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

["Y P Cheng" <ycheng@advansys.com>]

> If I read you correctly, you are asserting that there is a fundemental
> problem in the design on the TCP *protocol* which prevents it from taking
> advantage of a 10G/100ms network. If so what exactly do you see as a
problem?

I have been very careful in stating the problem is in implementation.  The
protocol is fine -- as the more and more I learn about the TCP options.  I
think more new options such as framing, marking, NCK, SACK, and RDMA can be
defined and placed in login negotiation to allow the TCP protocol to run
well in 10G/100ms network.

> Since we cannot (ips WG) cannot change TCP how should an IPS protocol
> work around this problem while still being friendly with other protocols?

I do believe many people in this group do understand the problems.  It new
options that facilitate the 10G/100ms network are negotiated, we can still
be friendly with older implementation which does not support the new
options.  In such case, we just run slow.

> > If everyone agrees that this group can put iSCSI, iFCP, and FCIP
together by
> > assuming the current TCP implementations having all the solutions,
please
> > let me know.
>
> Conversely, if you feel that this group is designing to the TCP
> implementations instead of the protocol, please let us know.
>
> 	-David

I did sense that some people in this group were worry about compatibility
with older implementations and reluctant to discuss or add new TCP options.
In general, I do believe lots of people are quite up to speed, pun
unintended.  My statements made in herein previous postings were saying that
two iSCSI or FCIP adapters of same kind -- with same TCP implementations --
should be able to run the new options.

Y.P.