Re: FCIP: A question about framing

["Randall R. Stewart" <randall@stewart.chicago.il.us>]

Bernard:

Comments inserted below...

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> 
> >I am a bit confused on how the URGENT pointer can be used
> >to do record marking... which is what is being attempted with
> >the PUSH bit.
> 
> You're not alone.
> 

Well, I am glad I am not alone I was beginning to wonder :)

> >I fail to see how one can tell the 3 frames apart...
> 
> Uh... you can't. :)
> 
That is what I thought too :)

> >I do NOT see how either PUSH or URGENT markers can be used for
> >something they were never intended for.. i.e. changing TCP
> >into a datagram oriented protocol..
> 
> This is another example of an attempt to create a combined
> transport (iSCSI/TCP) that is fundamentally different from TCP
> as defined in RFC 793.
> 
> Might I suggest that a more profitable approach would be to
> spend some time coming up with set of requirements for the
> transport?

Well, I am not saying that this is a bad idea :), but
the sigtran working group as just got through doing
just that... and defining a transport as well. It
took close to two years by the way :)

Now in looking at SCSI and FC over IP and following
this list for quite sometime their requirements match
up pretty closely (as near as I can tell) with what
sigtran came up with. The result of this is RFC2960, which
most on this list (with a noteable few exceptions) do not
want to look at or consider. Instead they want to continue
to try to either TWIST TCP and make some fundamental 
changes to it, or they are deluding themselves thinking
proposals such as PUSH and URGENT flags will get them
record marking... I have not really figured out which is
going on...

Regards
R


-- 
Randall R. Stewart
randall@stewart.chicago.il.us or rrs@cisco.com
815-342-5222 (cell) 815-477-2127 (work)