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