Wednesday, March 17, 2010

FCoE and the Return of Spanning Tree

March 14, 2009 by Greg Ferro · 8 Comments 

One of the most amus­ing parts about Fibre Channel over Ethernet(FCoE) is that Spanning Tree is mak­ing a tri­umphant comeback. And I am talk­ing a Roman style parade after the gates to the city have been built and lined with gold.

The IEEE is work­ing on a stand­ard 802.1AQ named Shortest Path Bridging and described as an ‘incre­mental’ advance on Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol. Well, if you do a bit of read­ing, ‘incre­mental’ means it uses IS-​​IS to loc­ate Layer 2 paths through the net­work using CLNS (yes, those of us old enough to remem­ber GOSIP and OSI pro­to­cols are hav­ing conniptions.…).

I love the meta­phor that ‘incre­mental’ means adding a fully fledged rout­ing pro­tocol sup­port­ing span­ning tree to determ­ine layer 2 paths through the network.

Oh how we laughed.

IS-​​IS is a good pro­tocol, and runs some of the largest Service Provider back­bones in the world. There have been many improve­ments in the last five years that bring IS-​​IS into main­stream. The idea of extend­ing CLNS to carry Layer 2 path inform­a­tion is con­cep­tu­ally a great idea.

But very very hard to sell.

Oh how I laughed.

You see, I had a meet­ing recently with the stor­age people and they instantly had apo­plexy. “My good­ness, Layer 2 span­ning tree!” We can­not allow that.

Of course, they seem to have for­got­ten that FC is a Layer 2 pro­tocol, and that is why it doesn’t scale.…but enough about that for now.

And then the Managers got wind of this. If there is any­thing that strikes fear into the the heart of a Data Centre man­ager, Spanning Tree is it. It seems to me that the least seven or eight years has seen con­stant innov­a­tion to remove Spanning Tree. And now I am pro­pos­ing bring­ing it back !

Oh how we laughed.

The stand­ards track from the IEEE is con­tinu­ing on, and they expect the 802.1Qbb, 802.1Qau, 802.1Qaz and 802.1aq stand­ards to be com­plete some­time in 2010. What ? 2010 for the stand­ards only !

Oh how we laughed.

There is an awful lot of noise about FCoE, but it really faces some huge chal­lenges before its is going to get onto many roadmaps. Even though Cisco is push­ing it along like Drott-​​D9 bull­dozer and mak­ing enorm­ous prom­ises, I can’t get my fel­low work­ers to stop laughing.

Oh dear, how we laughed.

Please rate this post:

  Why Rate Posts?
1 Star - It\\\'s Crud2 Stars - It\\\'s Tosh3 Stars - Something\\\'s missing4 Stars - Needs works5 Stars - Good Enough6 Stars - Good7 Stars - Excellent8 Stars - Brilliant9 Stars - Astonishing10 Stars - Awesomely Godlike? (2 votes, average: 1.50 out of 10)
Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

8 Responses to “FCoE and the Return of Spanning Tree”
  1. Dmitri says:

    Greg, if I’m not mis­taken, FC had always had a rout­ing pro­tocol built into it, FSPF.

    Also, your state­ment about 7 years of innov­a­tion to remove span­ning tree puzzled me. I admit I am not so close to the hap­pen­ings in the DC arena, but I have been doing Carrier Ethernet for these last 7 years and have not noticed much in the depart­ment of remov­ing STP. Yes, where pos­sible, LAG/​LACP is used, but what else? (I’m not talk­ing about PBB or MPLS, as I would have thought they are not dir­ectly usable for the DC internal LANs).

  2. You for­got to men­tion the good old days (around 15 years ago) when someone had a great idea to run SPF on MAC addresses and call the chi­mera “brouter”. Those were the days when a “switch” was not a net­work­ing term, “bridge” was a four-​​letter-​​word and “router” was the hero-​​of-​​the-​​day, so those that were not com­pet­ent enough to pro­gram a router tried to repaint a bridge.

    It’s so funny to see the same idea reappear, this time using IS-​​IS as the SPF (obvi­ously we’ve pro­gressed a long way standard-​​wise in the last 15 years :) .

  3. Dirk-Jan van Helmond says:

    I believe that FCoE has a future in the data­cen­ter, but I am in no way an FCoE evangelist.

    And I think you are mis­con­stru­ing things. Both STP and SPF algorithms are used to cre­ate a loop-​​free topo­logy. The dif­fer­ence between these is that STP and derivi­ates cre­ate a single (or in case of MSTP of PVST some) spanning-​​trees that all nodes must abide by. This does not ensure the best path for every node in the tree. SFP cre­ates a shortest path tree per node, which DOES ensure a best path for every node.

    Besides that, path learn­ing for 802.1d is done by flood­ing of frames and clos­ing inter­faces, which in no way scales, while 802.1AQ used link-​​state updates, that does scale and makes Layer 2 mul­tipath­ing possible.

  4. Dirk-Jan van Helmond says:

    By the way, we are on the brink of com­pletely get­ting rid of spanning-​​tree.

    Nortel ofcourse has SMLT and are devel­op­ing hard on PLSB, which is a com­bin­a­tion of mac-​​in-​​mac and ‘l2-​​isis’. L2 isis is tightly coupled to L2 mul­tipath­ing. Woven is releas­ing L2MP products, Cisco has VSS and vPC, which is a first step to L2MP, and that is roadmapped for the Nexus platform.

    Therefore I do believe that l2-​​isis or L2MP or 802.1AQ is the way to go.

  5. Greg,
    You focused on the IEEE L2MP activ­ity, but what about IETF TRILL? Radia Perlman, the inventor of span­ning tree is an act­ive par­ti­cipant in these updates, surely you don’t think that Ethernet as deployed today is perfect?

    • Greg Ferro says:

      My case would be that Ethernet is com­pletely imper­fect and no amount of fudging would fix it. Ethernet is the low­est and least LAN tech­no­logy cre­ated in the last thirty years.

      However, we, the world, chose it over oth­ers. Perpetuating it is a dis­ap­point­ment, and I would prefer that IP was used for everything and span­ning tree would not be required. That is, Ethernet is a loc­ally sig­ni­fic­ant tech­no­logy only (see IPv6 local scope).

      It is not suit­able for build­ing a data centre fabric.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!