Re: Who is doing what

[Dave_Lee@3com.com]

The IP Storage WG hasn't officially been created yet and, thus, there are no WG
documents.  So the IBM/Cisco/etc. group is a "design team" and does not speak
for the WG.

There are a number of parties in support of Scheduled Transfer.





"Cameron, Don" <don.cameron@intel.com> on 06/15/2000 04:36:41 PM

Sent by:  "Cameron, Don" <don.cameron@intel.com>


To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:    (Dave Lee/HQ/3Com)
Subject:  Who is doing what



I am trying to figure out who the players are in the storage over IP arena.
>From following the discussions here, and reading the trade rags, I have come
up with the following. Please let me know where I am wrong:

The IP Storage Working Group (IBM, Cisco, HP, Adaptec, Quantum, EMC, and
others)
     Mapping of SCSI to TCP. All agree that TCP is appropriate for WAN. A
majority advocate TCP for both LAN and WAN, a minority advocate a
lighter-weight transport protocol for LAN only.

Adaptec: EtherStorage
     Mapping of SCSI to light-weight transport protocol specifically
designed for LAN only. Uses SEP (SCSI Encapsulation Protocol).

Nishan: SoIP (Storage Over IP)
     Can't find much detail here.

Gadzoox and Lucent:
     Fibre Channel over IP. Proposal is to use IP to bridge between FC
SANs for MANs (and WANs?).

SAN, Ltd: SSCOP (Service Specific Connection Oriented Protocol)
     Route storage data over IP (UDP?) using the data link protocol from
ATM that allows selective re-transmission.