On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Robert Blayzor wrote: > Of course I'm open to any other suggestions on securing this at L2, > keeping in mind two things. The ISCSI target cannot talk VLANing and > cannot be multihomed. (I guess it makes best use via MPIO in the > ISCSI protocol) It would of been a lot easier if it just supported > 802.3ad and VLANing, but I don't have that option. Also there may be > just one or more than one client behind each switch port, (ie: servers > from another switch may be connected to the 6509).
I realize that I'm not answering your question, but... I'd strongly suggest you reconsider the bias against L3 serperation. It's vastly simpler and, so long as you are doing hardware forwarding on the 6500, it has no performance impact. I've got a few VLANs of iSCSI installations that work like this and it's great. Once the server guys know they'll need a static route for the iSCSI storage, you're done with that difficulty. You may find that you need multiple VLANs anyhow, depending on the storage system's requirements for iSCSI multipath and redundant storage gateways. You may not be using these features now, but you will probably want them in the future. Your performance issues are going to be from saturating links anyway. Make sure you don't have traffic boomeranging up and down the same link. The easiest way to insure this is either to cable the storage system directly to the 6500, or cable it to a dedicated access-layer switch that has a port-channel back to the 6500. -- Ross Vandegrift [email protected] "If the fight gets hot, the songs get hotter. If the going gets tough, the songs get tougher." --Woody Guthrie _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
