RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

[Joshua Tseng <jtseng@NishanSystems.com>]

Rob,

Thanks for your good insights.  Regarding the following

<much deleted>
> To your point that 'can iFCP co-exist with FCIP', there
> is no technical reason (or even non-technical) why it
> cannot.  After all, we have had BGP and OSPF co-existing
> for approaching a decade now.  Also, there is no doubt
> that iFCP is a gateway-oriented proposal, just as there is
> no doubt that well-written FCP (or FCP-2) device stacks are 
> very reliable.  Having said that, I believe that there probably
> will be more initial implementations of FCIP than iFCP, but
> that is surely not - among reasonable IETF people - a reason
> to quash discussion.

I believe the comparison between FCIP and iFCP is more like that
of RIP and OSPF, not BGP and OSPF.  BGP and OSPF coexist because
they perform completely different roles.  BGP is used to route
between autonomous systems, and OSPF is used for intra-autonomous
system routing.  The Internet could not possibly exist today
without one or the other.

RIP provides a subset OSPF's capabilities, just as Murali pointed
out that FCIP provides a subset of iFCP's capabilities.  Could you
do both in the same network?  Of course you can, but the chances
are if you're using OSPF, you would not need RIP.  Does that
mean RIP is not viable?  Of course not!  RIP exists because it
is simple and can be used to achieve limited objectives.

Josh

> 
> Thank you,
> Rob
> 
> Rob Peglar
> Director, Storage Architecture
> XIOtech Corporation
> (314) 308-6983
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: julian_satran@il.ibm.com [mailto:julian_satran@il.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:23 PM
> > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Josh,
> > 
> > iFCP as way to keep your investment in FCP stacks is a very 
> > weak argument.
> > FCP stacks are not that stable neither that prevalent (there 
> > is none in the
> > most widespread OS family - Windows).
> > 
> > A gateway for a single device should be the exception rather 
> > than the rule.
> > 
> > I can support it as a work item ONLY if it plays a real 
> > gateway role and
> > can coexist with FCIP is some synergistic fashion.
> > As a end-to-end proposal is has little value IMHO.
> > 
> > Julo
>