SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


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

    RE: FCoverSCTP/IP specification



    
    
    David,
    
    You are right. And, as was already pointed out, we could hardly consider
    the one page
    outline as a proposal (or could we?).
    
    Julo
    
    David Robinson <David.Robinson@EBay.Sun.COM> on 22/08/2000 03:04:48
    
    Please respond to David Robinson <David.Robinson@EBay.Sun.COM>
    
    To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    cc:    (bcc: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM)
    Subject:  RE: FCoverSCTP/IP specification
    
    
    
    
    In reading the discussion of FC over SCTP there has been a lot of
    high level posturing but a distinct lack of details.
    
    Assuming we all have and understand both the FC specs and SCTP specs,
    there is a whole lot of details beyond just stating "run FC over SCTP".
    
    There are lots of interesting questions that need to be addressed, simple
    examples of which might be:
    
    1) What level of FC is running over SCTP? FC-0 or FC-4 or something
       in between? Or just FCP? Or FCP-2?
    
    2) Of the various FC service classes, which are supported and which are
    not?
    
    3) Of the various Mode pages defined in SCSI and FCP, how are the values
       interpreted and what should the recommended values be?
    
    4) If third part transfers are supported what is the addressing used?
    
    5) How is login and authentication done?
    
    etc etc etc.
    
    [I really don't want to hear answers to these particular questions
    in response to this e-mail, they are but 5 of many dozens I can think of.]
    
    What I would like to see is the proponents of FCoverSCTP/IP take the
    time to write up a detailed draft that has enough information that
    someone could make an attempt to prototype an implementation.  Without
    such a draft there is no purpose debating the theoretical aspects of an
    undefined protocol. The other IPS protocols, SEP, iSCSI and the FC
    tunneling encapsulation, have such detailed drafts that I can have a
    concrete discussion about. I believe FCoverSCTP/IP may have merit, but
    I can't know until I see details.
    
    So until I see a real draft with real details I can discuss, I am going
    to ignore any further discussion and strongly encourage others to
    do the same.
    
         -David
    
    
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Sep 04 01:07:45 2001
6315 messages in chronological order