Subject: RE: SNIA-SNIFS: Re: SNIA-SNIFS: Clarification on SNIF marketing b oundaries

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 16:51:57 +0200

Tom,

You are overpowering me if by nothing else then by sheer volume.

The reason I said something on this list is because I think that marketing
is important.
It is important to get a simple and clear and accurate message to your
potential customers.

And with my technical persons naivete I still think that you can't market
everything

By SoiP I meant the protocol forwarded by Adaptec.

By audience I meant a specific area and I did not attach to it any
attribute (nor a class).

And FC tunels and gateways are transitional - there won't be a world of 2
or 3 infrastructures.

As for the large installed base of FC - it is non-negligeable - but if you
care to bring up the numbers you will find out that (as a percentage of
storage subsystems sold) it is rater tiny.
In fact FC is the  main inhibitor to the widespread acceptance of SANs
(price, complexity, incompatibilities).  That does not come to say that
there is no market need for iFCP - only that it fullfils a specific need
and if you don't have that need you better look elswhere.

As for speculating about tomorrow - I am not.   My only claim was that
iSCSI (in its current or future form) is about native IP connectivity.  And
it will evolve (you will have iSCSI-0 and iSCSI-n).

And a broad statement that places all IP storage solutions under the same
umbrela will harm most of the companies that form the consortium and will
force their own marketing team to work overtime to contain the damage.

Julo

Tom Clark <[email-masked]> on 22/12/2000 23:09:17

Please respond to Tom Clark <[email-masked]>

To:   Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:  RE: SNIA-SNIFS: Re: SNIA-SNIFS: Clarification on SNIF marketing b
      oundaries

Julian,

I have seen your input so often on the IPS reflector, I have to admit I was
surprised to see you weigh in on this tawdry marketing discussion.

You raise some interesting issues that I would not have expected.

1.  Who's the intended market (audience) for IP storage solutions?

I think that all flavors of IP storage solutions, as well as Fibre Channel
solutions, have the same basic audience.  If it walks, crawls or puts data
on disk, I want to market to it. The audience is customers who have storage
problems.  Now, we may offer different types of solutions to them, but
that's our problem as vendors and competitors.  So I can't agree that every
IP storage protocol effort has its own unique audience.  We may be offering
different sorts of plumbing, but all the customer really wants is running
water.

Additionally, some of the companies supporting specific IP storage
solutions
also sell servers, disk arrays, tape, and FC interconnect.  IBM, for
example.  So I don't think we can logically subdivide the market audience
into little portions, one per solution-type.  From what I've seen of IBM
marketing (as an example), they like other solutions vendors are appealing
to a wide range of enterprises.

2.  Is iSCSI the really the only viable IP storage protocol?

Your statement that iSCSI is the only 'living' attempt to standardize an
(emphatically capitalized) native IP solution implies that someone died.
Given the immaturity of the standards development for a number of protocol
initiatives, I think it would be inappropriate to declare anyone's funeral
just yet.  Who knows what bright minds may bring to the discussion
tomorrow?
Having a native IP solution is a good thing.  But it doesn't mean that
customers won't find value in other IP-based block storage solutions, even
if they are not 1000% dyed-in-the-wool IP top-to-bottom.

FCIP is, as you say, a tunneling protocol.  I don't think that makes it a
second-class citizen.

iFCP is a 'transition' protocol only?  iFCP is great as a transition
protocol, because it makes it far easier to integrate the large installed
base of FC devices.  But as Steve Looby correctly points out, you could
have
iFCP end systems as well.  In that case, it is no longer just a transition
protocol, but a viable means to move block storage data over IP end-to-end.
Will that compete with iSCSI?  Sure.  Is that a crime in these great United
States?  No.

SoIP has been shelved?  By whom?  As I understand it, Storage over IP is a
trademarked marketing strategy of one company, Nishan.  SoIP as a marketing
strategy includes a number of solutions, including iSNS, mFCP, iFCP and
iSCSI, i.e. Nishan views all of these as productive paths to IP storage
solutions.  Perhaps by 'SoIP' you meant mFCP.  Perhaps you meant to say
that
the IPS is not considering UDP-based protocols such as mFCP.  That would be
correct, since the IETF's focus is protocols that will be used on the
Internet.  It would be presumptuous, however, to declare even mFCP
"shelved".  As a protocol seeking standardization, maybe it just needs
another standards body besides IETF.

Obviously, if I were an iSCSI-only marketing proponent, I would like to
declare all other solutions dead or a least not worthy of discussion. But
then, that's marketing bias, isn't it?  As a technologist, however, I see
merit in all these solutions.

3.  A mistake to market all the products to everybody?

The proposed SNIF could fulfill two functions:  advance the message of IP
storage solutions in general, and advance specific messages on individual
solutions, e.g. iSCSI, iFCP, etc.  It would be the responsibility of the
subgroups within an IP Storage SNIF to generate their own collateral,
events, etc. highlighting the benefits of their own solutions.  It would be
the responsibility of the SNIF to generate the aggregate message on the
benefits of this new technology and how it will facilitate integration into
mainstream data networks.

Your statement that "it would be a blunder not to specify where the market
will be over time" is a little overboard, however.  It would indeed be a
marketing blunder if the iSCSI advocates did not paint their picture of the
iSCSI-only future.  It would also be a mistake if the FCIP proponents
didn't
paint a similar picture of a future world inhabited by next-generation FC
devices jointed by FCIP tunneling.  That's marketing.  But unless you have
a
really good Tarot deck, that's not necessarily reality. Stating where you
want the market to be, and where it ends up may be two different things.

4.  Positioning of IP storage to Fibre Channel

The point of my previous email was to clarify the rules of engagement
necessary within the SNIA.  The focus needs to be on positive marketing
messages, advancing all the features/benefits that a solution offers while
avoiding overt negative marketing that may offend other SNIA members.

Granted, in the case of IP storage, I don't know if it's possible to avoid
comparisons to FC.  Then there is the upcoming issue of Infiniband I/O.
However, it is clear that some of the people interested in a SNIF within
SNIA assumed that there would be an open season on all other solutions.  We
need to avoid that, but the devil is in the details, as usual.

5.  Trying to keep an open mind

You state that:  "I would also refrain from focusing on solutions that are
entirely transitional, will not undergo standardization,  and will get the
wholegroup bad press from the networking community if this group starts
talking too much about them (like the UDP based solutions)."

I find this particularly disturbing.

If you don't have a transitional story to tell as part of the IP storage
initiative, you will have no solutions for customers with large installed
bases of FC end systems.  In fact, you may have nothing to talk about
except
futures for some time to come.  Even if you believe wholeheartedly in the
iSCSI promised land, you have to show people how to get there.

It is also inappropriate to talk about solutions that "...will not undergo
standardization...".  In the case of mFCP (and perhaps other solutions that
neither you nor I have heard anything about), the IETF may not be the right
standards body.  There are, however, other standards bodies.  UDP-based
solutions are fine for closed, controlled enterprise network environments.
I don't they have been declared illegal yet.

In the case of iFCP and FCIP, the discussion over how to put these into
standards tracks is still occurring.  This is a technical issue, not a
marketing issue. It would be prejudicial to mix the two.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 1:22 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: SNIA-SNIFS: Re: SNIA-SNIFS: Clarification on SNIF marketing
boundaries

Tom,

That will be fine and will utterly confuse the target audience.

Every one of the protocols that undergo standardization has a targeted
audience and this should be stated clearly.

iSCSI is the only "living" attempt to standardize a NATIVE IP solution.
FCIP is tunneling protocol and iFCP is a "transition" protocol.

SoIP has been shelved.

Once you state clear what are you address you don't have to be negative
about anything.

It would be a mistake anyhow to "market" all the products to everybody and
it would be a blunder not to specify where the market will be over time.

And while I agree that you don't have to bash FC the whole marketing effort
would be worthless if
you can't state why IP is better than FC in the long run and how to get
there.

I would also refrain from focusing on solutions that are entirely
transitional, will not undergo standardization,  and will get the whole
group bad press from the networking community if this group starts talking
too much about them (like the UDP based solutions).

Julo

Tom Clark <[email-masked]> on 22/12/2000 01:45:11

Please respond to [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:  SNIA-SNIFS: Clarification on SNIF marketing boundaries

Friends,

Side discussions on the SNIFs concept have surfaced some possible
misunderstandings on the types of marketing initiatives what will be
encouraged.

An independent industry or trade association can do pretty much what it
wants, given the common interests of its members.   A SNIF within the SNIA
umbrella has the autonomy to generate its own marketing, but should do so
within the spirit of multivendor cooperation that the SNIA fosters.

The SNIF proposal that the board approved states that the SNIF "advocacy
activity must maintain a professional decorum and avoid disparagement of
competing technologies".

An IP Storage SNIF composed of all vendors in the block storage over IP
space would not be allowed to collectively disparage Fibre Channel, as an
example.  An iSCSI SNIF, promoting just one IP storage solution, would not
be allowed to trash FCIP or SoIP (both protocols represented by other SNIA
members).  And so on.  This would include overtly competitive venues like
performance bakeoffs (unless all parties entered into it willingly).

The enforcement for this SNIA policy is the board's ability to revoke the
charter of a SNIF if it consistently violates SNIA principles.

This is restrictive only of negative marketing efforts.  A SNIF has full
license to positively advance the industry interests it represents.

If, as I hope, we end up with an IP Storage SNIF that includes iSCSI and
other protocols as subgroups, each subgroup will be encouraged to spin
positive messages about their implementations and the SNIF as a whole will
be encouraged to create positive messaging about IP storage in general.

An inclusive SNIF that embraces all IP storage solutions is not the
limiting
factor to marketing messages by any individual protocol proponent.   The
limiting factor is participation within the boundaries established by the
SNIA itself.

Thanks,

Tom