RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

[Joshua Tseng <jtseng@NishanSystems.com>]

Cam,

I'm glad you find our web site interesting.  SoIP is
Nishan's brand name for its IP-based storage solutions.
This includes our products that use iSCSI, iFCP, iSNS and
other protocols that we are currently implementing.

Josh

> 
> That is an interesting statement considering that Nishan's 
> web site clearly states its purpose to develop SoIP as an 
> "...end to end storage networking solution"
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Cam Ford
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Tseng [mailto:jtseng@NishanSystems.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:54 AM
> To: Ips@Ece. Cmu. Edu
> Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> 
> 
> I don't want to stifle any creative technical discussion here,
> but I feel the need to remind everybody that iFCP is positioned
> as a gateway technology only.  While the thought of "native"
> iFCP HBA's might be interesting, this discussion is
> completely irrelevant with regard to whether iFCP should
> or should not become an IPS work item.  iFCP is being proposed
> as an IPS work item purely on its merits as a gateway technology.
> 
> Regards,
> Josh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Byan [mailto:Stephen.Byan@quantum.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:47 AM
> > To: 'ips@ece.cmu.edu'
> > Subject: FW: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Byan 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:40 AM
> > To: 'Bill Terrell'
> > Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> > 
> > 
> > It's all the FC stuff that lets iFCP work over an unreliable 
> > data transport
> > like UDP. It's redundant when running over TCP/IP.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > -Steve
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bill Terrell [mailto:terrell@troikanetworks.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:10 PM
> > > To: 'Stephen Byan'
> > > Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >The downside of this advantage is that native iFCP 
> devices would be
> > > burdened
> > > >with greater complexity and cost. I therefor think iFCP 
> > > should not be an IP
> > > >Storage work item.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >-Steve
> > > 
> > > How is a native iFCP endpoint (initiator or target) more 
> > > complex or costly
> > > than an iSCSI native endpoint? What are the specific 
> > > difficulties inherent
> > > to native iFCP devices versus native iSCSI devices?
> > > 
> > > Bill
> > > 
> > 
>