Re: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

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

Charles,

There's one item with your reply that I have a question about.  With regards
to processing overhead, do you agree that FCIP as a tunneling protocol
would not have to look for ELSs in the Fibre Channel datastream as iFCP
must do?

I'm not arguing that iFCP should not be a IP Storage work item; I'm
concerned about the attempts to merge FCIP and iFCP.

                                                Ken

Charles Monia wrote:

> Hi Venkat:
>
> The issues you raise have been discussed at length before (but apparently
> not to your satisfaction). That aside, the general thrust of this note seems
> to reflect business rather than technical concerns.
>
> Within the parameters of the WG charter and IETF ground rules, it's my view
> that the ips wg needs to be a vehicle for bringing high-quality solutions to
> the marketplace, not obstructing technologies because they are inconvenient
> or conflict with someone's business model.
>
> See other responses below.
>
> Charles
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Venkat Rangan [mailto:venkat@rhapsodynetworks.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:05 AM
> > To: David Peterson; Ips@Ece. Cmu. Edu
> > Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item
> >
> >
> >
> > We are also not in support of picking up iFCP as a IP Storage
> > Work Item.

snip . . .

> > 6. iFCP addds processing overhead to frames
> >
> > In contrast to iSCSI, iFCP requires examination of every frame and
> > substitution of addresses at both iFCP Portals. This has the
> > potential to
> > add unwanted latencies as well as consume processing overhead
> > on gateways.
>
> Such assertions about processing overhead are totally without foundation or
> substance.
>
> > Given this, it would be hard to compete with cut-through routing based
> > products in a pure FC or IP based storage network.

snip . . .

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