Re: FCIP: Comment 120

["Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>]

> I would think that sending a TCP connect request to the same IP Address
> and Port as was used in the previous TCP connect request would achieve
> the intended result.

Not a correct assumption.  You are using names (FC Fabric Entity WWN is 
a name.  The FC/FCIP Entity Identifier is a name unique within the scope of 
the FC Fabric Entity.) in FSF only because IP addresses/TCP port associations
cannot provide the FCIP-end2end assurance that the right entities are talking.

Besides, I don't see anything in the current document that prohibits multiple 
FC/FCIP Entity Pairs from sharing the same IP/TCP address/port - and I believe
that is the right architectural approach.
--
Mallikarjun

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions Organization
Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 
Roseville CA 95747
cbm@rose.hp.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralph Weber" <ralphoweber@compuserve.com>
To: <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
Cc: "Mallikarjun C." <cbm@rose.hp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: FCIP: Comment 120


> "Mallikarjun C." wrote:
> 
> > Upon further thought, it appears to me that the "Destination FC/FCIP
> > Entity Identifier" should be sent and received in the FSF.  I can not 
> > think of a way currently to build an FCIP_LEP with multiple FCIP_DEs 
> > - for ex., how would a sender indicate his intention to add a TCP 
> > connection to an FC/FCIP Entity Pair that it's already communicating 
> > with?
> 
> I would think that sending a TCP connect request to the same IP Address
> and Port as was used in the previous TCP connect request would achieve
> the intended result.
> 
> The only alternative would be to REQUIRE SLP interrogation before every
> TCP connect request, and even then there would be zero assurance that
> the IP universe would not shape shift between the SLP activities and
> the TCP connect request.
> 
> Surely, there is some stability in IP addressing.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .Ralph
> 
>