RE: ATA/IP & ATAPI

["Bradley, Mark" <mark_bradley@btc.adaptec.com>]

>From what you write below, it seems you envision some ATA chip
trying to drive packets onto a wire (perhaps using some strange
bridge).  Is this what you mean?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Costa Sapuntzakis [mailto:csapuntz@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:06 AM
> To: Bradley, Mark
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: ATA/IP & ATAPI
> 
> 
> 
> Installed base is a very good argument. :) Here are some of the
> issues:
> 
> Many ATA drivers are written to do register-level accesses. Rewriting
> them to send packets will involve some serious reworking. 
> 
> An ATA/IP device could maintain a register interface to the host with
> a special ATA/ISA<->ATA/IP bridge (either emulated in BIOS or as a
> real PCI device).
> 
> Currently, all ATA devices plug into motherboards with
> processors. These processors could act as SCSI<->ATA converters.
> Or are there ATA-only functions that are lost by that sort of 
> bridging?
> Perhaps SMART...
> 
> Would an ATA/IP device be significantly simpler than a SCSI/IP device
> from a firmware standpoint?
> 
> -Costa
> 
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Bradley, Mark wrote:
> 
> > About 85% of storage on IA32/64 systems is IDE/ATA.  Ignoring
> > this substantial a volume seems inappropriate.  Further, there
> > is a proposal for Serial ATA (SAT) that might lend better lend
> > itself to this work.
> >   --  markb
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Costa Sapuntzakis [mailto:csapuntz@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 1:07 AM
> > > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > > Subject: ATA/IP & ATAPI
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > What are the arguments for ATA/IP?
> > > 
> > > -Costa
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>