RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI

"Silvano Gai" <sgai@nuovasystems.com> Thu, 26 April 2007 22:29 UTC

Return-path: <ips-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhCTE-0002zN-6L; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:29:48 -0400
Received: from ips by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HhCTC-0002xR-5w for ips-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:29:46 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhCTB-0002w0-Ra for ips@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:29:45 -0400
Received: from nuova-ex1.nuovasystems.com ([67.91.200.196]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HhCTA-0004Dk-Ei for ips@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:29:45 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:29:32 -0700
Message-ID: <34BDD2A93E5FD84594BB230DD6C18EA2015E3C36@nuova-ex1.hq.nuovaimpresa.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20070426145824.03223f58@esmail.cup.hp.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
Thread-Index: AceIT5ai7VbnkhCWTymH/1UVaqAlpQAAqUEg
References: <75852864BAD9684FBF5DCF4289DE4076078FFA97@CORPUSMX30B.corp.emc.com><39BA3BC178B4394DB184389E88A97F8C0233B17C@hq-exch-1.corp.brocade.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20070426145824.03223f58@esmail.cup.hp.com>
From: "Silvano Gai" <sgai@nuovasystems.com>
To: "Michael Krause" <krause@cup.hp.com>, <ips@ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1449ead51a2ff026dcb23465f5379250
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org

I agree,
FCoE is being discussed in T11, in the FC-BB working group, as an
additional transport for FC.

-- Silvano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Krause [mailto:krause@cup.hp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:06 PM
> To: ips@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, unless someone is proposing a change in the iSCSI
spec
> to
> accommodate something unique to FCoE, isn't this entire debate really
not
> an IETF topic?   Until the proponents of FCoE make their draft
proposals
> available for public consumption and debate, this discussion is
somewhat
> occurring in a vacuum.   Same goes for comprehending all that is in
> DCE.   It needs to be completely public to understand whether what is
> proposed makes sense to the broader implementation community w.r.t. to
> storage.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> At 02:25 PM 4/26/2007, John Hufferd wrote:
> >David,
> >The first part of you question has perhaps a different answer than
you
> >"In other words" part.
> >
> >The first answer is it communicates the same way a FC adapter
> >communicates with iSCSI based storage --- via FC to iSCSI gateways.
> >
> >The answer you maybe asking (in your Other Words part) is that it is
> >possible for a smart NIC that supports maybe iSCSI, TOE, NIC, and
even
> >perhaps iWARP, to have another interface that supports FCoE.  The
FCoE
> >part would send FC frames through the same NIC that was used by the
> >iSCSI part, but the FCoE frames would be headed (without a gateway)
to a
> >different place then the iSCSI frames were headed.
> >
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >John L Hufferd
> >Sr. Executive Director of Technology
> >jhufferd@brocade.com
> >Office Phone: (408) 333-5244; eFAX: (408) 904-4688
> >Alt Office Phone: (408) 997-6136; Cell: (408) 627-9606
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: brown_David1@emc.com [mailto:brown_David1@emc.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:49 AM
> >To: ips@ietf.org
> >Subject: RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
> >
> >How would an FCoE-based initiator communicate with iSCSI-based
storage?
> >
> >In other words, can the same host adapter be used for FCoE
connections
> >and iSCSI sessions, and if so, would the performance be similar?
> >
> >thanks,
> >dj
> >________________________________
> >
> >         From: John Hufferd [mailto:jhufferd@Brocade.COM]
> >         Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:52 AM
> >         To: Sandars, Ken; Eddy Quicksall; Julian Satran
> >         Cc: ips@ietf.org
> >         Subject: RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
> >
> >
> >
> >         Ken,
> >
> >         The term FCoE has as its primary component FC.  Consider the
> >possibility that the DCE Link from the Host connects to a
switch/device
> >that is able to deal with the FC part of the FCoE.
> >
> >
> >
> >         .
> >
> >         .
> >
> >         .
> >
> >         John L Hufferd
> >
> >         Sr. Executive Director of Technology
> >
> >         jhufferd@brocade.com <mailto:jhufferd@brocade.com>
> >
> >         Office Phone: (408) 333-5244; eFAX: (408) 904-4688
> >
> >         Alt Office Phone: (408) 997-6136; Cell: (408) 627-9606
> >
> >
> >
> >         ________________________________
> >
> >                 From: Sandars, Ken [mailto:ken_sandars@adaptec.com]
> >         Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:41 PM
> >         To: John Hufferd; Eddy Quicksall; Julian Satran
> >         Cc: ips@ietf.org
> >         Subject: RE: FW: [Ips] Recent comments about FCoE and iSCSI
> >
> >
> >
> >         Hey John,
> >
> >
> >
> >         [Hufferd] Many servers are asking for an evolutionary way to
> >combine their Networking connections from the Server.  The customers
I
> >have dealt with do NOT want to rip out FC, they want to provide a
single
> >Link for transport of all networking needs, including storage,
exiting
> >their servers.
> >
> >
> >         I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying
servers
> >should have a single type of physical network connection, presumably
> >ethernet? How does that align with not wanting to rip out FC?
> >
> >
> >
> >         Thanks
> >
> >         Ken
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ips mailing list
> >Ips@ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ips mailing list
> >Ips@ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ips mailing list
> Ips@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips


_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips