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, Reset



    Folks,
    
    Charles asked me to send the following message, as he is at
    the IPS WG meeting and does not have access to e-mail.  He
    also wants everyone to know he will respond to e-mails this
    weekend when he gets back.
    
    --------------------------------------
    
    Hi John:
    
    Thanks for helping to refocus the discussion.
    
    I want to emphasize once again that iFCP is a gateway to gateway protocol.
    Other discussions to the contrary are simply not relevant or productive.
    
    As much as I dislike playing the role of thought policemen, I feel it's
    important to move beyond these debates and focus on matters of technical
    substance.  That said, I'm not sure whose job it is to declare these issues
    off limits.  I simply hope folks will cooperate and let the matter rest.
    
    Charles Monia
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John Hufferd [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com]
    > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:14 PM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item, Reset
    > 
    > 
    > I 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 01:05:49 2001
6315 messages in chronological order