|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item, ResetI think the messages on iFCP have become somewhat decisive and unfocused. And quite frankly it has been permitted to happen by both supporters and detractors. I think this has occurred because engineers tend to solve things, whether or not the solution is useful or if it has a business need requiring a fix. Therefore, having said that, we need to restate what the playing field looks like. (The reader is cautioned that this is a lengthy note.) The iFCP draft says that it is intended to be a Gateway to Gateway protocol. Therefore supporters of iFCP should stop responding to the infinite possibilities to hallucinate various other purposes for this protocol. The protocol is NOT an end to end protocol, and responses that do not end the speculation waist our joint time, and polarizes iSCSI end-to-end folks against iFCP. I believe, there are a number of things that maybe missing for a robust end-to-end protocol with iFCP, but the point is it does not matter, the protocol is structured, proposed and analyzed as a Gateway to Gateway protocol, and nothing else is proposed or analyzed as part of iFCP. The head of the company that brought us iFCP, has stated that he only wants this as a gateway to gateway protocol, and that they are committed to iSCSI also. I blame the iFCP supporters for not just shutting down these variant thoughts. The iSCSI supporters would be expected to worry and be paranoid about anything they can hallucinate that might threaten iSCSI. Therefore, because the iFCP authors did not stop these thoughts dead in their tracks (although Josh tried a couple of time), things got completely out of hand, and we moved from a protocol, that in some ways was redundant to FCIP (or visa versa), to something that also seemed to threaten iSCSI. I strongly suggest that no real interests are served by this wild speculation (Note: I am not completely pure here either, since I also let paranoia force me off the reservation when I worried about mFCP and a related organization.) So I want to strongly suggest that we look at iFCP for only what it is proposed to be, and NOT stray into other areas. To get my head straight, I had to refocus on the environments where FC, FCIP, iFCP and iSCSI are going to play to see where the effective redundancy and conflict might exist. Clearly if I thought that iFCP gave a serious problem to iSCSI and to FCIP, and was redundant to both, I would have a problem. To analyze this, I had to go through some "market think". I know that we are suppose to be in an engineering environment, but it is our views of the market that get us polarized. So the following is the analysis I went though and I hope it is helpful to others. Working with iFCP defined as a Gateway to Gateway protocol, lets look at the various environments where this technology could be deployed. Also, even though there are two types of Gateways that could be built with this protocol, a Router, and a Switching Router (Switch with Router capabilities) I will assume that a Switching Router is the subject product. A Switching Router has several ports that can either be plugged with FC cable or Gigabit Ethernet cable, in various combinations. If only FC cables are connected, it is a FC switch, when only Ethernet cables are connected it is a IP Switch, with various combinations of FC and Ethernet, it is a iFCP Routing Switch, called hereafter an iFCP Switch or an iFCP Gateway. We should also note that the iFCP Switch Vendor(s) are also claiming (as I said above) that they will have, over time, iSCSI support also. I will submit that those environments which have iFCP (with latent iSCSI capability) solutions will also help the deployment of iSCSI solutions. This is because, the Gateways to FC Host and FC Storage will have already have been put in place. Here are the environments I examined: 1. Existing Single SAN Fibre Channel environments with a number of FC Switches. If the FC SAN already exists, the assumption here is that the customer might want to replace his current FC Switches and Hubs with an iFCP set of switches and LAN type interconnects. However, I submit this is not really very fertile ground for iFCP switches. (By the way it is not very fertile for iSCSI or FCIP solutions, in the short term, either.) This set of customers will be very hesitant to change since they have already had a lot of investment, and they probably think they are on the down hill slop of the compatibility and support issues. They may wish that the cost were lower, but any change will be only lots of additional cost to them. Continuing with FC will be their probably action. 2. Existing Single FC environment, that uses FC to connect mostly point to point and not invested in many, if any, switches. This type of environment may use Sharks or Symmetrix type Storage Controllers directly. And some time they will need to expand with new storage controllers, Host etc. This gives a possible reason to install a FC Switch with iFCP capability, (for future expansion). But this will be a head to head fight with existing FC Switch vendors, and therefore such iFCP Gateways will not have a strong market here. (By the way, the iSCSI message is hard in this environment, unless the customer has visions of important future expansion with iSCSI storage controllers, or needs to bring Desktops and Laptops into the common storage pool.) Likewise there is not a FCIP message here either.) 3 a. Existing Multiple FC environments (locations) on a single campus. FC with normal Switch to Switch E-Port connections via long FC cables will be able to easily bring interconnection to this environment. However, the bringing together of various FC environments is also a strong play for iFCP Gateways. That is, each environment can add a iFCP capable Gateway and thereby interconnect the environments, and permit the sharing of various storage facilities. Each individual iFCP interconnected FC environment will be able to change its addressing etc., without needing to coordinate with any other local site (a Big Plus). The FCIP solution is also viable in this environment, however, when you get to more then two environments, the number of (single in -- single out) Edge Connect FCIP routers, go up dramatically as the number of locations increase. The physical space issue can be mitigated by a multi-in, multi-out FCIP capable router box. That is, a box that puts the electronics for multiple connections on the FC side -- one for each location to location interconnect. Note, this also requires a FC switch with a E-Port that can be connected to an E-Port at a specific target location. Also the FCIP has a disadvantage in each of the locations that might look like environment 2 above (since they have few or no FC Switches). iSCSI will find this a difficult environment in general because of the existing FC investment. (Note: proposed combinations sets of "FC-to-iSCSI boxes which route to iSCSI-to-FC boxes" can not be assumed to work since iSCSI has not defined any protocol to handle FC ELS, as has iFCP.) Therefore, iSCSI will not be a popular solution here. The higher the number of location the stronger the iFCP appears (cost wise) against FCIP. Note: if a iFCP Gateway gets installed, and if the unit also supports iSCSI (as the primary vendor has committed), the inroad for iSCSI, in general, will be greatly simplified. iSCSI folks, therefore, should be careful in their dismissing of iFCP, because when it is teamed up with iSCSI in this manor, it becomes be a great ally. 3 b. Existing Multiple FC environments across a Wide Area. This case is the same as 3a above, except normal FC techniques do not apply. However, both iFCP and FCIP approaches apply. Again the advantage of iFCP vrs FCIP have to do with the number of sites that are interconnected, and the site independence that iFCP offers. Also, if the iFCP Gateway has iSCSI capabilities, it should permit strong and quick inroads for iSCSI into this environment. 4. SCSI, and ATA based Host environments that need to grow into a network attachment. The non server host, Desktops and Laptops, and servers that have incidental remote Storage Access will not generally consider FC as an approprate option. Generally this environment is approprate for the iSCSI initiators (with normal TCP/IP NICs, and iSCSI SW Drivers). Without FC the FCIP will not apply to this environment. iSCSI to FC Gateways will exist at the remote environments and possibly iSCSI native Storage Controllers. iFCP itself is not approprate but if the iFCP box also has iSCSI capability, then that can be as valuable as any iSCSI to FC gateway. 5. Single SCSI, based Server environments with needs to grow. These environments will have high access requirements. When iSCSI HBAs are available (1H2001), and with the availability of iSCSI to FC Routers (1H2001), this is a fertile market for an iSCSI sale. When iSCSI Storage Controllers are available, this environment will be a significant growth area for iSCSI. It has a head to head message with FC SAN. However, the existing knowledge of IP networks and IP Switch cost will be the swing consideration to iSCSI. FCIP has no evolvement in this environment. iFCP in this environment would require FC HBAs, and at lest two iFCP Switching Routers. If the customer wants to add iSCSI Storage Controllers, the iFCP Switches will not be useful (until it supports iSCSI also). In this environment where the target storage is FC based, iSCSI requires (in addition to iSCSI HBAs, & IP Switches), one or more iSCSI to FC Gateways. The winner here, between iFCP and iSCSI will be the solution with the least cost. That is, the total cost of the HBAs (initially this maybe a push between FC and iSCSI), the IP Switches, and the iSCSI to FC Gateways vs the Cost of FC adapters, IP Switches and iFCP Gateways. If the resultant cost, is close, then iSCSI will probably be the winner here, because of industry direction. Having said that, this is one of the environments where iSCSI folks think that the iFCP message is diversionary. If the customer is not polarized against FC, and the customers looks at having to buy FC adapters for the iFCP deployment, they are probably going to look at a complete FC SAN as a more straight forward deployment. Therefore, the competitive play will very often be between FC and iSCSI the possibly diversionary iFCP messages will not be significant and maybe helpful selling the IP Storage message. 6 a. Multiple SCSI, based Servers environments (locations) on a single campus. Like 5. above, these environments will have high access requirements, and when iSCSI HBAs are available (1H2001), and the iSCSI to FC Routers (Gateways) are available (1H2001), this becomes a fertile market for an iSCSI sale. iSCSI will then have a head to head competitive message in this environment with FC SANs, and very probably a head to head competitive message with the FC and FCIP combo. (So lets not deceive ourselves that iSCSI doesn't have a market conflict with FCIP.) Since I believe that in this environment, the customer probably had a reason for not already jumping on FC, and because since I also think they are probably well versed in TCP/IP Networks, the iSCSI message, will be well received. The iFCP message may also have a play in this environment, they can play to the same TCP/IP knowledge as iSCSI does, and suggest to the customer that iFCP is a better choice because there are more HBAs and Storage Devices based on FC then on iSCSI, etc. Therefore I think that this is a competitive play between everyone, FC SAN, FC and FCIP, iFCP, and iSCSI. However. the more iSCSI based storage controllers are shipped, the more the play tips toward iSCSI in this environment. Some iSCSI folks look at iFCP having a diversionary message in this case also, however it looks to me as a general free for all amongst all the options that are valid in this environment and cost will be the driving force. By the way, the iFCP IP Storage message will probably do more to help iSCSI, then it does to distract from iSCSI. Also, in this environment, the trade offs between FCIP and iFCP, mentioned in 3a. above, apply here as well. 6 b. Multiple SCSI, based Servers environments (locations) across a wide area. This environment fits the same solutions as 6 a. above, except a FC only solution is not an option. That is, an iFCP or FC&FCIP solution is approprate as is the iSCSI option, just as in 6a above, but not FC only. 7. Multi Hosting environments with Storage Service Providers (SSPs). These environments will be primarily networked environments which when built today, are Fibre Channel, but here a iFCP Gateway would be a reasonable consideration. In this environment today, the Hosts will have a FC adapters so in either case, the question is -- will the cost be less using iFCP Gateways (where the FC Fibre leave the "Cage", and then goes through IP Switches, and then terminates at a iFCP Gateway just before the FC based Storage Units)? Since the SSPs will be competent in both FC and IP networks, the trade off will be primarily cost. If the costs are close, the edge will probably go to iFCP since it can also combine multiple sites at less cost then multiple FCIP Gateways (see discussion in point 3 above). Having said all that, if iSCSI HBAs, and iSCSI Gateways are available (1H2001), then, the SSP will be able, to apply additional security features (if required by the customer), and they only need low cost IP Switches all the way into the Storage Area. This will probably the most flexible and lowest cost. Since iSCSI will also be able to glue multiple sites together it will be the most probable configuration in this environment, over time. Until that time, iFCP has a strong chance of being heavily used in a SSP environment, perhaps supplanting FC networks in this environment. An iFCP & iSCSI Gateway, would seem to be a very high seller, and permit graceful migration to an all iSCSI network. -------------------------------------------------------------- The iFCP messages, in all but environment #7, will be dwarfed by the number of vendors shipping iSCSI, and the iSCSI message will be the only important IP Storage message that will come through. But since the number of SSPs is small they are easy to market too, and will be fully aware of the approprate maturity of iFCP and iSCSI. However, iFCP will probably only be a stepping stone to iSCSI in an SSP environment. Further, if you take the primary iFCP vendor at their word, they will combine their iFCP product by including iSCSI, and therefore the total message will be very supportive of iSCSI. Let me build a matrix that can summarize the above environments (Cases) with probability of success. Here are the cases again: 1. Existing Single SAN Fibre Channel environments with a number of FC Switches. 2. Existing Single FC environment, that uses FC to connect mostly point to point and not invested in many, if any, switches. 3 a. Existing Multiple FC environments (locations) on a single campus. 3 b. Existing Multiple FC environments across a Wide Area. 4. SCSI, and ATA based Host environments that need to grow into a network attachment. 5. Single SCSI, based Server environments with needs to grow. 6 a. Multiple SCSI, based Servers environments (locations) on a single campus. 6 b. Multiple SCSI, based Servers environments (locations) across a wide area 7. Multi Hosting environments with Storage Service Providers (SSPs). +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ |Case|FC only|FC&FCIP|iFCP | iSCSI|iFCP&iSCSI|iFCP Msg| +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ | 1 | High | NA | Low | Low | Med |Helpful | +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ | 2 | High | NA | Low | Low | Med |Helpful | +------------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ | 3a | High | High |High+| Low |Very High |Helpful | +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ | 3b | NA | High |High+| Low |Very High |Helpful | +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ | 4 | Low | NA | NA | High | Med |NA | +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ | 5 | Low+ | NA |Low+ | High | Med |Min Help| +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ | 6a | Med | Med |Med+ | High |Very High |Min Help| +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ | 6b | NA | Med |Med+ | High |Very High |Min Help| +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ | 7 |Hi->Med| Med |High |Med>Hi|Very High |Helpful | +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+ This table says that in the existing FC environment Case 1-3b, iSCSI, will have tough play. On the other hand, in multiple location environments, iFCP will have a strong play, against FC & FCIP. When the iFCP product is combined with iSCSI support its probability of success becomes Very High. In other environments (4-7), iSCSI has a high probability of success. And when the iFCP product gets iSCSI support it will greatly improve its success position. The marketing messages from iFCP are Helpful, or Minimally Helpful. Hence the only important conflict is between FCIP and iFCP, and this is mostly a "push" except for Multiple Sites, where the Cost might favor iFCP (and that is not completely obvious). Many of us wanted the FCIP and the iFCP combined so this conflict does not exist, however, this looks like both sides have refused to cooperate, so a product shoot out will occur. It looks to me that both will take a piece of the market and continue to exist. The table indicates that when iFCP is combined with iSCSI, the results offers a better product in several areas then either by themselves. Therefore, I believe that iFCP has important potential value to our customers, and should be part of the IP Storage effort within the IETF. . . . 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
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:50 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |