FCIP: RE: iFCP

[Wayland Jeong <wayland@troikanetworks.com>]

[ stuff deleted ]

> Let me try this corollary to the iFCP theorem. Should the next-hop IP
> router die, the iFCP box will capitalize on its resident IP routing
> intelligence and transparently move on to a different egress IP port
> (e.g., a higher cost path in all likelihood). Should the next-hop IP
> router die, the FCIP box  will be stuck unless a) the resident FSPF is
> being taught about failure semantics of IP ports and associated
> countermeasures (ouch!), or b) complexity spills over onto the next-hop
> router (e.g., make it a VRRP-enabled router farm). True?
>
I don't believe that this is true. 

When islands of SAN are connected via FCIP devices, two routing planes are
created: the IP routing plane and the FC routing plane. The FC routing
protocol, FSPF, knows nothing about how a FC frame encapsulated in IP gets
from one FCIP device to another. To FSPF, it simply looks like an ISL
between E-ports. Thus, when an FCIP device advertises its link state on the
FC network (per SW), it will publish its next hop connections in terms of
domains on the other side of an IP connected FCIP device. Frames are routed
in the IP network using standard IP routing semantics like OSPF. If an FCIP
device has multiple IP egress spigots, then it will be able to make the same
next hop decisions like any other IP forwarding device.


> thanks
> -franco
>
-Wayland