RE: iFCP: FC-BB exists, why invent something new?

[Charles Monia <cmonia@NishanSystems.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Wakeley [mailto:matt_wakeley@agilent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 7:27 PM
> To: IPS Reflector
> Subject: iFCP: FC-BB exists, why invent something new?
> 
> 
> Wayland Jeong wrote:
>  
> > The
> > salient difference here which, in my mind makes the two 
> proposals (iFCP and
> > FCIP) difficult to reconcile, is the fact that iFCP does 
> not require FC-BB.
> > The devices on each side of the gateway are completely 
> isolated from one
> > another in the FC sense.
> 
> Ok, so iFCP is going to connect FCP devices.  FC-BB already 
> exists to "bridge"
> FC islands. FCIP appears to provide the FC-BB functionality 
> (and is not
> restricted to FCP). What does iFCP bring to the table that 
> FC-BB does not
> already provide?
> 

I see it this way:

Tunneling may be the right solution if the end user's only goal is to
interconnect existing FC SAN infrastructures.

If the user wants an orderly transition of investments in Fibre Channel
storage assets to the IP infrastructure, for any of the reasons mentioned
elsewhere in this thread, then I believe an iFCP storage solution is
preferable.

Charles