Re: iFCP - FCIP merge proposal

["Ken Hirata" <Ken.Hirata@Vixel.com>]

I have to agree with what Joshua said in the "iFCP fabric attachments"
thread; it doesn't make sense to merge iFCP and FCIP.

FCIP is used to solve the problem of connecting 2 Fibre Channel SANs
via IP; it's a tunneling protocol.  As such, it is very simple; the amount
of
processing on any Fibre Channel frame is minimal.  It doesn't read or modify

any of the FC-2 header, add augmentation information or manipulate any
Extended Link Service frames, and allows all FC-2 functionality.

iFCP is a gateway protocol.  It cracks the FC-2 header, handles some Fibre
Channel Extended Link Service frames in a special manner, and there is a
possibility that it won't support all FC-2 functionality.

Merging the FCIP and iFCP documents would make a single document in name
only.  FCIP doesn't need to use any of the functionality described in the
current
iFCP document.

                                                        Ken

Joshua Tseng wrote:

> Venkat,
>
> <stuff deleted...>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> iFCP does not require you to remove anything.  There are implementation
> techniques to connect E_PORTS, Loop ports, and whatever ports you have
> in FC to the iFCP transport.  Merging the two will provide you nothing
> but a very complicated, confusing document describing two dissimilar
> techniques.
>
> Regards,
>
> Josh
>
> > 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

--
Kenneth Hirata
Vixel Corporation
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 450-6100
Email: khirata@vixel.com