng <jtseng@NishanSystems.com>]

I don't want to stifle any creative technical discussion here,
but I feel the need to remind everybody that iFCP is positioned
as a gateway technology only.  While the thought of "native"
iFCP HBA's might be interesting, this discussion is
completely irrelevant with regard to whether iFCP should
or should not become an IPS work item.  iFCP is being proposed
as an IPS work item purely on its merits as a gateway technology.

Regards,
Josh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Byan [mailto:Stephen.Byan@quantum.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:47 AM
> To: 'ips@ece.cmu.edu'
> Subject: FW: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Byan 
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:40 AM
> To: 'Bill Terrell'
> Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> 
> 
> It's all the FC stuff that lets iFCP work over an unreliable 
> data transport
> like UDP. It's redundant when running over TCP/IP.
> 
> Regards,
> -Steve
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Terrell [mailto:terrell@troikanetworks.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:10 PM
> > To: 'Stephen Byan'
> > Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> > 
> > 
> > >The downside of this advantage is that native iFCP devices would be
> > burdened
> > >with greater complexity and cost. I therefor think iFCP 
> > should not be an IP
> > >Storage work item.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >-Steve
> > 
> > How is a native iFCP endpoint (initiator or target) more 
> > complex or costly
> > than an iSCSI native endpoint? What are the specific 
> > difficulties inherent
> > to native iFCP devices versus native iSCSI devices?
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
>