SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iFCP: Responses to David Black iFCP Technical review comment s



    Say that with an upper case MUST for local emulation and a MUST
    NOT for forwarding of loop primitives between iFCP gateways
    and this issue is closed.
    
    Thanks,
    --David
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Charles Monia [mailto:cmonia@NishanSystems.com]
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 8:01 PM
    > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > Subject: RE: iFCP: Responses to David Black iFCP Technical review
    > comment s 
    > 
    > 
    > Hi:
    > 
    > I believe the rule for arbitrated loop support is that loop 
    > primitives must
    > be emulated by the local gateway.  The iFCP protocol does not 
    > support the
    > forwarding of loop control primitives to a remote gateway for 
    > emulation.
    > 
    > Charles
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
    > > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:52 PM
    > > To: cmonia@NishanSystems.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
    > > Subject: RE: iFCP: Responses to David Black iFCP Technical review
    > > comment s 
    > > 
    > > 
    > > I think this is the crucial point:
    > > 
    > > > The primitives with the behavior you ascribe to LINIT are 
    > > those such as
    > > LIRP
    > > > (Loop Initialization Report Position) and LILP (Loop 
    > > Initialization Loop
    > > > Position), which are frames serviced sequentially as they 
    > > flow though
    > > > NL_Ports on the loop. The loop primitive semantics may 
    > > emulated locally by
    > > > the gateway implementation and need not be propagated by 
    > > iFCP.  How the
    > > > gateway populates the loop with emulated NL_Ports is up to the
    > > > implementation.
    > > 
    > > Yes, I did get confused about which primitive was which ...
    > > The important thing to state here is that an iFCP 
    > > implementation MUST NOT
    > > forward LIRP, LILP and the like over IP.  The result is that 
    > > an FC-AL loop
    > > cannot include any iFCP inter-gateway links, and the topology 
    > > discussion
    > > of how iFCP participates in an FC fabric needs to reflect this.
    > > 
    > > The resolution of the "port behind multiple gateways" issue 
    > looks ok.
    > > 
    > > 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
    > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > > 
    > 
    


Home

Last updated: Wed May 15 16:18:41 2002
10130 messages in chronological order