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

[Charles Monia <cmonia@NishanSystems.com>]

Will do.

Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:46 AM
> To: cmonia@NishanSystems.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: 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
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > 
>