RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

Charles,

Standards consolidation can not be placed one individual.  Those wishing to
create any FC encapsulating transport whether it is eventually used as a
tunnel, gateway, or target would need to justify lack of cooperation in
encapsulation consolidation.  Not interfering with a potential iSCSI market
is little justification for making an exception.  In my view, neither has a
strong case for not consolidating their encapsulation schemes.

Your concerns about eventual extensions can be handled through provisions
within the encapsulating structures.  In the long run, finding a means for
independent maturation will not degrade a final product, but improve it.
Success of any solution using a common encapsulation will improve the
standings of all solutions.  In that case, you may have a smaller piece of
the pie, but the pie gets bigger.

Doug


> Hi Doug:
>
> Maybe we're closer to agreement than you think.
>
> Here's my response to Murali's call for consensus:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> "Thanks for bringing this matter to a head.
>
> Here's my .02:
>
> 1. Merging the iFCP and FCIP specifications --  No, not feasible on
> technical grounds.    Anyhow, I think this is one decision that can't be
> made by fiat.
>
> 2. Definition of a common encapsulation protocol --  Technically possible,
> practically not feasible. From my perspective, it's risky and difficult to
> manage as the client specs evolve over time.  Besides, I assume the FCIP
> encapsulation is a done deal. Bottom line: I vote no (but would grudgingly
> try to accommodate the WG consensus on this matter)."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> The gist is that we're willing work with the FCIP community to achieve a
> common encapsulation if that is the consensus of the WG.  Since the FCIP
> folks also have a stake in this, I suggest addressing your
> concerns to them
> as well.
>
> Charles
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Douglas Otis [mailto:dotis@sanlight.net]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:41 AM
> > To: Charles Monia; Y P Cheng
> > Cc: Ips (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> >
> >
> > Charles,
> >
> > With respect to merging FCIP and iFCP encapsulation, there are many
> > technical merits for doing so without looking at the
> > marketing issues.  You
> > have noted in your view of FCIP and iFCP as being in two
> > separate markets
> > and thus not likely to cooperate at the encapsulation level.
> > It would seem
> > you use marketing concerns in your positions.  I would hope
> > however that
> > this group would have the ability to bring these two segments
> > of the SAN
> > market a bit closer together.  I also see merit in the iFCP
> > effort in that
> > iSCSI is divergent with respect to existing markets.  There
> > will be many
> > areas where FCIP and iFCP will find common solutions with many common
> > problems.
> >
> > In the spirit of furthering common goals, iFCP and FCIP
> > should use a common
> > encapsulation where possible.  I would not wish to bet if
> > iFCP or iSCSI
> > becomes a larger player in the marketplace.  Looking at
> > complexity, I would
> > not place too many chips on iSCSI.  I do not think this group needs to
> > decide such winners and losers.  If there were two iSCSI
> > solutions or two
> > iFCP solutions then there would a reason to merge these
> > proposals.  If there
> > are two FC encapsulations proposals, this two should be merged.
> >
> > Doug
> >
>
> <stuff deleted>
>
>