IP Over Fibre Channel BOF (FIBREIP) Reported by Yakov Rekhter/IBM Corporation Overview of the ``IP and ARP on Fibre Channel'' Internet-Draft Yakov Rekhter presented the overview of the Internet-Draft. A copy of the presentation follows these minutes. SSESCO Implementation Status of the SSESCO implementation (based on information provided by Craig W. Carlson from SSESCO) was presented by Yakov. o Uses the SNAP/LLC header as outlined in the Internet-Draft. o Uses broadcast ARP. The Ancor switch allows small packets (less than 128 bytes) to be broadcast. The driver uses this ability to broadcast ARP packets in the same way that ethernet does. The format of the ARP packets follows what was specified in the Internet-Draft. o A mixture of message classes is used. For packets greater than 128 bytes, Class 1 is used. For packets less than or equal to 128 bytes, Class 3 is used. (This is actually user selectable, but the default is to use Class 3 for small packets.) o The driver is able to talk to the HP driver (except for ARP) that also uses the SNAP/LLC headers outlined in the Internet-Draft. It has not yet been tested against the IBM adapter since IBM uses Fibre Channel version 4.2 while Ancor is still using version 3.0. Ancor is in the process of going to 4.2 so there will be some data in the near future. o This is currently running on two platforms. The IBM RS/6000 using the Ancor Micro Channel Adapter, and the SGI Indigo2 using the Ancor EISA adapter. Implementation by IBM The status of the IBM implementation (information from Dan Eisenhauer) was presented by Yakov. A copy of the presentation follows these minutes. Future Activities Advancing Internet-Draft to a Proposed Standard: o The group agreed that the document should be advanced to a Proposed Standard as soon as SSESCO, IBM and HP implementations are tested for interoperability. Ken Hays (Florida State University) agreed to lead the interoperability test effort. MIB for Fibre Channel: o The group agreed to publish the N_Port MIB Internet-Draft as an Informational RFC once there is at least one implementation of this MIB. The document will be updated to make it SMIv2 conformant. Discussion on the need to develop and standardize the Fabric MIB did not reach any conclusion. Working Group and Mailing List: o The group agreed that there is no need to form an IETF working group or establish a separate mailing list.