View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0001535RackTablesdefaultpublic2017-06-23 16:03
ReporterbpothierAssigned To 
PrioritynormalSeverityfeatureReproducibilityN/A
Status acknowledgedResolutionopen 
Product Version0.20.10 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0001535: Add more support for Fibre Channel (FC) transceivers and cabling
DescriptionMost current Fibre Channel(FC) ports utilize the SFP style adapter to LC fiber connectors (old 1G mostly used SC fiber connectors).
Common data rates include 2/4/8/16Gb (1G, 10G, 20G also exist, 32G & 128G are coming)
At least for Cisco, some backwards compatibility exists:
2G - 1/2/4
4G - (1/)2/4/8/16
8G - (1/)2/4/8/16
16G - 4/8/16

There are 2 common modules: ShortWave(SW - multimode) and LongWave(LW - singlemode), with SW being more common.
Some additional transceiver options include ExtendedReach(ER) and a variety of CWDM "colors" for 1/2/4/8G, but these are probably not common enough to bother with(for now?).
On some Cisco models, the physical socket can be reconfigured to accept FC or ethernet SFP+ modules - e.g. Unified Ports on Nexus 5000 series .
Additional InformationNot sure if a new PortInnerInterface type is needed? e.g. FC-SFP+ / "Empty FC-SFP+", etc...?

PortOuterInterface needs entries like:
FC2G-SW, FC2G-LW - (SW=ShortWave/Multi Mode, LW=LongWave/Single mode)
FC4G-SW, FC4G-LW
FC8G-SW, FC8G-LW
FC16G-SW, FC16G-LW

PatchCableOIFCompat needs entries like:
FCxx-SW - 2xMMF(1,2,3,4 - OM1/2/3/4)
FCxx-LW - 2xSMF(5,6 - OS1/2)

PortInterfaceCompat needs entries like:
FC-SFP+, Empty FC-SFP+
FC-SFP+, FCxxG-xW (2/4/8/16 and SW/LW)

PortCompat needs entries like:
FC2G-SW - FC1/2/4G-SW - not sure whether to bother with 1G?
FC2G-LW - FC1/2/4G-LW
FC4G-SW - FC2/4/8/16G-SW - not sure where 1G compat goes away, may vary...
FC4G-LW - FC2/4/8/16G-LW
FC8G-SW - FC2/4/8/16G-SW
FC8G-LW - FC2/4/8/16G-LW
FC16G-SW - FC4/8/16G-SW - not sure where 2G compat goes away, may vary...
FC16G-LW - FC4/8/16G-LW
TagsNo tags attached.

Activities

infrastation

infrastation

2016-01-08 12:22

administrator   ~0003101

This request is generally reasonable but the suggested mappings need to be carefully studied before adding to avoid unnecessary complications in future.
twielgos

twielgos

2017-06-23 16:02

reporter   ~0003637

Would love to help with this. The interface types listed above appear generally correct - what remains?
twielgos

twielgos

2017-06-23 16:03

reporter   ~0003639

Although one thing I should mention is that 32Gb fiber channel has hit the market recently - that should be accounted for as well.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2015-11-25 01:07 bpothier New Issue
2016-01-08 12:22 infrastation Note Added: 0003101
2017-02-09 12:02 infrastation Status new => acknowledged
2017-06-23 16:02 twielgos Note Added: 0003637
2017-06-23 16:03 twielgos Note Added: 0003639