SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: is 1 Gbps a MUST?



    Hi,
    
    I would like to echo John's view of this topic.
    
    Regards,
    Ahmad Zamer
    Intel Corporation
    voice: 512-407-2155
    mail: ahmad.zamer@intel.com
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: John Hufferd [mailto:hufferd@us.ibm.com] 
    Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:59 PM
    To: vince_cavanna@agilent.com
    Cc: fred@cisco.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu; dave_sheehy@agilent.com;
    vince_cavanna@agilent.com; pat_thaler@agilent.com
    Subject: RE: is 1 Gbps a MUST?
    
    
    Folks,
    There will be folks that will operate on 100 Mb/s links and will use iSCSI
    with Encryption.  To say that they do not comply with the spec, for that
    reason, is a bit silly.
    
    Likewise, I believe there will be many desktops and laptops that will
    support 10/100/1000 ethernet adapters and be thrilled with 300 Mb/s, it is
    also not reasonable to say that they can not claim compliance.
    
    The spec is intended to say that the protocol must be capable of being
    supported at 1 Giga bit per second.  I think most of us agree that it is.
    
    So to say that those folks that do not operate at gigabit speed are non
    compliant is inappropriate.
    
    .
    .
    .
    John L. Hufferd
    Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
    IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
    Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
    Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
    Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
    
    
    vince_cavanna@agilent.com@ece.cmu.edu on 02/22/2002 10:54:15 AM
    
    Sent by:    owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    
    
    To:    fred@cisco.com
    cc:    ips@ece.cmu.edu, dave_sheehy@agilent.com, vince_cavanna@agilent.com,
           pat_thaler@agilent.com
    Subject:    RE: is 1 Gbps a MUST?
    
    
    
    Hi Fred,
    
    |
    |I won't respond to the wording of the draft, but to the sense
    |that it must
    |be intended to convey. If the wording doesn't convey this, it is the
    |wording which must change.
    |
    |It seems to me that if the transfer of encrypted data at
    |nominal link rates
    |is expected, then encryption and decryption must be achieved
    |at link rates.
    |If 1 GBPS link rates are in view, guess what rates are
    |important. If 10 GBPS...
    
    Unfortunately some believe that they can be iSCSI compliant by having a
    slow
    implementation of IPSec and claiming that most traffic will not require
    security processing. I am not one of those persons. I think that at least
    the policy check must occur at link speed regardless of what proportion of
    traffic requires security processing.
    
    |
    |It seems to me that the question is not whether or not you are
    |mandated to
    |implement IPSEC in software, but what you need to do to
    |accomplish link
    |speed encryption and decryption. Hardware and software are
    |duals; you can
    |implement the algorithm either way, and the trade-off is money
    |vs speed.
    
    I agree, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. I am trying to gather
    opinions from this group on whether link speed encryption/decryption is
    necessary, especially now that Bernad Aboba has clarified that the spec
    does
    not mandate it.
    
    Vince
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Sat Feb 23 16:18:03 2002
8870 messages in chronological order