Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

From: Stephen Byan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:29:12 -0800

I agree with David Peterson, Bob Snively, and Mark Bakke. 

iFCP is quite different from FCIP; the two are not functionally equivalent.

iFCP is functionally equivalent to iSCSI; it's technical merit is that it is
cheaper to build a bridge between iFCP and a fibre channel storage device
than it to build a bridge between iSCSI and a fibre channel storage device.
The downside of this advantage is that native iFCP devices would be burdened
with greater complexity and cost. I therefor think iFCP should not be an IP
Storage work item.

Regards,
-Steve

Steve Byan
<[email-masked]>
Design Engineer
MS 1-3/E23
333 South Street
Shrewsbury, MA 01545
(508)770-3414
fax: (508)770-2604

---

From: "Mark A. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:14:23 -0700

In my mind, the issue of whether this should be a work item should
only revolve around two issues: 

	1) Is there a customer need for this kind of protocol that
	   is not being addressed by this or other working groups?

	2) Is there enough interest in the working group (from 
	   multiple companies) to support the development of the 
	   protocol?

On 1), I suspect that we will need to address some sort of "gateway"
protocol for customers to use in transitioning from FC Fabrics to IP
Networks. Today's reality is that we have FC host OS drivers and HBAs
as well as FC devices that will be with us for some time during the
transition. If you assume that you need a gateway protocol that does
not require the upgrade of either end, I think that 1) is satisfied.
There may be other gateway protocols needed as well for when you have
an iSCSI HBA and OS Driver, but existing FC devices. Look at the market
for the FC/Parallel SCSI routers/bridges to see a similar transitioning
market. Whether we standardize it or not, these type of devices will
exist due to the market need.

On 2), I'd like to see more diversity in the support of iFCP among 
individuals from more than just the handful of companies that have
spoken so far, but the real proof is in the interest in helping to
author the related documents.

One possibility is to task a subgroup with FC to IP storage transition
protocols, and leave the FCIP subgroup to focus just on the bridging
and tunneling issues.

My thoughts.

-- mark

---

From: "David Peterson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:58:30 -0600

Regarding #1: I believe the existing FC host drivers and HBA's will
work quite well using FCIP or an iSCSI gateway. A gateway protocol
is not required to allow an iSCSI HBA to function with an existing FC
device.

Regarding #2: under IETF rules there will be no support from multiple
companies, only individual contributors:)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Mark A. Carlson
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:14 PM
To: Ips@Ece. Cmu. Edu
Cc: 'David Peterson'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

My thoughts.

-- mark

---

From: mark carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:24:12 -0700

> is not required to allow an iSCSI HBA to function with an existing FC

In order to use FCIP, I have to purchase at least 2 FC switches
and 2 FCIP devices (unless it's in the switch) to connect my FC
HBA and my FC Disk even if they are local to each other. 

While you could do it this way, my preference would be a simple, cheap
conversion box at each end. This same conversion box, if it supported
the iSCSI protocol as well, would transition me to iSCSI when I have 
an iSCSI HBA.

> companies, only individual contributors:)

You misunderstand. While there is no requirement that the individual
contributors come from separate companies, I would not like to see
all the authors of the document coming from the same company ;-)

-- mark