2.3.3 IP Over Fibre Channel (ipfc)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 42nd IETF Meeting in Chicago, Illinois. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 23-Jul-98


Murali Rajagopal <murali@gadzoox.com>

Internet Area Director(s):

Jeffrey Burgan <burgan@home.net>
Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>

Internet Area Advisor:

Jeffrey Burgan <burgan@home.net>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion:ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com
To Subscribe: ipfc-request@standards.gadzoox.com
In Body: subscribe
Archive: standards.gadzoox.com/pub/archives/ipfc/ipfc

Description of Working Group:

The importance of running IP and ARP over Fibre Channels has reached a critical point wherein a standardized approach seems to be the only solution. Historically over the past few years, there have been a multitude of attempts and approaches to implementing IP and ARP over Fibre Channel (FC). This has resulted in islands of implementations with no interoperability. Several vendors from the Fibre Channel Association (FCA) have proposed taking this problem to the IETF with the intent of generating one "standard" specification.

This working group will be responsible for standardizing a specification that will allow IP and ARP to ride over various Fibre Channel topologies, which may include point-to-point, Loop, and Fabric.

The specification will include procedures and protocols for the broadcast of ARP packets between Fibre Channel devices and an encapsulation mechanism to carry IP payloads.


1. Specify a Standards Track procedure for broadcasting ARP packets and resolving IP to FC MAC address and FC MAC to FC port address

2. Specify a Standards Track encapsulation for carrying IP over FC.

Goals and Milestones:

Aug 98


Review progress at Chicago IETF meeting; resolve outstanding issues

Oct 98


Submit ARP/Encapsulation draft to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard

Dec 98


Review status of WG


No Request For Comments

Current Meeting Report

1. The Agenda of the meeting had 2 main topics: IPFC Draft Issues and MIB
proposals. The status of the draft and the milestones were also addressed, along
with the next step.

2. There were 5 main issues with the existing Draft:

- IPv6 Hooks
- Hardware Type in ARP packets

3. Issues with FARP were related to:

- Port ID in FARP Payload
- Silent Response to FARP
- FARP Time out
- FC Layer Mappings
- FC-VI FARP Requirements & Proposal
- Responder Flag Setting Restrictions

Presentation from Raj Bhagwat (Gadzoox Networks) addressed all issues and
proposed resolutions. All issues were resolved during the meeting based on the
proposed resolutions with a minor change in wording for FC Layer Mappings.
(See Presentation).

Jon Infante from Emulex said he will post 1 additional issue for discussion on the
ipfc reflecter.

4. A Fabric MIB was proposed by Kha Sin Teow from Brocade Communications.
The WG accepted the proposal. There was only one issue in the MIB that the
author said he will correct. This had to do with the nature of proposed MIB
(Experimental ). The new ID will not make it experimental in the MIB tree.

The schedule on this effort was submit an ID soon and try to publish this as an
Proposed RFC by Dec 98.

5. An Inteconnect MIB was proposed by Kim Banker from Gadzoox Networks. The
synergy between this MIB and the Fabric MIB was discussed. It was decided that
the Interconnect MIB will describe the relationship. Kim Banker positioned this
MIB to be higher in the hierarchy compared to the Fabric MIB. The Chair of the
WG recommended that this contain in a separate Frame Work Document. Kim
Banker was tasked to do this. The schedule for this proposal was Dec 99.

6. It was decidied in the WG that the ID can move very quickly to an RFC soon after
the meeting and resolving one outstanding issue that will be posted by Jon Infante.

I recommend that we adopt both MIBs as work items.


Working Group Chairs Agenda
Technical Presentation by the ID Draft
Interconnect Proposal
Fabric Proposal

Attendees List

go to list