RE: FCIP/iFCP : Guarantee In-Order delivery for FC N/NL_ports

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

YP,
Not sure where you are going here, the purpose of a standard is to permit
interconnection with other manufactures equipment.

.
.
.
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 01/18/2001 04:06:53 PM

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


To:   "Matt Wakeley" <matt_wakeley@agilent.com>, "IPS Reflector"
      <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
cc:
Subject:  RE: FCIP/iFCP : Guarantee In-Order delivery for FC N/NL_ports



> > But, if iFCP and FCIP use TCP encapsulation, then, we back to
> > square zero.)
> Please explain why/how you think iFCP and FCIP do not require the
> use of TCP?
>
> -Matt Wakeley

Matt,

Certainly, both drafts have proposed TCP.

However, when two iFCP or two FCIP devices talk to another of its own kind,
they have the freedom to use any protocol they wish, even SCTP, as long as
the protocol provides reliable delivery.  This is because the frames are
only received by another device of same implementation.  There is no
interoperability issue with any legacy implementations.  Now, does the
other
protocol obeys the fairness rule of Internet?  I assume it would.

Y.P.