1. 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

2. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 2 Motivation & Goals o To connect islands of Storage Area Networks (SAN) using IP as the packet media o To use existing IP infrastructures to carry Fibre Channel over LANs, MANs, and WANs o To be able to use any link level technology that carries IP o To be able to use the IP protocols that address security, performance, and data integrity o 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.

3. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 3 Proposal o Specify a mechanism to encapsulate FC frames in IP packets m IPv4 m IPv6 encapsulation will be defined if implementation is eminent o Independent of link layer protocol m GigE and SONET link-level issues with regard to FC will be addressed in ANSI T11 FC-BB2 STD. o Reference ANSI T11 FC-SW-2 Switching Standards to describe how this mechanism works with FC Switching Architectures m address assignment m routing o As a first step, the proposal will address the FC backbone network to carry the encapsulated frames between FC Border Switches

4. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 4 Proposal (cont’d) o Proposal allows multiple Autonomous Regions to be connected over the backbone offering several advantages: m Isolation of FC address assignment and containment within each Region m Insulated from any disruptions in FC networks o Proposal will allow multiple point-to-point links between FC Border Switches o Mechanism is transparent to FC Protocols o FC Border Switches run a routing protocol in the FC plane above the IP plane o IP will make use of its own routing protocols to route packets

5. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 5 Fibre Channel Issues o 3 main concerns when FC frame payload is transported over other packet media or physical technology: m Security m Data Integrity (loss, out-of-order) m Performance u If flow control is used, then performance impacts have to be considered o Idea is to make use of the existing protocols that address the above concerns o Applicable protocols ? m IPSec m DiffServ m VPNs o Need recommendations from the IETF community on the above

6. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 6 FC-SW-2 and FC over IP Architecture Autonomous Region SW BSW Autonomous Region SW2 BSW IP Network (GigE, SONET, DWDM) Autonomous Region SW2 BSW

7. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 7 Protocol Layers IP FC-1 FC-0 FC-2 GigE/ SONET

8. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 8 FC and IP Routing Planes

9. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 9 Routing Table at Border Switches o Assumptions: m FC addresses assigned to Autonomous Regions and the corresponding BSW IP address known m Table is either statically or dynamically built o BSW Join/Leave can be statically or dynamically updated m If dynamic, then we need a protocol to update table entries when new BSWs join or existing ones leave

10. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 10 Issues o How is the backbone initialized? o What happens when there are routing changes in the FC plane? o What assumptions (if any) can we make about FC distributed services? o Impact of any Flow Control at the link-level on FC performance?

11. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 11 IPv4 Header fields of Interest o DSCP Bits: m Specifies Premium/Assured/Best Effort Service m Assured Service further differentiates traffic based on Class (3 bits) and drop precedence (3 bits) o Protocol field: m will specify Fibre Channel; IANA needs to assign a number for this field

12. IPFC WG E. Rodriguez, M. Rajagopal March 2000 12 Schedule o Prepare 01.txt by next meeting o Expect to complete work by Dec 2000