02-24-2016 12:12 AM
our situation is:
- Three switches A,B, C
- ISL connections: A <--> B <--> C
- Hosts on swicthes A, B and C
- Storage is attached to switches A and B only
When switch B fails, the hosts on switch C have no more access to storage. Are there any reasons to NOT create another ISL between switches A and C? AFAIK, FSPF will take care of the routing without any problems, and as all of the switches are part of one fabric already anyway, there should be no incompatibilities.
Solved! Go to Solution.
02-24-2016 12:23 AM - edited 02-25-2016 01:00 AM
You can make as many isls as you want.
But you must remember about portbuffers limitations, look at best practice isl configuration.
But, the best practice of commutation switches in the same fabric is full-mesh schema.
It's look like:
/ | \
B --- C
\ | /
In you case:
B --- C