Skip to main content
Start a Conversation

Unsolved

This post is more than 5 years old

mpi2

2 Intern

 • 

215 Posts

1551

January 17th, 2008 07:00

Force ISL usage??

Hello,
We will connect two sites with two longwave lines +one line trough CWDM.
The longwave lines will be trunked (trunking license).
Is there an option to force a connection to go trough the CWDM or not to go trough the CWDM interconnection?

thx & best regards
Manfred

Mabro1

666 Posts

January 23rd, 2008 03:00

Hi MPI,

I am the moderator of this forum. I noticed you have not yet received an answer to this question yet. Unfortunately I do not have the technical information required to answer your question.

If this issue is urgent I suggest you log a Service Request call with EMC which will lead to a qucker response than the forums.

Kind regards,

Mark Browne

xe2sdc

2 Intern

 • 

2.8K Posts

January 23rd, 2008 13:00

Mark, MPI, AFAIK FSPF allows to give different weight to different paths (ISL) .. But unfortunatly I didn't find how to change the weights.

GlenH

141 Posts

January 23rd, 2008 15:00

Hi MPI,

We need a little more information to answer your question, however I'll try to answer based on the most likely scenarios...

Assuming the trunk and the CWDM link run between the same pair of switches and that you want all traffic to use the trunk and use the other link as a standby...

The best way to do this is by adjusting the link cost of the CWDM link (increase the cost of that link) as FSPF will always choose the lowest cost route (in this case the trunk) With this mechanism, the CWDM link will only be used if the trunk is unavaialble as it is always more "expensive". Take a look at the "linkcost" command in the FOS command reference for more details.


If you want certain devices to use one path or the other and have both active simultaneously...

Then you need to look at using static routing, however this is considerably more complicated. Take a look at the uRouteConfig command (also in the command reference) for more details. You have to specify the routes a port basis, and you may also wish to adjust the link costs to set a "preferred" path and manually set the other path for a subset of ports...

Hope that helps - give us some more details on exactly what you're trying to do if not...

Glen.

xe2sdc

2 Intern

 • 

2.8K Posts

January 25th, 2008 00:00

GREAT !! ThX for the commands .. I'm not a Brocade expert ... But I felt that it was possible :D

mpi2

2 Intern

 • 

215 Posts

January 25th, 2008 01:00

Thank you! Good to know that.

Best Regards
Manfred

sfuhrman

25 Posts

January 25th, 2008 10:00

You can also enable port based routing, and manually choose routes for each port, however this can become a pain to manage, but will give the ultimate in granularity. The problem with lowering a link cost is that it will prefer that path for all traffic. If you want to tune it down to specific ports, check out the "routeHelp" and "aptPolicy" commands and you can change your policy.

SKT2

2 Intern

 • 

1.3K Posts

January 25th, 2008 14:00

"static routing" is not that complicated. But yes as compare to "increasing cost".
This is routine job who the switch/router admninstrator..but i am not currently..

Anonymous

5 Practitioner

 • 

274.2K Posts

February 13th, 2008 20:00

In addition to urouteconfig command to setup static routes, starting from FOS 6, there will be a new feature called "Traffic Isolation Zones" aka TI zones which allow us to setup "preferred" ISL routes.

dynamox

2 Intern

 • 

20.4K Posts

February 14th, 2008 03:00

oh cool, do you know when FOS 6 is going to be GA ?

jyCG1

13 Posts

February 14th, 2008 14:00

I was told fabos 6.x will be GA in early March08. I have been waiting for this anxiously. Hey Genious, what are the advantages of TI over urouteconfig?

jyCG1

13 Posts

February 14th, 2008 15:00

What are the advantages of TI over urouteconfig?
Will TI work with exchang based routing policy? Or does it require port based routing policy? I was going to use urouteconfig to route port x traffic to port y only but it requires port based policy. I currently use exchange based policy and am concerned about negative performance impact if I change to port based policy.

GlenH

141 Posts

February 14th, 2008 17:00

Yes - Traffic Isolation Zones will work with DPS (Exchange based) balancing, and this feature will be available for your existing hardware (condor asic) and will not require any additional license.

One big advantage of TI zones is that you can use them on a 48000 in chassis config 5.

FOS 6 also has new QOS features where you can set SID/DID based prioritizations or use port based ingress rate limiting.

Ingress rate limiting will require the new condor 2 asic, so you won't be able to use unless you have 8Gb ports. You will be able to set a maximum rate limit for any F port.

SID/DID based prioritisations will work on a "High", "medium" and "low" priority basis and are enabled via "QOS" zones. You can only achieve all 3 priorities with the new Condor 2 asic - if the data path traverses a condor asic, then I believe everything gets set to "medium" priority from that point onwards.

Both of these features are enabled with an "Adaptive Networking" license.

Glen.

jyCG1

13 Posts

February 14th, 2008 19:00

Thanks, any thoughts on performance implications of changing from exchange based to port based policy?

RRR

2 Intern

 • 

5.7K Posts

February 14th, 2008 23:00

I've been told by many people to only use the exchange based policy and many times best practice is indeed the best (and the default one as well ;) )

View More

View All

No Events found!

Top