I created a TI zone including Initiator, 2 ISL, Target. The TI zone is active and enabled.
My question is, do I still need to zone the initiator and target WWNs in the Basic Zone?
When I remove the zone in the basic zone, connectivity is lost.
as i know you don't need additional zooning here if you are using TI zones.
Are you creating zoning in edge fabric? Could you please paste ouptut of command : zone --show for your particular zone?
Thanks for the reply.
Output as requested:
ZONE1_SAN_TOP:FID128:admin> zone --showDefined TI zone configuration:
TI Zone Name: SVC_internode_TopSwitch_Zone1_Zone2
Port List: 1,8; 1,13; 1,16; 1,21; 1,41; 1,45; 2,24; 2,29; 2,30; 2,35;2,65; 2,69
Configured Status: Activated / Failover-EnabledEnabled Status: Activated / Failover-Enabled
So basically, 1,41 1,45 2,65 2,69 are the two ISL links.
The other 8 ports listed are the ports for the internode connectivity that I need between my devices.
I've reviewed admin guide for FOS 7.2.x.
I find out that:
A TI zone only provides traffic isolation and is not a “regular” zone
So based on that you need to have prober wwn/port zooning in place, becasue of that you've disrupted traffic once you've removed zone.
That make sense. Thanks
So what I'll do to test, is have my Basic Zone with the 8 WWNs active, then disable FailOver in the Traffic Isolation Zone. Followed by disabling the 2 ISL links.
Communication should dropped between my devices. If the communication link stays up, then I'll know the TI is not working like it should and the traffic is using the other 4 ISLs I have configured.
Ok that didnt work.
I disabled the two ISL links, but the link between my devices still remained active.
So it looks like the WWN zoning somehow uses the remaining ISL links.....
Can I re-ask the question using simplier example?
Server HBA into Port1 Switch1.
ISL link Port2 Switch1 ----> Port2 Switch2Storage device into Port1 Switch2
Normally you would zone Server HBA WWN with Storage device WWN so the server can see the storage.
Now if you create TI zone with (1,1); (1,2) ; (2,1); (2,2) as per the above example, would you still need the WWN zones?
My apologies. I think it did indeed work. Let me troubleshoot a little more and I'll give an update.
im thinking about that you are using two ISL paths in one TI zone 1,41 1,45 2,65 2,69 which means that you did not defined end-to-end connectivity between devices..
So from my perspective you have to use only one ISL or ISL trunk in one TI zone.
But as i see you've used 65,69 which sit on same ASIC so im expecting that its trunked..isnt it ?
please check output of :
Yes, the two ISL are in the same tunk. The other 4 ISLs are in the same trunk too. But these other 4 are not part of the TI zone.
ZONE1_SAN_TOP:FID128:admin> zone --showTItrunkerrorsDomain ID: 1
No TI Trunk errorsZONE1_SAN_TOP:FID128:admin>
All is working well now.
So I needed to move the other 4 ISL ports into a different port group(trunk). I did that by physically moving the 4 SPF into another group on the SAN switch.
Previously I had all 6 ISLs in one trunk and tried to configure TI across 2 of them. This had caused strange problems!
I tested it with failover and failover disabled and it worked exactly as expected.
And to answer my original question, yes you do still need WWNs zoned in the Basic Zone as per normal.
Thanks for your help
great to hear that you've solved your problem.
But at least one thing from admin guide:
For any trunk group, all the members of the group need to belong to the TI zone to prevent routing issues resulting from changes in the
members of the trunk group. This applies to any E_Port or F_Port trunk groups that are included in TI zones using failover disabled
So i think that situation when you add only couple of ports from trunk group is not good at all.