Fibre Channel: What Is It Good For?

In my last article, I talked about how Fibre Channel, as a technology, has probably peaked. It’s not dead, but I think we’re seeing the beginning of a slow decline. Fibre Channel’s long goodbye is caused by a number of factors (that mostly aren’t related to Fibre Channel itself), including explosive growth in non-block storage, scale-out storage, and interopability issues.

But rather than diss Fibre Channel, in this article I’m going to talk about the advantages of Fibre Channel has over IP/Ethernet storage (and talk about why the often-talked about advantages aren’t really advantages).

Fibre Channel’s benefits have nothing to do with buffer to buffer credits, the larger MTU (2048 bytes), its speed, or even its lossless nature. Instead, Fibre Channel’s (very legitimate) advantages are mostly non-technical in nature.

It’s Optimized Out of the Box

When you build a Fibre Channel-based SAN, there’s no optimization that needs to be done: Fibre Channel comes out of the box optimized for storage (SCSI) traffic. There are settings you can tweak, but most of the time there’s nothing that needs to be done other than set port modes and setup zoning. The same is true for the host HBAs. While there are some knobs you can tweak, for the most part the default settings will get you a highly performant storage network.

It’s possible to build an Ethernet network that performs just as well as a Fibre Channel network. It just typically takes more work. You might need to tune MTU (jumbo frames), tune TCP driver settings,tweak flow control settings, or a several other tweaks. And you need someone that knows what all the little nerd-knobs do on IP/Ethernet networks. In Fibre Channel it’s fire and forget.

It’s an Air-Gapped Network

From host to storage array, Fibre Channel is an air-gapped network in that storage traffic and non-storage traffic would run on completely separate networks. Fibre Channel’s nearly exclusive payload is SCSI, and SCSI as a protocol is far more fragile than other protocols, so running it on a separate network makes sense operationally.

Think about it: If you unplug an Ethernet cable while you’re watching a Youtube video of cats for 5 seconds, and plug it back in, you might see some buffering (and you might not, depending on how much it pre-fetched). If you unplug your hard drive for 5 seconds, well, buffering is going to be the last of your worries.

SCSI is more fragile, so having it on a separate network makes sense.

You’ve Got One Job

Ethernet’s strength is that it is supremely flexible. You can run storage traffic on it, video traffic, voice traffic, animated GIFs of cats, etc. You can run iSCSI, HTTP, SMTP, etc. You can run TCP, UDP, IPv4, IPv6, etc. This does add a bit of complication to the configuration of Ethernet/IP networks, however, in the need for tweaking (QoS, flow control, etc.)

Fibre Channel’s strength is that you’re just doing one type of traffic: SCSI (though there is talk of NVMe over Fibre Channel now). Either way, it’s block storage, and that’s all you’re ever going to run on Fibre Channel. This particular characteristic is one of the reasons that Fibre Channel is optimized out of the box.

Slow To Change

In IT, we’ve usually been pretty terrified of change. Both in terms of the technology that we’re familiar with, and (more specifically) topological or configuration changes. With DevOps/Agile/whateveryouwanttocallit, the later is changing. But not with Fibre Channel. Fibre Channel configurations are fairly static. And for traditional IT operations, that means a very stable setup. This goes along with the air-gapped network, in that we tend to be  much more careful with SCSI traffic.

Double Your SAN

Fibre Channel has a rather unique solution to network redundancy: Build two completely separate networks: SAN A and SAN B. Fibre Channel’s job is to provide two independent data paths to from the initiator to the target.

fibrechannelpass

From my article Fibre Channel and Ethernet. Also the greatest SAN diagram ever made.

Most of the redundancy in Fibre Channel is instead provided by the host’s drivers (multi-path driver, or MPIO) and in some cases, the storage array’s controller. Network redundancy, beyond having two separate networks, is not required and often not implemented (though available). While Ethernet/IP networks mesh the hell out of everything, in Fibre Channel it’s strictly forbidden to interconnect the A and B fabrics in any way.

A/B network separation wouldn’t work on a global scale of course, but Fibre Channel wasn’t meant to run a global network: Just a local SAN. As a result, it’s a simple (and effective way) to handle redundancy. Plus, it puts the onus on the host and storage arrays, not us SAN administrators. Our responsibility is simple and clear: Two independent data paths.

Centralized Management

Another advantage is the centralized configuration for zoning and zonesets with Fibre Channel. You create multiple zones, create a zoneset, and voila, that configuration is automatically pushed out to the other switches in the fabric. That saves a lot of time (and configuration errors) by having one connectivity configuration (zone configuration are what allows which initiators to talk to which targets) that is shared among the switches in a given fabric.

In fact, Fibre Channel provides a whole host of fabric services (name, configuration, etc.) that make management of a SAN easy, even if you’re using the CLI. Both Cisco and Brocade have GUI tools if that’s your thing too (I won’t laugh derisively at you, I promise).

In Ethernet/IP networks, each network device is usually a configuration point itself. As a result, we tend not to use IP access lists for iSCSI or NFS security, instead relying on security mechanisms on the hosts and storage arrays. That’s changing with policy-based Ethernet fabrics (such as Cisco ACI) but for the most part, configuring a storage network based on IP/Ethernet is a bit more of a configuration burden.

What Aren’t Fibre Channel’s Strengths

Having said all that, there are a few things that I see people point out to as the strengths of Fibre Channel that aren’t really strengths, in that they don’t provide material benefit over other technologies.

Buffer to buffer credits is one of those features. Buffer to buffer credits allows for a lossless fabric overall by preventing frame drop on a port-by-port basis. But buffer to buffer credits aren’t the only way to provide losslessness. iSCSI provides lossless transport by re-transmitting any loss segments. Converged Ethernet (CE) provides losslessness with PFC (priority flow control) sending PAUSE frames to prevent buffer overruns. Both TCP and CE provide the same effect as buffer to buffer credits: Lossless transport.

So if losslessness is your goal, then there’s more than one way to handle that.

Whether its re-transmitting TCP segments, PAUSE frames, or buffer to buffer credits, congestion is congestion. If you try to push 16 Gigabits through an 8 Gigabit link, something has to give.

The only way a buffer can be overfilled is if there’s congestion. Buffer to buffer credits do not eliminate congestion, they’re just a specific way of dealing with it. Congestion is congestion, and the only solution is more bandwidth.

200_s

I’ve got congestion, and the only cure is more bandwidth

Buffer to buffer credits, gigantic buffers, flow control, none of these fix bandwidth issues. If you’re starved of bandwidth, add more bandwidth.

While I think the future of storage will be one without Fibre Channel, for traditional workloads (read VMware vSphere), there is no better storage technology in most cases than Fibre Channel. Its strength is not in its underlying technology or engineering, but in its single-minded purpose and simplicity. Most of Fibre Channel’s benefits aren’t even technological: Instead they’re more of a “Layer 8” benefit. And these are the reasons why Fibre Channel, thus far, has been so successful (and nice to work with).

Peak Fibre Channel

There have been several articles talking about the death of Fibre Channel. This isn’t one of them. However, it is an article about “peak Fibre Channel”. I think, as a technology, Fibre Channel is in the process of (if it hasn’t already) peaking.

There’s a lot of technology in IT that doesn’t simply die. Instead, it grows, peaks, then slowly (or perhaps very slowly) fades. Consider Unix/RISC. The Unix/RISC market right now is a caretaker platform. Very few new projects are built on Unix/RISC. Typically a new Unix server is purchased to replace an existing but no-longer-supported Unix server to run an older application that we can’t or won’t move onto a more modern platform. The Unix market has been shrinking for over a decade (2004 was probably the year of Peak Unix), yet the market is still a multi-billion dollar revenue market. It’s just a (slowly) shrinking one.

I think that is what is happening to Fibre Channel, and it may have already started. It will become (or already is) a caretaker platform. It will run the workloads of yesterday (or rather the workloads that were designed yesterday), while the workloads of today and tomorrow have a vastly different set of requirements, and where Fibre Channel doesn’t make as much sense.

Why Fibre Channel Doesn’t Make Sense in the Cloud World

There are a few trends in storage that are working against Fibre Channel:

  • Public cloud growth outpaces private cloud
  • Private cloud storage endpoints are more ephemeral and storage connectivity is more dynamic
  • Block storage is taking a back seat to object (and file) storage
  • RAIN versus RAID
  • IP storage is as performant as Fibre Channel, and more flexible

Cloudy With A Chance of Obsolescence

The transition to cloud-style operations isn’t a great for Fibre Channel. First, we have the public cloud providers: Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, Rackspace, Google, etc. They tend not to use much Fibre Channel (if any at all) and rely instead on IP-based storage or other solutions. And what Fibre Channel they might consume, it’s still far fewer ports purchased (HBAs, switches) as workloads migrate to public cloud versus private data centers.

The Ephemeral Data Center

In enterprise datacenters, most operations are what I would call traditional virtualization. And that is dominated by VMware’s vSphere. However, vSphere isn’t a private cloud. According to NIST, to be a private cloud you need to be self service, multi-tenant, programmable, dynamic, and show usage. That ain’t vSphere.

For VMware’s vSphere, I believe Fibre Channel is the hands down best storage platform. vSphere likes very static block storage, and Fibre Channel is great at providing that. Everything is configured by IT staff, a few things are automated though Fibre Channel configurations are still done mostly by hand.

Probably the biggest difference between traditional virtualization (i.e. VMware vSphere) and private cloud is the self-service aspect. This also makes it a very dynamic environment. Developers, DevOpsers, and overall consumers of IT resources configure spin-up and spin-down their own resources. This leads to a very, very dynamic environment.

wackafinger

Endpoints are far more ephemeral, as demonstrated here by Mr Mittens.

Where we used to deal with virtual machines as everlasting constructs (pets), we’re moving to a more ephemeral model (cattle). In Netflix’s infrastructure, the average lifespan of a virtual machine is 36 hours. And compared to virtual machines, containers (such as Docker containers) tend to live for even shorter periods of time. All of this means a very dynamic environment, and that requires self-service portals and automation.

And one thing we’re not used to in the Fibre Channel world is a dynamic environment.

scaredgifA SAN administrator at the thought of automated zoning and zonesets

Virtual machines will need to attach to block storage on the fly, or they’ll rely on other types of storage, such as container images, retrieved from an object store, and run on a local file system. For these reasons, Fibre Channel is not usually a consideration for Docker, OpenStack (though there is work on Fibre Channel integration), and very dynamic, ephemeral workloads.

Objectification

Block storage isn’t growing, at least not at the pace that object storage is. Object storage is becoming the de-facto way to store the deluge of unstructured data being stored. Object storage consumption is growing at 25% per year according to IDC, while traditional RAID revenues seem to be contracting.

Making it RAIN

rain

In order to handle the immense scale necessary, storage is moving from RAID to RAIN. RAID is of course Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks, and RAIN is Redundant Array of Inexpensive Nodes. RAID-based storage typically relies on controllers and shelves. This is a scale-up style approach. RAIN is a scale-out approach.

For these huge scale storage requirements, such as Hadoop’s HDFS, Ceph, Swift, ScaleIO, and other RAIN handle the exponential increase in storage requirements better than traditional scale-up storage arrays. And primarily these technologies are using IP connectivity/Ethernet as the node-to-node and node-to-client communication, and not Fibre Channel. Fibre Channel is great for many-to-one communication (many initiators to a few storage arrays) but is not great at many-to-many meshing.

Ethernet and Fibre Channel

It’s been widely regarded in many circles that Fibre Channel is a higher performance protocol than say, iSCSI. That was probably true in the days of 1 Gigabit Ethernet, however these days there’s not much of a difference between IP storage and Fibre Channel in terms of latency and IOPS. Provided you don’t saturate the link (neither handles eliminates congestion issues when you oversaturate a link) they’re about the same, as shown in several tests such as this one from NetApp and VMware.

Fibre Channel is currently at 16 Gigabit per second maximum. Ethernet is 10, 40, and 100, though most server connections are currently at 10 Gigabit, with some storage arrays being 40 Gigabit. Iin 2016 Fibre Channel is coming out with 32 Gigabit Fibre Channel HBAs and switches, and Ethernet is coming out with 25 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces and switches. They both provide nearly identical throughput.

Wait, what?

But isn’t 32 Gigabit Fibre Channel faster than 25 Gigabit Ethernet? Yes, but barely.

  • 25 Gigabit Ethernet raw throughput: 3125 MB/s
  • 32 Gigabit Fibre Channel raw throughput: 3200 MB/s

Do what now?

32 Gigabit Fibre Channel isn’t really 32 Gigabit Fibre Channel. It actually runs at about 28 Gigabits per second. This is a holdover from the 8/10 encoding in 1/2/4/8 Gigabit FC, where every Gigabit of speed brought 100 MB/s of throughput (instead of 125 MB/s like in 1 Gigabit Ethernet). When FC switched to 64/66 encoding for 16 Gigabit FC, they kept the 100 MB/s per gigabit, and as such lowered the speed (16 Gigabit FC is really 14 Gigabit FC). This concept is outlined here in this screencast I did a while back. 16 Gigabit Fibre Channel is really 14 Gigabit Fibre Channel. 32 Gigabit Fibre Channel is 28 Gigabit Fibre Channel.

As a result, 32 Gigabit Fibre Channel is only about 2% faster than 25 Gigabit Ethernet. 128 Gigabit Fibre Channel (12800 MB/s) is only 2% faster than 100 Gigabit Ethernet (12500 MB/s).

Ethernet/IP Is More Flexible

In the world of bare metal server to storage array, and virtualization hosts to storage array, Fibre Channel had a lot of advantages over Ethernet/IP. These advantages included a fairly easy to learn distributed access control system, a purpose-built network designed exclusively to carry storage traffic, and a separately operated fabric.  But those advantages are turning into disadvantages in a more dynamic and scaled-out environment.

In terms of scaling, Fibre Channel has limits on how big a fabric can get. Typically it’s around 50 switches and a couple thousand endpoints. The theoretical maximums are higher (based on the 24-bit FC_ID address space) but both Brocade and Cisco have practical limits that are much lower. For the current (or past) generations of workloads, this wasn’t a big deal. Typically endpoints numbered in the dozens or possibly hundreds for the large scale deployments. With a large OpenStack deployment, it’s not unusual to have tens of thousands of virtual machines in a large OpenStack environment, and if those virtual machines need access to block storage, Fibre Channel probably isn’t the best choice. It’s going to be iSCSI or NFS. Plus, you can run it all on a good Ethernet fabric, so why spend money on extra Fibre Channel switches when you can run it all on IP? And IP/Ethernet fabrics scale far beyond Fibre Channel fabrics.

Another issue is that Fibre Channel doesn’t play well with others. There’s only two vendors that make Fibre Channel switches today, Cisco and Brocade (if you have a Fibre Channel switch that says another vendor made it, such as IBM, it’s actually a re-badged Brocade). There are ways around it in some cases (NPIV), though you still can’t mesh two vendor fabrics reliably.

tumblr_lldl4xFeQu1qclvq3

Pictured: Fibre Channel Interoperability Mode

And personally, one of my biggest pet peeves regarding Fibre Channel is the lack of ability to create a LAG to a host. There’s no way to bond several links together to a host. It’s all individual links, which requires special configurations to make a storage array with many interfaces utilize them all (essentially you zone certain hosts).

None of these are issues with Ethernet. Ethernet vendors (for the most part) play well with others. You can build an Ethernet Layer 2 or Layer 3 fabric with multiple vendors, there are plenty of vendors that make a variety of Ethernet switches, and you can easily create a LAG/MCLAG to a host.

img_7011

My name is MCLAG and my flows be distributed by a deterministic hash of a header value or combination of header values.

What About FCoE?

FCoE will share the fate of Fibre Channel. It has the same scaling, multi-node communication, multi-vendor interoperability, and dynamism problems as native Fibre Channel. Multi-hop FCoE never really caught on, as it didn’t end up being less expensive than Fibre Channel, and it tended to complicate operations, not simplify them. Single-hop/End-host FCoE, like the type used in Cisco’s popular UCS server system, will continue to be used in environments where blades need Fibre Channel connectivity. But again, I think that need has peaked, or will peak shortly.

Fibre Channel isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, just like Unix servers can still be found in many datacenters. But I think we’ve just about hit the peak. The workload requirements have shifted. It’s my belief that for the current/older generation of workloads (bare metal, traditional/pet virtualization), Fibre Channel is the best platform. But as we transition to the next generation of platforms and applications, the needs have changed and they don’t align very well with Fibre Channel’s strengths.

It’s an IP world now. We’re just forwarding packets in it.

 

 

Fibre Channel and FCoE: Some Basics

There’s been some misconceptions and misinformation lately about FCoE. Like any technology, there are times when it makes sense and times when it doesn’t, but much of the anti-FCoE talk lately has been primarily ignorance and/or wilful misrepresentation.

In an effort to fight that ignorance, I put together a quick introduction to how FC and FCoE works. They both operate on the basic premise that you can’t drop any frames. Fibre Channel was built as a lossless protocol, and with a bit of work, Ethernet can also be lossless.

Check it out:

Learn what Russ Fellows Doesn’t Know

So how’s this for a condescending tweet?

It’s from Russ Fellows, author of the infamous FCoE “study” (which has been widely debunked for its many hilarious errors):

Interesting article (check it out). But the sad/amusing irony is that he’s wrong. How is he wrong? Here’s what Russ Fellows doesn’t know about storage:

1, 2, 4, and 8 Gbit Fibre Channel (as he points out) uses 8/10 bit encoding. That means about a 20% of the bandwidth available was lost due to encoding overhead (as Russ pointed out). That’s why 8 Gbit Fibre Channel only provides 800 MB/s of connectivity, even though 8,000 Megabits per second equates to 1,000 Megabytes per second (8000 Megabits / (8 bits per byte) = 1,000 Megabytes).

With this overhead in mind, Fibre Channel was designed to give 100 MB/s for every Gigabit of speed. It never increased the baud rate to make up for the overhead.

Ethernet, on the other hand, did increase the baud rate to make up for the overhead. Gigabit Ethernet uses the same 8/10 bit encoding, but they kicked the baud rate up to 1.25 gigabaud to make up the differences. As such, Gigabit Ethernet provides true 1 gigabit of throughput, or 125 Megabytes per second.

10 Gigabit Ethernet moved to 64/66 encoding, and kept to the approach of not letting the overhead impact throughput. 10 Gigabit Ethernet then provides 1250 Megabytes per second of throughput. The baud rate is 10.3125, giving true 10 Gigabit per second of data.

When Fibre Channel moved to the more efficient 64/66 bit encoding, rather than change the 100 MB/s per gigabit to 125 MB/s (which you get with all Ethernet speeds), they left the ratio (1 Gigabit to 100 MB/s) the same. Thus, every Gigabit = 100 MB/s, just like in previous speeds (1/2/4/8 FC). So while 16 Gbit Fibre Channel provides 1600 MB/s of throughput, the baud rate is actually only 14 gigabaud, and not true 16 Gbit. And don’t take my word for it, check out page 7 of Scott Shimomura‘s (of Brocade) presentation at the SPDE conference.

  • 1 Gbit Fibre Channel = 100 MB/s
  • 1 Gbit Ethernet = 125 MB/s
  • 2 Gbit Fibre Channel = 200 MB/s
  • 4 Gbit Fibre Channel = 400 MB/s
  • 8 Gbit Fibre Channel = 800 MB/s
  • 10 Gbit Ethernet/FCoE = 1250 MB/s
  • 16 Gbit Fibre Channel = 1600 MB/s

10 Gigabit Ethernet provides 1250 MB/s, providing true 10 Gigabit Ethernet, and not putting the slight overhead into the equation. So while 10 Gigabit Ethernet is true 10 Gigabit, 16 Gigabit Fibre Channel is actually 14 Gigabit Fibre Channel (14.025, to be exact).

And that’s what Russ Fellows doesn’t know. His entire article is based on a false premise: Thinking that the move to 64/66 makes 16 Gbit pass more than twice as much traffic as 8 Gbit. But it’s not. He says that with 8 Gbit FC, 1+1 = 1.6 (when compared to 16 Gbit FC), which is factually incorrect for the reasons I’ve just explained. Yes, 64/66 bit encoding is more efficient. But they dropped the baud rate, negating the efficiency gains

8 Gigabit Fibre Channel provides 800 Megabytes per second of data transfer. 16 Gigabit Fibre Channel (really 14 Gigabit Fibre Channel) provides 1600 Megabytes per second of data transfer. 800 + 800 = 1600.

Sorry Russ, 1+1 really does equal 2. Even in Fibre Channel.

micdrop

OTV AEDs Are Like Highlanders

While prepping for CCIE Data Center and playing around with a lab environment, I ran into a problem I’d like to share.

I was setting up a basic OTV setup with three VDCs running OTV, connecting to a core VDC running the multicast core (which is a lot easier than it sounds). I’m running it in a lab environment we have at Firefly, but I’m not going by our normal lab guide, instead making it up as I go along in order to save some time, and make sure I can stand up OTV without a lab guide.

Each VDC will set up an adjacency with the other two, with the core VDC providing unicast and multicast connectivity.  That part was pretty easy to setup (even the multicast part, which had previously freaked me the shit out). Each VDC would be its own site, so no redundant AEDs.

On each OTV VDC, I setup the following as per my pre-OTV checklist:

  • Bi-directional IPv4 unicast connectivity to each join interface (I used a single OSPF area)
  • MTU of 9216 end-to-end (easy since OTV requires M line cards, and it’s just an MTU command on the interface)
  • An OTV site VLAN which requires:
    • That the VLAN is configured on the VDC
    • That the VLAN is active on a physical port that is up
  • Multicast configuration
    • IP pim sparse-mode configuration on every interface, end-to-end
    • IP igmp version 3 on every interface end-to-end
    • Rendezvous point (RP) configured on the loopback address of the core VDC (I used the bidir tag)

So I got all that configured and then configured the OTV setup. Very basic:

feature otv

otv site-vlan 10

interface Overlay1
  otv join-interface Ethernet1/2
  otv control-group 239.1.1.1
  otv data-group 232.1.1.0/28
  otv extend-vlan 100
  no shutdown
otv site-identifier 0000.0000.0002

ip pim rp-address 10.11.200.1 group-list 224.0.0.0/4
ip pim ssm range 232.0.0.0/8

The only difference between the three OTV VDC configurations was the site-identifier and the join interface. Everything else was identical, pretty easy configuration. But… it didn’t work. Shit. Time for some show commands:

N7K-11-vdc-2# show otv adjacency
Overlay Adjacency database
Overlay-Interface Overlay1 :
Hostname System-ID Dest Addr Up Time State
VDC-3 18ef.63e9.5d43 10.11.3.2 01:36:52 UP
vdc-4 18ef.63e9.5d44 10.11.101.2 01:41:57 UP
vdc-2#

OK, so the adjacencies are built. I’ve at least got IP4 unicast and multicast going on. How about “show otv”?

N7K-11-vdc-2# show otv

OTV Overlay Information
Site Identifier 0000.0000.0002

Overlay interface Overlay1

 VPN name : Overlay1
 VPN state : UP
 Extended vlans : 100 (Total:1)
 Control group : 239.1.1.1
 Data group range(s) : 232.1.1.0/28
 Join interface(s) : Eth1/2 (10.11.2.2)
 Site vlan : 11 (up)
 AED-Capable : No (Site-ID mismatch)
 Capability : Multicast-Reachable
N7K-11-vdc-2#

Site-ID mismatch? What the shit? They’re supposed to mismatch. I try another command:

N7K-11-vdc-2# show otv site

Dual Adjacency State Description
 Full - Both site and overlay adjacency up
 Partial - Either site/overlay adjacency down
 Down - Both adjacencies are down (Neighbor is down/unreachable)
 (!) - Site-ID mismatch detected

Local Edge Device Information:
 Hostname vdc-2
 System-ID 18ef.63e9.5d42
 Site-Identifier 0000.0000.0002
 Site-VLAN 11 State is Up

Site Information for Overlay1:

Local device is not AED-Capable (Site-ID mismatch)
Neighbor Edge Devices in Site: 1

Hostname System-ID Adjacency- Adjacency- AED-

 State Uptime Capable

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VDC-3 18ef.63e9.5d43 Partial (!) 00:17:39 Yes

Now this show command confused me for a while. I was trying to figure out the Site-ID mismatch. I was also wondering why I could see VDC-3 but couldn’t see VDC-4. Then it dawned on me (after am embarrassing amount of time) I’m not supposed to. I’m not supposed to see VDC-3, either. The “show site” command is only looking at the local area. For my configuration, I shouldn’t see any other VDCs with “show otv site”.

This means that there’s some type of Layer 2 connectivity between the different sites. VDC-3 and VDC-4 both somehow see each other as Layer 2 adjacent. That shouldn’t happen if they’re supposedly on remote sites. This is a lab environment, so there’s some sort of Layer 2 connectivity for the Site-VLAN that I need to kill.

OTV edge devices are like highlanders, if there’s Layer 2 adjacency, they sense each other.

highlander9

“I could sense you by your VLAN”

It probably happened on the interface that I assigned the site-VLAN to as an access port. A VLAN will not show “active” unless you have an active physical link (interface VLANs don’t count).

So I went through and re-configured the site VLAN. Instead of VLAN 10 (which was probably active on the other ends of those interfaces somehow) I created new VLANs, and used a unique VLAN for each VDC. The site-VLANs do not need to be identical between sites. I put the VLAN on a physical link that was up, and voila.

In the real world, you probably won’t run into this. However, it’s possible if there are other Layer 2 interconnects going on in your data center (perhaps dark fiber) or you’re transitioning from one DCI to another, you may hit this.

2013 Was A Good Year

Happy new year everyone. I think 2014 will be quite an interesting year for the industry. 2013 certainly was for me, at least professionally and personally. I tried twice to get my CCIE DC, didn’t pass. I did, however, obtain my CCNP Data Center. I also learn a whole bunch of new skills. Here’s a quick clip show (and yes, there are shots of me skydiving in a Star Trek TNG Uniform).

CCIE DC Attempt #1: Did Not Pass

Earlier this month, I drove my rental car up to Cisco’s infamous 150 Tasman Drive after being stuck on the 101 for about an hour. I checked in, sat down, and dug into my very first CCIE lab attempt. A bit over 8 hours later, I knew I didn’t pass, but I got a good feel for what the lab is like.

My preparation for the exam had been very unbalanced, working extensively with some parts of the blueprint, while other aspects of the blueprint I hadn’t really touched in over a year. So I was not surprised at all to see the “FAIL” notice when I got my score.

The good news is that I think with the right preparation on my weak parts, I can pass on the next attempt (which I haven’t yet scheduled, but will soon).

The following animated GIF is what it’s like to do parts of a CCIE lab exam that you haven’t prepared for.

beavis

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 99 other followers