50 likes | 169 Views
ETC/PFC Convergence Discussion. Craig W. Carlson, QLogic Manoj Wadekar, QLogic Derek Rhode, QLogic. Background. Both ETS and PFC proposals were submitted with consensus of many authors Original goal of ETS was to “keep it simple” ETS specification was to not dictate implementation
E N D
ETC/PFC Convergence Discussion Craig W. Carlson, QLogic Manoj Wadekar, QLogic Derek Rhode, QLogic
Background • Both ETS and PFC proposals were submitted with consensus of many authors • Original goal of ETS was to “keep it simple” • ETS specification was to not dictate implementation • At last meeting a proposal was brought in that places additional restrictions on, and complicates ETS and PFC • az-pelissier-convergence-proposal-0708.pdf
The issue… • Goal of ETS has been to define consistent configurability • Priority - Traffic class mapping is internal issue to a product • Has not been defined by 802.1 • Needs more discussion whether it is required • Convergence proposal places restrictions on product use cases • Disallows certain use cases • Has the case been made whether such restrictions are mandatory? • This should be product and deployment decision
The issue (cont)… 4 Convergence proposal pre-defines a mapping between Priorities and Traffic Classes • This violates the original idea behind ETS – Allow flexibility to the implementation • This also prevents an administrator from configuring a system as appropriate to their situation • Data Centers Bridging has discussed assumption of “single-administrative-domain” • Is proposed complexity to potentially reduce misconfiguration warranted? Sep XX, 2007
Conclusion • We believe we should stick with the “Keep it Simple” approach of the original ETS goals • It also appears as though the proposal goes against the spirit of 802.1, allow the implementation, and deployment the flexibility to do what is needed their particular configuration