Mainframe & FICON

Reply
N/A
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎09-10-2013

FICON and Virtual Fabric

Is Virtual Fabric a mandatory requirement to configure FICON? If not, then why when I configure a SAN768-B2 port for FICON, I get and error message?

N/A
Posts: 23
Registered: ‎02-03-2010

Re: FICON and Virtual Fabric

Virtual Fabrics is only mandatory on SAN768-B2 when 48-port connectivity blades are used in the chassis. That is due to the fact that z/OS can only count up to 256 (00-FF). A chassis with eight 48-port blades would provide 384 ports of connectivity. z/OS cannot handle any domain that contains more than 256 addresses so it would probably post an error.

32-port blades in all 8 slots of a SAN768-B2 would be exactly 256 addresses in a domain which is perfect for z/OS.

If the user has only 32-port blades (or even a few FX8-24 blades) then it is their option to use the chassis with or without virtual fabrics. It should be noted however that enabling VF on a chassis is an offline procedure so Brocade's official position is to recommend all users enable VF even if you don't need to have multiple Logical Switches.

By enabling VF a Default Switch (domain id 128) will be created and all of the ports will become hosted there. Then the user must create one of more Logical Switches and then move the ports from the Default Switch to a Logical Switch in order to use that port. Many users are keeping un-cabled, unused ports in the Default Switch until they are ready to be deployed. This helps protect the infrastructure from connectivity errors.

I hope this information helps you in your deployment.

New Contributor
Posts: 2
Registered: ‎11-20-2015

Re: FICON and Virtual Fabric

A customer has a DCX chassis and configured 48 port blades with port idexes 0x00-0x4F, 0x80-0xCF, 0x100-0x14F, total of 240 ports in the same Ficon switch. Is that a legal configuration or should the physical ports 0x100-0x14F be configured in a separate virtual Ficon switch with a different Domain ID ?

He is having problems with duplicate Node Descriptors reported on ports with port index 0x00-0x4F and 0x100-0x14F.

The port address reported in Byte 3 of the node descriptor and the Tag in bytes 30-31 are duplicates for those 2 ranges of port indexes.

If that is an illegal configuration why is it allowed ? Is there any error message or warning when a user sets up an invalid configuration ?  Reading your post I assume that Virtual Fabrics are a must for a FICON configuration.

Perhaps the istallation and configuration manuals should state that clearly instead of leaving users guessing.

Here below is a sample of a duplicate Node Descriptor for port index 0x1E and port index 0x11E. You can see that the reported node descriptors are identical, that is clearly invalid since the port address in byte 3 and the Tag in bytes 30-31 should be unique.

The port address in byte 3 is wrong for the port with port index 0x11E. 

 

NODEID=00200A3EC3D6D5E3D9E7C4C3E7C5D4C3C3C1F0C1C6E7F1F9F4F9D2F0F1C61E1E   Link address 1E3E00, Port index 0x1E 

 

NODEID=00200A3EC3D6D5E3D9E7C4C3E7C5D4C3C3C1F0C1C6E7F1F9F4F9D2F0F1C61E1E   Link address 1E5E00, Port index 0x11E 

 

Rather than recommended practises shouldn't the instructions clearly state what is valid and what is not ?

 

Highlighted
New Contributor
Posts: 2
Registered: ‎11-20-2015

Re: FICON and Virtual Fabric

Adding the Model,  Switch ED_DCX8510_8B


fgennari@infinidat.com wrote:

A customer has a DCX chassis and configured 48 port blades with port idexes 0x00-0x4F, 0x80-0xCF, 0x100-0x14F, total of 240 ports in the same Ficon switch. Is that a legal configuration or should the physical ports 0x100-0x14F be configured in a separate virtual Ficon switch with a different Domain ID ?

He is having problems with duplicate Node Descriptors reported on ports with port index 0x00-0x4F and 0x100-0x14F.

The port address reported in Byte 3 of the node descriptor and the Tag in bytes 30-31 are duplicates for those 2 ranges of port indexes.

If that is an illegal configuration why is it allowed ? Is there any error message or warning when a user sets up an invalid configuration ?  Reading your post I assume that Virtual Fabrics are a must for a FICON configuration.

Perhaps the istallation and configuration manuals should state that clearly instead of leaving users guessing.

Here below is a sample of a duplicate Node Descriptor for port index 0x1E and port index 0x11E. You can see that the reported node descriptors are identical, that is clearly invalid since the port address in byte 3 and the Tag in bytes 30-31 should be unique.

The port address in byte 3 is wrong for the port with port index 0x11E. 

 

NODEID=00200A3EC3D6D5E3D9E7C4C3E7C5D4C3C3C1F0C1C6E7F1F9F4F9D2F0F1C61E1E   Link address 1E3E00, Port index 0x1E 

 

NODEID=00200A3EC3D6D5E3D9E7C4C3E7C5D4C3C3C1F0C1C6E7F1F9F4F9D2F0F1C61E1E   Link address 1E5E00, Port index 0x11E 

 

Rather than recommended practises shouldn't the instructions clearly state what is valid and what is not ?

 


 

Join the Community

Get quick and easy access to valuable resource designed to help you manage your Brocade Network.