HPE Community read-only access December 15, 2018
This is a maintenance upgrade. You will be able to read articles and posts, but not post or reply.
Hours:
Dec 15, 4:00 am to 10:00 am UTC
Dec 14, 10:00 pm CST to Dec 15, 4:00 am CST
Dec 14, 8:00 pm PST to Dec 15, 2:00 am PST
BladeSystem - General
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Virtual Connect - Mapping vs Tunnelling?!

 
UselessUser
Frequent Advisor

Virtual Connect - Mapping vs Tunnelling?!

Hi,

We have come across a bit of an open question...

With VC on a c7000 for ESX... do we map VLAN's or tunnel...

Just wondered what people's thoughts were and why?
1 REPLY
HEM_2
Honored Contributor

Re: Virtual Connect - Mapping vs Tunnelling?!

Tunneling is easier to configure in VC. For Tunneling you don't need to explicitly configure the VLANs needed on your ESX boxes. Basically just dot1q tag the external switches and use port groups on your ESX vswitches.

Mapping gives you more granular control over what VLANs go where. Maybe your dot1q trunk coming in to VC has 10 vlans on it but on one of your VC downlink ports you only want 3 VLANs reaching that ESX NIC and for another VC downlink you want a different 3 VLANs. Mapping allows you to do this but Tunneling will not.

If you have a very large number of VLANs you have to use Tunneling because there is a limitation to the number of mapped vlans you can have, I think its around 32 VLANs.

If you have a small number of VLANs I think it is better to use Shared Uplink Sets and Mapped VLANs.