SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item



    Regarding #1: I believe the existing FC host drivers and HBA's will
    work quite well using FCIP or an iSCSI gateway. A gateway protocol
    is not required to allow an iSCSI HBA to function with an existing FC
    device.
    
    Regarding #2: under IETF rules there will be no support from multiple
    companies, only individual contributors:)
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
    Mark A. Carlson
    Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:14 PM
    To: Ips@Ece. Cmu. Edu
    Cc: 'David Peterson'; 'Black_David@emc.com'
    Subject: Re: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
    
    
    In my mind, the issue of whether this should be a work item should
    only revolve around two issues:
    
    	1) Is there a customer need for this kind of protocol that
    	   is not being addressed by this or other working groups?
    
    	2) Is there enough interest in the working group (from
    	   multiple companies) to support the development of the
    	   protocol?
    
    On 1), I suspect that we will need to address some sort of "gateway"
    protocol for customers to use in transitioning from FC Fabrics to IP
    Networks. Today's reality is that we have FC host OS drivers and HBAs
    as well as FC devices that will be with us for some time during the
    transition. If you assume that you need a gateway protocol that does
    not require the upgrade of either end, I think that 1) is satisfied.
    There may be other gateway protocols needed as well for when you have
    an iSCSI HBA and OS Driver, but existing FC devices. Look at the market
    for the FC/Parallel SCSI routers/bridges to see a similar transitioning
    market. Whether we standardize it or not, these type of devices will
    exist due to the market need.
    
    On 2), I'd like to see more diversity in the support of iFCP among
    individuals from more than just the handful of companies that have
    spoken so far, but the real proof is in the interest in helping to
    author the related documents.
    
    One possibility is to task a subgroup with FC to IP storage transition
    protocols, and leave the FCIP subgroup to focus just on the bridging
    and tunneling issues.
    
    My thoughts.
    
    -- mark
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:57 2001
6315 messages in chronological order