SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



    Doug,
    
    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