IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: iSCSI reqmts and Ethernet adapters

"Douglas Otis" <dotis@sanlight.net> Thu, 26 April 2001 05:49 UTC

Received: from ece.cmu.edu ([128.2.236.200]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id BAA15198 for <ips-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:49:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) id f3Q0fsG25800 for ips-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:41:54 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: ece.cmu.edu: majordom set sender to owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu using -f
Received: from gateway.sanlight.org (adsl-63-202-160-80.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.160.80]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3Q0fBA25745 for <ips@ece.cmu.edu>; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:41:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ljoy (10.0.0.18.lan.sanlight.net [10.0.0.18]) by gateway.sanlight.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f3Q1lo132551; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:47:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dotis@sanlight.net)
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@sanlight.net>
To: Charles Monia <cmonia@NishanSystems.com>, "'KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)'" <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>, ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI reqmts and Ethernet adapters
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:37:55 -0700
Message-ID: <NEBBJGDMMLHHCIKHGBEJMENICGAA.dotis@sanlight.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <B300BD9620BCD411A366009027C21D9B17346E@ariel.nishansystems.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Charles,

The encapsulation proposal is devoid of techniques for framing.  How do you
expect to see this lack of framing resolved?  Do you expect to use this
adapter and not have a means for framing?

Doug

> Hi:
>
> > Another valid point Doug made is that iSCSI, FCIP, and iFCP
> > all have the
> > same framing needs and should all use the framing solution.  That
> > recommendation certainly seems sane and within the scope of this WG to
> > oversee.  Last time I paid attention, FCIP and iFCP were
> > trying to reinvent
> > this wheel.
>
> To bring you up to date, there is no "framing solution" in the common
> encapsulation proposal.
>
> See
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips-fcencapsulation-00.txt
>
>
> Charles
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email