|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iFCP as an IP Storage Work ItemSorry, Fibre Channel, does not guarantee delivery. The main reason is that FC does not have transport layer as robust as TCP. A FC ACK simply informs that the frame was delivered. FC does not have any reliable mechanism to handle retransmission when an ACK is not delivered. -Matt Wayland Jeong wrote: > > I think there are some misconceptions here. As you probably know, the ANSI > FC standard is a collection of specifications that are thick enough to choke > an elephant. Of that large body of work, only a portion of it has been > implemented in the commercial world. I would guess from your comments that > you are referring to one of the ways that FC attempts to guarantee delivery. > The two most notable mechanisms in FC are buffer-to-buffer credit and > Class-2. > > Now, BB credit is a link-layer concept which ensures that when a FC frame is > sent, it will not be dropped on the floor due to congestion. You can achieve > the same functionality in Ethernet using 802.3x flow control. That said, > BB-credit is a layer below what is encapsulated in iFCP. iFCP encapsulates > FC at frame level and largely does not concern itself with an FC primitives > (frame delimiters are an exception to this). > > Fibre Channel has a class of service called Class-2 which provides an ACK > mechanism to guarantee delivery to the end station. It uses frame-level > acknowledgements of received data as well as end-to-end buffer credit. This > level of service ensures that data sent is delivered at the FC peer level. > But, Class-2 was not intended to be a congestion management solution. > Class-2 is an error recovery concept and it will not work well in a lossy > network (i.e. IP networks with congestion management through WRED and such). > Moreover, Class-2 is not generally deployed and the FC industry has largely > settled on Class-3. > > Thus, there is nothing within a FC encapsulated in iFCP environment that > makes this protocol inherently reliable. iFCP specifies TCP as the transport > layer and mFCP uses UDP in conjunction with a well-behaved network. > > -----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 > >
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:56 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |