RE: TCP Framing

["KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>]

> As I expressed in my earlier posting, the goal and purpose of 
> framing is to:
> 
> 1- eliminate the huge amounts of buffering (high speed, expensive, eats up
> board space, more expensive than fibre channel) that will be required by
10Gig
> implementations, and
> 2- provide a common feature set so that any (10Gig) implementation will be
> able to interoperate with any other iSCSI implementation, be it 1Gig,
10Gig,
> HW or SW implementations.
> 
> The only way to do this is to *mandate* implementation of some kind of
framing
> mechanism *IN THE iSCSI SPEC*.

Isn't it actually that a 10Gig implementation couldn't interoperate *at
10Gig speeds* without some sort of frame-sync method - they would be
considerably "slowed-down" (or forced to have large TCP rcv buffers).  This
doesn't mean 'no interoperation', just no 10 Gig thruput?

The reason people are working so hard on a TCP-level framing solution is:

- marker scheme is so krufty and software soln's are penalized (they
probably wouldn't be able to drive 10Gig speeds if 'markers' are mandated)

- there are other TCP applications that benefit from a common frame-sync
method.  This makes these changes more likely to be incorporated into
software stacks (OS releases).

There's already grumbling in IETF that 'that IPS team' "seems to exhibit a
strong tendency to avoid
reusing existing IETF standards that reasonably fit their needs".  It would
benefit us to support the common TCP framing solution and contribute to it's
early adoption.

Even if the TCP framing RFC wasn't mandated by iSCSI, a vendor could require
it's implementation end-to-end to guarantee 10Gig speeds?

Marj