Hi,
I am trying to replace our ageing 9222is with 9250s in a FICON/FCIP setup.
The 9222s talk to each other ok and the 9250s (in a test environment) can talk to each other ok.
The problem occurs when i swap out a 9222 with a 9250 (i can't do both ends at the same time as they're hundreds of miles apart!).
I change the fabric-binding database on the 9222 to give it the swwn of the 9250:
no ficon vsan 201
no fabric-binding activate vsan 201
no fabric-binding database vsan 201
fabric-binding database vsan 201
swwn 20:00:xx:xx:xx:xx:b9:70 domain 51 ! 9250
swwn 20:00:xx:xx:xx:xx:29:40 domain 49 ! 9222
no fabric-binding activate vsan 201
ficon vsan 201
I then get this error from the 9222:
9222#
%PORT-SECURITY-3-BINDING_VIOLATION: %$VSAN 201: 2021 Thu Nov 25 13:53:01.72803%$ <Fabric Binding:: sWWN: 20:01:xx:xx:xx:xx:b9:71>
Note that the swwn reported in the violation has 2 digits that are different from the swwn of the 9250:
9250# show wwn switch
Switch WWN is 20:00:xx:xx:xx:xx:b9:70
So the 9250 presents itself to the 9222 as 20:01:xx:xx:xx:xx:b9:71, rather than its actual swwn which is 20:00:xx:xx:xx:xx:b9:70.
When this 9250 talks to the other 9250 (in the test environment) it presents itself correctly as 20:00:xx:xx:xx:xx:b9:70 (which matches its true swwn).
Why, when talking to the 9222, does it seemingly report a different swwn?
I did try to change the fabric-binding database on each end to match the swwn reported in the violation message:
no ficon vsan 201
no fabric-binding activate vsan 201
no fabric-binding database vsan 201
fabric-binding database vsan 201
swwn 20:01:xx:xx:xx:b9:71 domain 51 ! 9250
swwn 20:00:xx:xx:xx:29:40 domain 49 ! 9222
no fabric-binding activate vsan 201
ficon vsan 201
However the 9250 didn't like this:
9250(config)# fabric-binding database vsan 201
9250(config-fabric-binding)# swwn 20:01:xx:xx:xx:xx:b9:71 domain 51
Error: Local Switch WWN not paired with local domain
So in summary:
- i can only input the correct swwn into the fabric-binding database of the 9250.
- the 9250 reports the correct swwn to the second 9250.
- the 9250 reports a different swwn to the 9222.
What gives, please? Any advice? Am i doing something wrong?