|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work ItemAs 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 |