RE: iFCP - FCIP merge proposal

["Venkat Rangan" <venkat@rhapsodynetworks.com>]

Julian:

> FCIP has the narrower scope of connecting only FC islands - admittedly
> even FC devices other then FCP.

But as far as I can tell, iFCP requires you to remove devices that support
E_Port, B_Port and FC-AL functionality and replace them with iFCP plus
OSPF/BGP/RIP implementaions, which is quite a drastic step for a deployed
SAN to take on. Merging the two would appear to provide both capabilities.

Regards,

Venkat Rangan
Rhapsody Networks Inc.
http://www.rhapsodynetworks.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
Julian Satran
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:36 PM
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: iFCP - FCIP merge proposal


Dear colleagues,

At yesterdays IPS WG meeting and had no chance to clarify my proposal
regarding a merger of FCIP and iFCP into a single effort.

iFCP attempt to provide an IP interconnect for FCP devices. It has also the
capabilty to interconnect FC islands.

FCIP has the narrower scope of connecting only FC islands - admittedly even
FC devices other then FCP.

Given that FCP devices where the main concern of this WG and that iFCP
serves a wider purpose than FCIP and will enable not only tunneling but also
migration of FCP devices to IP infrastructure my intention was to suggest
that iFCP should attempt to incorporate those FCIP functions it does not
care about today and those two groups should work towards one common draft
that should cover not only tunneling but also device migration to IP
networks.

Julo
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com