Enough on TCP vs. FCTP, please

[Black_David@emc.com]

> End schemes to fix TCP; address the issues of TCP and SCTP.  Do not stand
on
> desires for TCP over SCTP or that a pact was made to promote TCP.  SCTP
> performance will be superior to TCP using either hardware or software.
SCTP
> is easier to accelerate in hardware than TCP and any resulting SCSI
standard
> will change substantially as a result of the features of SCTP.  Even if
> there was a generic RDMA option, SCSI would look more like Firewire as a
> result.  A debased version of RDMA has already been offered that avoids
> stepping on accepted options.

I think this sort of debate really needs to stop.  Matt's draft is a
reasonable
attempt to apply an existing TCP feature to address a shortcoming in use
of TCP for iSCSI.  It is not perfect, as is the case for most engineering
tradeoffs and compromises.  SCTP does have a number of improvements
over TCP (e.g., the whole session discussion is moot for SCTP), but TCP
has significantly more deployment experience and a great deal of work in
progress on hardware acceleration.

I am restating the WG consensus that iSCSI needs to anticipate both
SCTP and TCP, with the assumption that TCP deployments will come
first.  Given this, Matt's draft is within scope for the WG.  If anyone
other
than Doug Otis disagrees, please say so and say why on the mailing list.

--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------