RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item, Reset

["Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net>]

John,

Are you concerned iFCP is too competitive with iSCSI?  Although you could
suggest iFCP is just a gateway to gateway solution, this does not constrain
a gateway if it contains but a single device nor does it require
hallucinations to arrive at that conclusion.  In that case, the differences
between iSCSI and iFCP hinge upon reliance of existing FCP protocol merged
with a lightweight transport.  The motivation of all proposals is to
incorporate IP managed networks rather than rely upon dedicated fiber for
SAN and, in that case, all proposals are in conflict.  Disruption in the
existing equipment and software will play a significant role in acceptance
of any solution.  Which protocol your company supports may be a marketing
decision and not a technical one.  I am not sure I understand your concern
about potential applications unless you wish to thwart alternatives by
prohibiting efforts that may be competitive.  As iSCSI has developed support
for multiple connections, error handling and retry mechanisms, flow control,
and unique security requirements which may hinder or help eventual
acceptance of iSCSI compared to iFCP.  A technical perspective of the
differences would be whether these features are useful or not and if they
are easier to implement in simpler configurations.  Your concern about
potentially competitive solutions is troubling, but at least you do see
value offered by the services in iFCP.  I also see simplicity another
benefit and hope for merger of the encapsulation between iFCP and FCIP with
an eye toward SCTP in the future.  Any arm twisting should be in this
direction and would hope marketing is not the WG main interest.

Doug

<snip>
>
> Here are the cases again:
> 1. Existing Single SAN Fibre Channel environments with a number of FC
> Switches.
> 2. Existing Single FC environment, that uses FC to connect mostly point to
> point and not invested in many, if any, switches.
> 3 a. Existing Multiple FC environments (locations) on a single campus.
> 3 b. Existing Multiple FC environments across a Wide Area.
> 4. SCSI, and ATA based Host environments that need to grow into a network
> attachment.
> 5. Single  SCSI, based Server environments with needs to grow.
> 6 a. Multiple  SCSI, based Servers environments (locations) on a single
> campus.
> 6 b. Multiple  SCSI, based Servers environments (locations) across a wide
> area
> 7. Multi Hosting environments with Storage Service Providers (SSPs).
>
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> |Case|FC only|FC&FCIP|iFCP | iSCSI|iFCP&iSCSI|iFCP Msg|
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> | 1  | High  |   NA  | Low | Low  |   Med    |Helpful |
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> | 2  | High  |   NA  | Low | Low  |   Med    |Helpful |
> +------------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> | 3a | High  |  High |High+| Low  |Very High |Helpful |
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> | 3b | NA    |  High |High+| Low  |Very High |Helpful |
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> | 4  | Low   |   NA  | NA  | High |   Med    |NA      |
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> | 5  | Low+  |   NA  |Low+ | High |   Med    |Min Help|
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> | 6a | Med   |  Med  |Med+ | High |Very High |Min Help|
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> | 6b | NA    |  Med  |Med+ | High |Very High |Min Help|
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
> | 7  |Hi->Med|  Med  |High |Med>Hi|Very High |Helpful |
> +----+-------+-------+-----+------+----------+--------+
>
> This table says that in the existing FC environment Case 1-3b,  iSCSI,
> will have tough play.  On the other hand, in multiple location
> environments,  iFCP will have a strong play, against FC & FCIP.   When the
> iFCP product is combined with iSCSI support its  probability of success
> becomes Very High.   In other environments (4-7),  iSCSI has a high
> probability of success.  And when the iFCP product gets iSCSI support it
> will greatly improve its success position.  The marketing messages from
> iFCP are Helpful, or Minimally Helpful.
>
> Hence the only important conflict is between FCIP and iFCP, and this is
> mostly a "push" except for Multiple Sites, where the Cost might favor iFCP
> (and that is not completely obvious).
>
> Many of us wanted the FCIP and the iFCP combined so this conflict does not
> exist, however, this looks like both sides have refused to cooperate, so a
> product shoot out will occur.  It looks to me that both will take a piece
> of the market and continue to exist.
>
> The table indicates that when iFCP is combined with iSCSI, the results
> offers a better product in several areas then either by themselves.
>
> Therefore, I believe that iFCP has important potential value to our
> customers, and should be part of the IP Storage effort within the IETF.
>
> .
> .
> .
> John L. Hufferd
> Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
> IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
> (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403
> Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com
>
>