RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

[Charles Monia <cmonia@NishanSystems.com>]

Hi:

It appears to me that this thread has pretty much deteriorated into a
billboard for marketing messages and positioning statements.  Apparently, a
lot of folks have decided that repeating the same mantras over and over is a
good substitute for an in-depth technical discourse based on the merits.
Solemn pronouncements about the viability of this or that "long term
solution" also appear to serve the same purpose.

I'm a also little fed up with the bogus notion that it ought to be the job
of this organization to bless one technology under the pretext that others
are "unproductive", would "cause confusion and divisiveness", or would be
"difficult to debug", etc, etc, ad nauseum. Those who think they have a
better way ought to waste less time trying to stifle innovation and take
their case to the marketplace.

Yes, iFCP, like any other proposal, needs to come up to the bar by uniquely
adding technical value. In that regard, no one gets a pass. As far as that
criteria for acceptance is concerned, we believe we meet the standard.

Next....

Charles
Charles Monia
Senior Technology Consultant
Nishan Systems
email: cmonia@nishansystems.com
voice: (408) 519-3986
fax:   (408) 435-8385


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence J. Lamers [mailto:ljlamers@ieee.org]
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:38 AM
> To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> 
> 
> The market analysis indicates that a fibre channel over
> internet protocol approach, such as FCIP, provides the solution
> needed to connect storage networks over Metropolitan and Wide
> Area Networks for the foreseeable future. The FCIP proposal
> still needs further work in order to provide the necessary
> features for it to have long term viability, but we see no
> reason that these features can not be added to this approach.
> 
> The long term solution  for native attachment of storage
> devices to an IP network is iSCSI, a solution that conceptually
> fits with the present operating system/software driver stacks,
> has broad industry support, and is in process of becoming a
> standard within IETF.  ISCSI is a protocol to do SCSI commands
> and task management over Ethernet, much as FCP does for fibre
> channel, SBP does for 1394, and SIP does for SPI.  Layering one
> protocol on top of another to achieve SCSI functionality seems
> to complicated an approach that will be difficult to debug and
> certify, a field day for Murphy's law.
> 
> Certain market niches may be served by other solutions, but it
> is believed that the complementary solutions of FCIP and iSCSI
> are what should be standardized and promoted to the industry.
> This avoids confusion and divisiveness and gets the world to a
> storage networked future the fastest,  with the lowest cost and
> the least un-productive effort.
> 
> It is my belief based on the technical merits and market needs
> that the IETF should continue in its present course and support
> the FCoverIP work item and the iSCSI work item and not add
> additional work items that these solutions already address.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lawrence J. Lamers
> Principal Engineer  Advanced Technology Group
> SAN Valley Systems, Inc.
> 408-234-0071
> ljlamers@sanvalley.com
> ljlamers@ieee.org
>