It’s been a while since I last posted a “Thinking Out Loud” post, but a Twitter discussion this morning prompted me to post this one. Last night, I posted a question to Brad Hedlund (@bradhedlund on Twitter and a great data center networking resource) regarding the Nexus 2232PP fabric extender. My tweet to Brad was this: does the Nexus 2232PP make “multi-hop FCoE” possible via NIV?
(If you haven’t already read my post on the relationship between FCoE and NIV, go read it now as it provides a good background and context for this discussion.)
Brad responded, confirming my assessment and stating that FIP snooping wasn’t necessary. I wasn’t sure about the FIP snooping part but after seeing the response I now understand. In any event, a number of others starting questioning my use of “multi-hop FCoE” in conjunction with the 2232PP fabric extender, stating that it wasn’t a hop because ti does not actually switch any traffic.
Strictly speaking, all of these individuals are absolutely correct; for more information, go read this post on NIV. In this case, the Nexus 5000 is the interface virtualization (IV)-capable bridge and the Nexus 2232PP is the interface virtualizer (IV). The IV doesn’t switch any traffic; all switching occurs on the IV-capable bridge. Therefore, from a switching perspective, a Nexus 5000 and any or all associated fabric extenders are a single hop.
My response is this: what is multi-hop, anyway? Is it the presence of multiple switches in a data path between an initiator and a target? Or is it the presence of multiple physical devices, chained together, between an initiator and a target? In the first definition, using a fabric extender isn’t multi-hop; in the second definition, it is. More to the point, should a customer really care which definition is correct? Why is multi-hop FCoE important, anyway? I would say the answer to that question is scalability. Customers want to be able to scale the FCoE fabrics larger than they can today. Multi-hop FCoE—however you want to define it—makes that possible. So does it really matter how we get there? Besides which point, using the fabric extender approach means only a single point of management instead of multiple points of management. Isn’t that better?
What do you think? Do your own “thinking out loud” in the comments below.
Comments are now closed.