RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

[Charles Monia <cmonia@NishanSystems.com>]

Hi Stephen:

See my responses below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Byan [mailto:Stephen.Byan@quantum.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:29 PM
> To: 'David Peterson'; Ips@Ece. Cmu. Edu
> Cc: 'Black_David@emc.com'
> Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> 
> 
> I agree with David Peterson, Bob Snively, and Mark Bakke. 
> 
> iFCP is quite different from FCIP; the two are not 
> functionally equivalent.
> 
> iFCP is functionally equivalent to iSCSI; it's technical 
> merit is that it is
> cheaper to build a bridge between iFCP and a fibre channel 
> storage device
> than it to build a bridge between iSCSI and a fibre channel 
> storage device.

You seem to be saying that iFCP adds value, so I'll grant you that.

> The downside of this advantage is that native iFCP devices 
> would be burdened
> with greater complexity and cost.

Here's where you lost me. I don't know what you mean by a "native iFCP
device" nor do I understand the basis for your cost and complexity
comparison?

>.......I therefor think iFCP 
> should not be an IP
> Storage work item.
> 

Frankly, I find this conclusion baffling.

Charles