Transcript ipfc-fcover-00mar

IPFC Working Group
IETF Adelaide, Australia
March 29, 2000
FC Over IP
draft-ietf-ipfc-fcoverip-00.txt
E. Rodriguez, Lucent Technologies
M. Rajagopal, R. Bhagwat, W. Rickard, Gadzoox Networks
Motivation & Goals





To connect islands of Storage Area Networks (SAN)
using IP as the packet media
To use existing IP infrastructures to carry Fibre
Channel over LANs, MANs, and WANs
To be able to use any link level technology that carries
IP
To be able to use the IP protocols that address security,
performance, and data integrity
To use FC specifications (including FCP) for storage
commands, with the FC SANs unaware (except for
edge devices) of the IP network interconnecting the
SAN islands.
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
2
Proposal

Specify a mechanism to encapsulate FC frames in IP
packets



Independent of link layer protocol


GigE and SONET link-level issues with regard to FC will be
addressed in ANSI T11 FC-BB2 STD.
Reference ANSI T11 FC-SW-2 Switching Standards to
describe how this mechanism works with FC Switching
Architectures



IPv4
IPv6 encapsulation will be defined if implementation is eminent
address assignment
routing
As a first step, the proposal will address the FC
backbone network to carry the encapsulated frames
between FC Border Switches
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
3
Proposal (cont’d)

Proposal allows multiple Autonomous Regions to be
connected over the backbone offering several
advantages:






Isolation of FC address assignment and containment within each
Region
Insulated from any disruptions in FC networks
Proposal will allow multiple point-to-point links
between FC Border Switches
Mechanism is transparent to FC Protocols
FC Border Switches run a routing protocol in the FC
plane above the IP plane
IP will make use of its own routing protocols to route
packets
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
4
Fibre Channel Issues

3 main concerns when FC frame payload is transported
over other packet media or physical technology:



Security
Data Integrity (loss, out-of-order)
Performance



If flow control is used, then performance impacts have to be considered
Idea is to make use of the existing protocols that
address the above concerns
Applicable protocols ?



IPSec
DiffServ
VPNs
Need recommendations from the IETF community on
the above
IPFC WG

E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
5
FC-SW-2 and FC over IP Architecture
Autonomous Region
SW2
SW2
SW2
BSW
Autonomous Region
BSW
IP Network
(GigE, SONET, DWDM)
SW2
SW2
BSW
BSW
SW2
SW
SW
SW
Autonomous Region
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
6
Protocol Layers
FC
Node
FC
Node
S ONET /GigE/DWDM
FC-4
FC-3
FC-2
ISW
Switch
FC-2
BSW
ISW
Switch
FC- 2
BSW
IP
IP
FC- 2
FC-1
FC-1
FC-1
FC-1
FC-0
FC-0
FC-0
FC-0
GigE/
SONET
PHY
ISW
Switch
GigE/
SONET
PHY
FC-4
FC-3
FC-2
FC- 2
FC-2
FC-1
FC-1
FC-1
FC-1
FC-0
FC-0
FC-0
FC-0
E_Port
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
ISW
Switch
7
E_Port E_Ports
FC-2
F_Port N_Port
FC and IP Routing Planes
FC backbone Routing
IP Routing
BSW
IP Router
IP Router
BSW
IP Router
BSW
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
8
Routing Table at Border Switches
FC Address/WW_PN
Domain*.*/WW_PN


IP Address
a.b.c.d
Assumptions:
 FC addresses assigned to Autonomous Regions
and the corresponding BSW IP address known
 Table is either statically or dynamically built
BSW Join/Leave can be statically or dynamically
updated
 If dynamic, then we need a protocol to update
table entries when new BSWs join or existing ones
leave
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
9
Issues




How is the backbone initialized?
What happens when there are routing changes in the FC
plane?
What assumptions (if any) can we make about FC
distributed services?
Impact of any Flow Control at the link-level on FC
performance?
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
10
IPv4 Header fields of Interest
SOF
(4)

Payload
(includes optional hdr.)
(24)
(0-2112)
IP Header
IP Payload
(20-60)
(20-65536)
CRC
EOF
(4)
(4)
DSCP Bits:



FC Header
Specifies Premium/Assured/Best Effort Service
Assured Service further differentiates traffic based on Class (3
bits) and drop precedence (3 bits)
Protocol field:

will specify Fibre Channel; IANA needs to assign a number for
this field
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
11
Schedule
 Prepare
01.txt by next meeting
 Expect to complete work by Dec 2000
IPFC WG
E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000
12