FC2: Everyone using.
FC4: Almost everyone using.
FC8: Almost no-one using it or interested.
10G: Almost no-one using it but everyone interested.

Architects don’t always get our way, but that’s the way our informal poll showed us as leaning.

We expect to converge storage and application networks at the fabric layer i.e. Layer 1 eventually – and yes, converged voice & data via VOIP is seen as the strategic forerunner.

Our next-generation network plans will be 10G end-to-end and we expect to run storage over that, for both OS and data. We already qualify some Silver and Bronze-class applications over NFS and iSCSI with GigE and LACP, and expect to be able to use FCoE in future for Gold-class applications.

We would expect to maintain separation at layer 2 and above, via further deployment of 802.1q and related protocols end-to-end e.g. MPLS VPNs.

Our timeframe for this is the next 3-5 years i.e. once the Cisco Nexus has reached the same level of maturity and $/port that made the 6509 so attractive.

Thanks for your response. Given that FCoE is inherently compatible with FCP (to my understanding they are almost identical except for the physical transport), it seems reasonable to me that an organization may deploy FCoE as an extension to an existing FCP SAN but not necessarily move to unified fabric (at least, not initially).

I’d be interested to hear why you don’t think that is reasonable. Can you share your thoughts?

I think unified fabric will continue to gain momentum because of the potential to reduce TCO by simplifying infrastructure and also for the functional advantages of having all your initiators be able to talk to all of your targets.

That being said, I don’t believe this needs to be an either/or debate. If you fast forward a few years, I think the typical enterprise DC will have a mix of FCoE, iSCSI and FCP. Each has its own place and I think they can happily co-exist the same way FC SANs and fliers co-exist today.

If customers do not have existing FC SANs and are not good candidates for FC, then, my guess would be they will either go with iSCSI or wait not native-FCoE targets.

I am not sure I can think of a scenario where I would see a customer deploy a parallel, dedicated 10GbE FCoE network (i.e. deploy FCoE but not as a unified fabric). I am not sure there is an upside for the storage team and I am pretty sure the network team would throw up all over it.

Omar Sultan
Cisco

The storage industry may be investing in FCoE, but they’ve already invested in iSCSI as well. NetApp and EMC have targets (as well as Sun in their 7000 line), and initiators are available for all OSes as well as VMware.

I don’t think it’s going to be either/or, but different people will choose different things for their needs.

I think things will generally standardize on Ethernet as well, though Infinibad will have a decent minority stake in specialized markets. They’re talking Ethernet at speeds faster than 10Gb, but IB is already at 24 and 96 Gb. Some people need that.

Unified Fabric is another matter. This seems to be mostly Cisco’s initiative. If it is slow selling initially and if Cisco’s R&D expenses for it are high and the IT market contracts (as it appears it might be doing) – the question is how long will Cisco continue to invest in it. During that time, competitors may be able to come up with alternative products that don’t require as much investment and are less disruptive. If it turns out to be a big money loser for Cisco by mid 2010, it might not make it.