|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: FCIP/iFCP : Guarantee In-Order delivery for FC N/NL_portsDoug, In Orlando, Ralph Weber suggested using time-stamp in FCIP and drop frames that exceed the R_A_TOV time so that the 20sec waiting period scenario will not happen. Framing can be used to prevent the other scenario. Framing will allow looking into particular FC streams that are not affected by a delivery problem that pauses other streams within a TCP channel. As discussed earlier, it may require a special TCP implementation. This can be done without using time stamps, although a time-stamp may help. Failover, load sharing, and alternate TCP channels are probably implementation specific. Time-stamp is not necessary, but if exist it may benefit these implementations. Gaby -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Otis [mailto:dotis@sanlight.net] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 11:23 AM To: Gabriel Hecht; ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: FCIP/iFCP : Guarantee In-Order delivery for FC N/NL_ports Gaby, > Currently, FCIP doesn't map TCP channels to FC streams. By > stream, I mean, > related FCP commands and data that may require 'in order delivery' by the > SCSI application. Mapping TCP channels to FC addresses will > guarantee that > a FC-stream is fully contained within a TCP channel. Should the application be using multiple processors with multiple FC connections, then what you see as isolated is perhaps not. An advantage of using multiple TCP connections is lost if all traffic to a device is restricted to a connection. At what point in time would the gateway change to a different connection if there was a problem. All this activity is time related and to sift through the mess, a time-stamp still seems essential. > FCIP leaves this > mapping to the Gateway implementation. For example, assigning a TCP > connection per remote D_ID address or group of address is relatively easy > for the H/W to implement. If we don't want to use time-stamp for > ordering, > the only implementation limit will be to not put a FC stream on more than > one TCP channel, to avoid out of order delivery. This conclusion assumes no relationship between other sources and no fail-over will be made and all traffic will be held until a missing frame is recovered. A TCP interruption may recover within 20 seconds, but with respect to FC however, this is forever. If there are multiple working connections, and one is briefly lost, how does one allow a fail-over? TCP may attempt delivery for a very long period. Is it safe to assume no timing relationship between FC sources? As a TCP interruption may occur for periods longer than the R_A_TOV, is there a violation of the FC fabric to then release frames held for say 20 seconds? Doug
Home Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:41 2001 6315 messages in chronological order |