RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

[Black_David@emc.com]

> While I'm at it, and since this issue has come up several times, I should
> point out that the NAT-like address translation we do reflects a design
> choice made to exploit IP scalability. We could have made the tradeoffs
> differently without affecting iFCP in any fundamental way.

I'm not sure about that.  An important consequence of the NAT-like address
translation is that the allocation of the 24 bit addresses used for S_ID and
D_ID
need not be coordinated across the iFCP boxes.  If two boxes happen to use
the same address(es), the conflicts are resolved by:
- Picking new addresses for the remote ports on the FC side of iFCP and
	translating appropriately.
- Using the IP addresses on the IP side of iFCP to disambiguate which
	iFCP box is involved.
If this address translation isn't done, the resulting need for coordination
of
address allocation strikes me as a "fundamental" change, especially given
the fact that both FC fabrics and loops have their own ideas about how
address allocation happens.

--David