VLAN space exhaustion is not an issue with FCoE. Generally you have (1) FCoE VLAN per (1) FC VSAN. And many host machines can access storage on the same VSAN.
I agree with previous comments that FCoE is used by the host machine, not the VMs. Hence FCoE operates on the underlay, not the overlay, and therefore should be out of scope for NVO3 (for now). Cheers, Brad -----Original Message----- From: Lizhong Jin [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:05 AM Central Standard Time To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [nvo3] Let's refocus on real world Hi, If FCoE does not transport with overlay, then do you infer that FCoE will not meet similar problem as NVO3 currently defined, e.g, VLAN space limitation? Thanks Lizhong ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Aldrin Isaac <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: Somesh Gupta <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Ivan Pepelnjak <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Black, David" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Stiliadis, Dimitrios \(Dimitri\)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:40:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [nvo3] Let's refocus on real world (was: Comments on Live Migration and VLAN-IDs) The question regarding FCoE is whether overlay solutions need to transport it. I think the answer is no. If something operates at the underlay level than it isn't in scope for NVo3, including DCB.
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
