[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR

Subject: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
From: simon.leinen at switch.ch (Simon Leinen)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:17:35 +0100
In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (Tore Anderson's message of "Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:44:52 +0100")
References: <6CDE22DE80A63A4DACF4FE2C916519A53F4E63E3DB@BLV11EXVS01.corp.dm.local> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

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.

References:
- Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
  - From: raj.singh at demandmedia.com (Raj Singh)
- Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
  - From: feldman at twincreeks.net (Steve Feldman)
- Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
  - From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
- Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
  - From: david at davidcoulson.net (David Coulson)
- Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
  - From: jof at thejof.com (Jonathan Lassoff)
- Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
  - From: tore at linpro.no (Tore Anderson)

Prev by Date: AH is pretty useless and perhaps should be deprecated
Next by Date: ADMIN: List FAQ/Monthly Post.
Previous by thread: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
Next by thread: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread