[119338] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Leinen)
Sun Nov 15 08:19:04 2009
From: Simon Leinen <simon.leinen@switch.ch>
To: Tore Anderson <tore@linpro.no>
In-Reply-To: <4AFD1C84.2020408@linpro.no> (Tore Anderson's message of "Fri, 13
Nov 2009 09:44:52 +0100")
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:17:35 +0100
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Tore Anderson writes:
> * Jonathan Lassoff
>> Are there any applications that absolutely *have* to sit on the same
>> LAN/broadcast domain and can't be configured to use unicast or multicast
>> IP?
> FCoE comes to mind.
Doesn't FCoE need even more than that, i.e. "lossless" Ethernet with
end-to-end flow control, such as IEEE DCB? As far as I understand,
traditional switched Ethernets don't fit the bill anyway.
On the other hand iSCSI should be fine with routed IP paths; though
Malte's mail suggests that there are (broken?) implementations that aren't.
--
Simon.
