Re: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

[David Robinson <David.Robinson@EBay.Sun.COM>]

Ken Hirata wrote:
> Why do you want to standardize a common encapsulation protocol
> for FCIP and iFCP if their semantics and behavior are completely
> different?  Would you want tunneling protocol implementations to
> also augment certain ELSs even though it isn't necessary for tunneling
> protocol operation?

If I were to build hardware that either assisted or completely
processed both iFCP and FCIP, it sure would be easier to do
header parsing and other common processing if there was just
one format.

> If a common encapsulation protocol was defined, I believe a
> negotiation protocol would be necessary to distinguish between
> usage as a gateway or tunneling protocol.  

Yes, either negotiation of a flag bit in the encapsulating
header used to choose which algorithm to use.

I just don't understand why you would want to make them different.

	-David