Re: iSCSI & iFCP Overlapping (Was iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item)

["John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>]

With my TC hat on:
Please reframe from speculation about iFCP as an End to End protocal.  iFCP
has not been proposed by its authors to be End to End, and is not up for
discussion without an approprate draft.  The authors and the iFCP Draft
clearly define iFCP as an Gateway to Gateway protocol.  We are currently
having enough problems just working on the Gateway to Gateway issues, and
do not need to explore areas where the Draft did not go.

Please lets limit further iFCP discussions to iFCP as a Gateway to Gateway
protocol.

TC hat off.

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
(408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403
Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com


"Y P Cheng" <ycheng@advansys.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 01/15/2001 08:40:41 AM

Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu


To:   <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
cc:
Subject:  iSCSI & iFCP Overlapping (Was iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item)



> iFCP and FCIP have nothing to do with OSPF.  I think your statements
> show that you do not understand iFCP and its objectives.  I would
> have hoped that those critical of iFCP would have at least a minimal
> understanding of it.

Josh,

Had I stayed with the topic of "saving the customers' investment in FCP
stack" I would have done better and not invited the above statement.  :-) I
have no doubt that you are a very good and wonderful network engineer.
But,
I am afraid, iFCP simply is a better mouse trap solving the same problem as
that by iSCSI.

After reading the iFCP draft carefully, I can't help but conclude that by
connecting N-Port to IP directly iFCP usurps the fibre channel Extended
Link
Services and replaces class F traffic by all the wonderful stuff like EGP,
BGP, OSPF, etc., offered by the Big Internet.  I found the iFCP effort
overlaps with iSCSI and it provides no additional benefit.  As you have
indicated that iFCP provides a transition into the iSCSI world of the
future.  We must agree that initially even iSCSI storage devices will have
FCP or SCSI devices "inside the box".  This is because the storage industry
will take some time to change its infrastructure to produce iSCSI drives.
On the other hand, the iSCSI HBAs will be available quickly -- I hope you
do
give me more credit in knowing the HBA world. :-)  Therefore, it is very
easy for the Network Storage Industry to have an iSCSI target adapter
inside
its box to communicate with the iSCSI hosts and clients.  If iFCP is a
viable solution, the HBA industry can produce iFCP target and host adapters
just as quickly as the iSCSI adapters.  Trust me, if we can implement the
Fibre Channel and InfiniBand specifications, we can do iFCP.  I do hope you
see my logic now.

Therefore, while iFCP may be a better mouse trap than FCIP, IMHO, it is
providing the same solution as that of iSCSI.

By the way, lets hear from other folks on this topic, please!

Y.P. Cheng, ConnectCom Solutions.