RE: FCIP: Comment 120

[Black_David@emc.com]

> >I also believe that the rough
> > consensus of the WG is not to change FCIP in this fashion.
> 
> I am *not* advocating a change.  I am simply concerned that the FCIP 
> text is neither ruling out certain possibilities explicitly, 
> nor defining the
> architectural hooks to cater to all possibilities.  I'd be 
> perfectly okay with
> a statement that states that each IP-TCP Address-Port belongs 
> to exactly
> one Pair (though the text then should ideally say why).

That's a reasonable request that I'm sure the FCIP draft editor
would be happy to accommodate.  The reason why is probably going
to be some version of simplicity.

Thanks,
--David
---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW*      FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
black_david@emc.com         Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mallikarjun C. [mailto:cbm@rose.hp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:32 PM
> To: Black_David@emc.com; roweber@acm.org; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: Re: FCIP: Comment 120
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> From the text that Murali posted on this thread - 
> 
> " The FC-BB-2_IP Reference Model supports one logical IP Interface and
> allows sharing a 4-byte IPv4 or 16-byte IPv6 address in the 
> following ways:
> 
> a)A single IP address per FC-BB-2_IP device
>   - A single IP address shared by all FC/FCIP Entity pairs"
> 
> 
> It's a simple extension to assume that the same well-known TCP port
> *could* be used for all Pairs, which results in multiple 
> Pairs at the same *address*
> necessitating a *name* of some sort to identify the intended 
> FSF recipient.
> 
> >Having seen no other
> > participants in this discussion,
> 
> Please see Murali's message.
> 
> >I also believe that the rough
> > consensus of the WG is not to change FCIP in this fashion.
> 
> I am *not* advocating a change.  I am simply concerned that the FCIP 
> text is neither ruling out certain possibilities explicitly, 
> nor defining the 
> architectural hooks to cater to all possibilities.  I'd be 
> perfectly okay with
> a statement that states that each IP-TCP Address-Port belongs 
> to exactly
> one Pair (though the text then should ideally say why). 
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Mallikarjun
> 
> Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
> Networked Storage Architecture
> Network Storage Solutions Organization
> Hewlett-Packard MS 5668 
> Roseville CA 95747
> cbm@rose.hp.com
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Black_David@emc.com>
> To: <roweber@acm.org>; <ips@ece.cmu.edu>
> Cc: <cbm@rose.hp.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:39 PM
> Subject: RE: FCIP: Comment 120
> 
> 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > In the Orange County meeting, the FCIP contributors were 
> told that we
> > > had to stop relying on knowing the exact IP Address and 
> Port to decide
> > > the end points of the FCIP Links. We were NOT told that we had to
> > > allow multiple FC/FCIP Entity Pairs to share a single IP 
> Address/Port.
> > > In fact, I believe we were told that we could proceed using such
> > > an assumption.
> > 
> > While Ralph doth protest a bit much, I believe he has the 
> better part
> > of this discussion.  It is completely reasonable to identify an IP
> > service instance as "that which responds when contacting TCP port X
> > at IP address a.b.c.d" - for example, there's only one http server
> > behind port 80, but there might be a different one behind port 8080.
> > 
> > If there's a NAT involved, the discussion gets a bit subtle, but
> > the principle remains - one opens a TCP connection to port X at
> > IP address a.b.c.d, and expects to talk directly to a 
> specific instance
> > of an IP-based service.  I don't see any need to change FCIP to
> > allow multiple FC/FCIP Entity Pairs to share a single IP 
> Address/Port;
> > the fact that multiple TCP connections to the same FC/FCIP Entity
> > Pair can share that TCP Port seems sufficient.  Having seen no other
> > participants in this discussion, I also believe that the rough
> > consensus of the WG is not to change FCIP in this fashion.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> > EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> > +1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW*      FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> > black_david@emc.com         Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > 
>