I had, recently, the privilege to assist NetApp during my time at ASML.

MetroCluster IP Compared to MetroCluster FC:

The following features outline the differences between MetroCluster IP and FC:
• MetroCluster IP uses an Ethernet back-end storage fabric rather than an FC back-end storage fabric,
eliminating the need for dedicated FC switches.
• MetroCluster IP collapses the intercluster switches for both local and remote replication, eliminating
the need for FC switches.
• MetroCluster IP does not require SAS bridges.
• MetroCluster IP replicates NVRAM with iWARP by using the same back-end Ethernet ports as the
storage network.
• MetroCluster IP accesses remote disks using iSCSI protocol with the remote disaster recovery node
acting as the iSCSI target, supporting flash systems with integrated storage.
MetroCluster FC has been shipping since ONTAP 8.3 and is based on an FC storage fabric. MetroCluster
FC is also available in a smaller configuration called MetroCluster Stretch FC. For more information about
MetroCluster FC with ONTAP, see TR-4375: NetApp MetroCluster FC for ONTAP.