nanog mailing list archives
Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
From: Simon Leinen <simon.leinen () switch ch>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:17:35 +0100
Tore Anderson writes:
* Jonathan LassoffAre 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.
Current thread:
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR, (continued)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Eugeniu Patrascu (Nov 18)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Chuck Anderson (Nov 18)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR David Coulson (Nov 12)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Jonathan Lassoff (Nov 12)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR David Coulson (Nov 12)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Ćukasz Bromirski (Nov 12)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Olof Kasselstrand (Nov 12)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Malte von dem Hagen (Nov 12)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Tore Anderson (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR gordon b slater (Nov 15)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Simon Leinen (Nov 15)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Matthew Walster (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Randy Bush (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Stefan (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR rodrick brown (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Joe Loiacono (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Cord MacLeod (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Shane Ronan (Nov 13)