[Open-FCoE] FYI : Re: Setup question

Prakash Venkatesen, TLS-Chennai prakashvn at hcl.in
Tue Sep 23 09:36:48 UTC 2008


Prasanna,
I think Point 2 point is not included in the standard primarily for
security reasons. A typical switch implements hard zoning to prevent
faulty initiators to talk to targets configured in a different zone. If
a CNA implements redirect, then it can talk to the target directly after
the PLOGI process is complete.

OpenFCoE has been working extremely well in general. There could be some
bugs with specific releases though...

I don't know about OpenFCoE plan for interoperability. I read in one of
the mails that OpenFCoE is being tested against FC fabrics. That should
take care of the FC part of interop testing.

-- Prakash
HCL Technologies
http://www.hcltech.com/hitech/storage
 -----Original Message-----
From: devel-bounces at open-fcoe.org [mailto:devel-bounces at open-fcoe.org]
On Behalf Of P Mumbai
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:25 AM
To: Mithlesh Thukral; Love, Robert W
Cc: weny at promise.com; devel at open-fcoe.org
Subject: Re: [Open-FCoE] FYI : Re: Setup question

Hi All,
Today (9/22), in a FCoE session during the Storage Developer
Conference, it was said that Point 2 Point, between FCoE initiator and
target, is not supported in the first FCoE standard (FC-BB-5), and it
will be considered for next version of FCoE standard.

My questions are:

1.	First, I'd like to confirm this, and then anyone in the
community
knows why P2P is not in the first version of FCoE Standard? Any
technical reasons?  Is this the reason that P2P mode as discussed in
the below mails is not working?
2.	If i move to the earlier FCoE code(before re-architecture)  will
it
be working, what standard does it follow?
3.	If there is no standard, and implementations are out there, I
would
be concern about interoperability. How do people the community look at
this?


If this is not the mailing list to talk about all these questions,
please excuse me and point me to the correct mailing list.


Thanks You all in advance.

~Cheers
Prasanna


On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Mithlesh Thukral
<mithlesh at linsyssoft.com> wrote:
> Seems like P2P open FCoE is broken for now.
>
> Regards,
> Mithlesh Thukral
>
> On Saturday 13 September 2008 02:17:13 am charles zhuang wrote:
>> Robert,
>> Seems the p2p mode between initiator and sw target is broken for the
>> re-architecture code, I likely to know how do you guys test the
>> initiator when you do the re-arch? Does it have to go thru a fcgw or
a
>> real switch fabric? Is there other easy way that I can get this set
up
>> with a connection like before?
>> Thanks again for your help.
>>
>> charles
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Love [mailto:robert.w.love at linux.intel.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:20 PM
>> To: charles zhuang
>> Cc: devel at open-fcoe.org
>> Subject: Re: [Open-FCoE] Setup question
>>
>> On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 16:26 -0500, charles zhuang wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Also, on the initiator, I don't have openfc.ko, I only have
fcoe.ko,
>> > libfc.ko, scsi_transport_fc.ko, and scsi_mod.ko. Did I miss
anything?
>> >
>> > 2. By following the quick start on initiator, my initiator system
>> > doesn't have fcconf. I guess I can use the same procedure on the
>>
>> target
>>
>> > quick start guide to build/install fcconf and hbaapi. I don't need
>> > openfctgt and scst. Is it correct?
>>
>> fcconf was our user application before our re-architecture (the
process
>> that converted openfc.ko to libfc.ko). We had to remove fcconf
because
>> it was getting information from the kernel in the wrong way. We've
made
>> a small application fcoeadm that will create/destroy and soon we'll
be
>> adding code to report information like what fcconf did.
>>
>> git clone git://open-fcoe.org/openfc/open-fcoe.git
>>
>> You will need to use fcconf for the target because the target is
based
>> on our pre-architecture.
>>
>> Unfortunately my guess is that point-to-point mode is broken for the
>> re-architecture code (the initiator), but I don't know for sure. It's
>> been untested for some time.
>>
>> > Thanks very much for your help.
>> >
>> > charles
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > devel mailing list
>> > devel at open-fcoe.org
>> > http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at open-fcoe.org
>> http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at open-fcoe.org
> http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel at open-fcoe.org
http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

DISCLAIMER:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in 
this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates.
Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of 
this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any mail and 
attachments please check them for viruses and defect.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the devel mailing list