RE: FCIP: RE: iFCP

["Franco Travostino" <travos@nortelnetworks.com>]

> On the other hand,
> iFCP specifies the mapping of the D_ID to a
> destination IP address, after which the iFCP gateway can make the
> forwarding decision through a routing table lookup of that IP
> address.
> The routing table is populated by OSPF or some other IP routing
> protocol.  The intent of my last message was to Vi was to clarify
> a
> misunderstanding that a Fibre Channel switch needs to be 
> implemented
> in the iFCP gateway.  In fact, it is an IP switch in the iFCP
> gateway
> which makes the next-hop forwarding decision.  This is a subtle,
> but
> very important difference between FCIP and iFCP.  Mark Carlson is
> 100%
> correct in his statement that iFCP can be implemented without a
> Fibre
> Channel switch.

Let me try this corollary to the iFCP theorem. Should the next-hop IP router die, the iFCP box will capitalize on its resident IP routing intelligence and transparently move on to a different egress IP port (e.g., a higher cost path in all likelihood). Should the next-hop IP router die, the FCIP box  will be stuck unless a) the resident FSPF is being taught about failure semantics of IP ports and associated countermeasures (ouch!), or b) complexity spills over onto the next-hop router (e.g., make it a VRRP-enabled router farm). True?

thanks
-franco

-----
Franco Travostino, Director Content Internetworking Lab
Technology Center
Nortel Networks, Inc.
600 Technology Park
Billerica, MA 01821 USA
Tel: 978 288 7708 Fax: 978 288 4690
email: travos@nortelnetworks.com