Subject: RE: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

From: Camden Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:07:00 -0800

Interesting comment.....

If your FC disks and FC HBAs are local why would you use FCIP?

-----Original Message-----
From: mark carlson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 12:24 PM
To: David Peterson
Cc: Ips@Ece. Cmu. Edu; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: iFCP as an IP Storage Work Item

David Peterson wrote:
> 
> 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.

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.

> 
> Regarding #2: under IETF rules there will be no support from multiple
> 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

---

From: "Mark A. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:32:06 -0700

> If your FC disks and FC HBAs are local why would you use FCIP?

I wouldn't ;-)

I would want a lightweight protocol for my conversion boxes
so that I would not need a FC Fabric anywhere and could do
pure IP with existing devices and HBAs.

-- mark