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



    As far as FCP stacks go, it is a truism that no OS
    (host) has a native FCP stack.
    
    Today.  (Stay tuned, though; Blackcomb AS is going to
    be rather interesting)
    
    That's why the HBA rules.  It's the entity performing
    all the translation between what the OSes see as a pure
    SCSI universe and the real (or virtual) device FC universe.  
    Had we native motherboard FC physical interfaces and OS 
    FCP stacks, we would not need FC HBAs. 
    
    But, that's hosts.  Consider the world of devices for
    a moment.  No one can argue that there are not a
    plethora of FC devices today, all with FCP stacks by
    definition.  Plus, many FC devices today are not just
    one FC port but multiple, with multiple WWPN and one WWNN 
    to achieve higher RAS characteristics.
    
    So while your statement 
    > iFCP as way to keep your investment in FCP stacks is a very 
    > weak argument.
    is certainly true for hosts (initiators), it is certainly
    not true for devices (targets).  We even have several current
    implementations of FC tape devices (viz. the need for FCP-2,
    amongst other reasons).  Some marketing-buzzheads say that
    for disk, 80% of the bytes placed into enterprise storage
    in 2000 were FC.  Seagate alone produces one million (!)
    fully assembled disk units per week, a goodly proportion of
    which are FC.  FWIW.
    
    In any event, even though your argument is strong for
    initiators, it is weak for targets.  That alone is enough
    to keep (at least the) debate going over if iFCP is worthy
    for discussion.
    
    If the WG wants to keep iFCP on the back burner, that is
    one thing, but I must say to quash the debate now and
    invoke cloture is surely the wrong thing to do now given
    the IETF way of doing things (rough consensus, working code).
    There is little doubt that as a draft that iFCP has a long
    way to go, but that is to be expected.
    
    To your point that 'can iFCP co-exist with FCIP', there
    is no technical reason (or even non-technical) why it
    cannot.  After all, we have had BGP and OSPF co-existing
    for approaching a decade now.  Also, there is no doubt
    that iFCP is a gateway-oriented proposal, just as there is
    no doubt that well-written FCP (or FCP-2) device stacks are 
    very reliable.  Having said that, I believe that there probably
    will be more initial implementations of FCIP than iFCP, but
    that is surely not - among reasonable IETF people - a reason
    to quash discussion.
    
    Thank you,
    Rob
    
    Rob Peglar
    Director, Storage Architecture
    XIOtech Corporation
    (314) 308-6983
    
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: julian_satran@il.ibm.com [mailto:julian_satran@il.ibm.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:23 PM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > Josh,
    > 
    > iFCP as way to keep your investment in FCP stacks is a very 
    > weak argument.
    > FCP stacks are not that stable neither that prevalent (there 
    > is none in the
    > most widespread OS family - Windows).
    > 
    > A gateway for a single device should be the exception rather 
    > than the rule.
    > 
    > I can support it as a work item ONLY if it plays a real 
    > gateway role and
    > can coexist with FCIP is some synergistic fashion.
    > As a end-to-end proposal is has little value IMHO.
    > 
    > Julo
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:52 2001
6315 messages in chronological order