Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nic who wrote (18121)	9/21/1998 4:25:00 PM
From: Craig Stevenson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29386

Nic, <<correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought FC's physical layer was unsuited to the WAN due to distance limitations etc.? Renaming it a "SAN" won't make the distance any shorter... do you expect the FC standard to eventually be extended to cover WAN-typical physical layers and compete with e.g. ATM?>> You are correct about Fibre Channel's physical layer making it unsuitable for the WAN, and I do NOT expect the FC standard to be extended in that way. However, the addition of an IP standard over Fibre Channel should make it possible to use ATM to connect disparate SANs. Visualize a whole bunch of corporate SANs, with a web of ATM connecting them (the Internet, for example). That scenario should allow access to those storage devices through any IP capable link, and that's the exciting part to me. <<Full agreement on the importance of IP over FC for re-entering the LAN market through the back door SAN - that has always been my favorite FC fantasy.>> It seems as if most people still overlook the fact that hard drives have Fibre Channel interfaces, not Gigabit Ethernet interfaces. As FC drives become more prevalent, I hope that Fibre Channel gets a good look on the LAN side too. <<I just wish ANCR's share price would lend some more credibility to our dreams of grandeur and world domination...>> You sound like another ANCR investor who has gotten a "10 to 1" return. At this point, I would settle for winning a battle or two. World domination comes later... <g> Craig

To: nic who wrote (18121)	9/21/1998 4:57:00 PM
From: Greg Hull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

nic, <<correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought FC's physical layer was unsuited to the WAN due to distance limitations etc.?>> There are several physical layers approved in the FC standard today, aren't there? At least two, copper and fiber, but aren't there different standards for single mode and multi-mode fiber? Couldn't FC add a WAN-appropriate physical layer and use the existing higher layers? Any optics engineers out there know if it makes any sense to incorporate the optics and other gear used in SONET networks into an FC switch, or would it make more sense to leave the long distance gear in a separate box? It seems that IP over FC would attract more competition for Ancor. Let's hope they stay in business long enough to catch the eye of the big boys. Greg