06-10-2013 02:19 PM
my question is simple: is it possible to configure Brocade DCX director with FCoE10-24 blade to carry out the traffic beeetween two DCX directors over the Inter Connection Links or should I use ISL links instead? I heard that this is not possible to connect two DCX backbone directors with ICL when we use FCoE. Is it true or not as I have not found any information about that on the Internet.
Thanks for your replay,
06-11-2013 07:47 AM
Greetings krusz. If I understand your question correctly and you are asking about a limitation that prevents having an ICL between two 8 Gb DCX directors while having the FCoE10-24 present, I've not heard of this. Typically such limitations would be noted in the "Blade Support" section of the Fabric OS Release Notes. Having checked that, I saw no such notation, but just to make sure I'll try a few more resources just to make 100% this is not the case. If I did not interpret your question correctly, please let me know.
More to follow...
06-11-2013 10:41 AM
thanks for your reply. You understood me correctly. Our datacenter is realizing big infrastructure deployment. One of the person who is responsible for joining two fabrics together told us that heard about limitations regarding this operation when we use in environment FCoE, DCX backbones directors and ICL instead of ISL. He is not able to tell us precisely what these limitation are and where they are described.
In every fabric it will be two DCX directors and they should be connected using ICL, this is our demand. In one DCX (in every fabric) will be installed FCoE10-24 blade connected with CNAs and maybe with some kind of storage. Rest of the environment will be built with Blade System HP servers with Virtual Connect modules with FCoE and some of them with FC VC. The second DCX director in every fabric is connected with IBM Blade Center equiped with Brocade SAN switches working in Access Gateway mode.
Is there any problem with this configuration? Connection beetween directors must be done with ISL links instead of ICL? It sounds to me very strange. I suppose rather that contractor do not want to provide us with ICL licenses even thouh he is obliged to do so.
If you know something more in this subject, tell me please what the facts are.
Thanks in advance.
06-12-2013 09:05 AM
Hi again Konrad. I'm not able to find any documentation where such a limitation would normally be listed. Would it be possible to request more information from your contact? I'll continue looking on my end, but any information from him/her could help narrow down the search.
06-12-2013 09:39 AM
Hi Mike and Konrad,
FCoE Blade in DCX can be integrated seamless with and without ICL.
ICL Port's are dedicated Trunking port, like ISL but intended only to connect TWO or more DCX, instead to use Traditional Single port like in ISL design/configuration mode.
ICL don't have any impact to FCoE and/or other Application Blade.