- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- HPE BladeSystem
- >
- BladeSystem - General
- >
- Re: Virtual Connect - Mapping vs Tunnelling?!
BladeSystem - General
1752666
Members
5507
Online
108788
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
08-06-2009 12:21 AM
08-06-2009 12:21 AM
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?
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 1
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
08-06-2009 07:04 AM
08-06-2009 07:04 AM
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.
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.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP