SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item



    Here's the (crude) way I interpreted what Charles wrote:
    an iFCP device has two sides; an FC side and an IP side.  On its FC side, it
    better conform to the applicable FC standards, including interoperability
    with other iFCP devices.  I agree with Charles that interoperability between
    iFCP devices on their "FC side" doesn't seem like an iFCP problem per se;
    rather it is a function of whatever interoperability exists between FC
    devices today.
    Charles?
    
    -paul
    
    Paul Grun                                              
    Intel Corporation
    Enterprise Platform Group
    Fabric Components Division
    (503) 677-6768
    paul.grun@intel.com <mailto:paul.grun@intel.com> 
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:49 PM
    > To: cmonia@NishanSystems.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
    > 
    > 
    > Charles,
    > 
    > Sorry to jump on this one, but I must be misinterpreting what 
    > you wrote:
    > 
    > > Anyhow, the behavior on the FC side of the device is, of 
    > course, governed
    > by
    > > the applicable FC standards (or their proprietary 
    > equivalents). It's not
    > > required for iFCP devices to interoperate with one another and hence
    > doesn't
    > > belong in the spec. 
    > 
    > I hope you meant something along the lines of:
    > 
    >   The FC interfaces on iFCP devices are governed by the appropriate FC
    > standards
    >   (which require no modifications for iFCP) and hence must 
    > interoperate to
    > the degree
    >   required by those standards.  This may depend on 
    > implementation choices,
    > for example,
    >   an E port on a iFCP device would not be expected to 
    > communicate with an N
    > port.
    > 
    > If iFCP were to somehow make Fibre Channel interoperability 
    > worse (e.g., an
    > F port
    > that failed to work properly with N ports), that would be a 
    > severe problem.
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > --David
    > ---------------------------------------------------
    > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    > EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    > +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
    > black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
    > ---------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > 
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:05:58 2001
6315 messages in chronological order