Discussion of FCP-2 login requirements for ELS, Revision 1

Binford, Charles cbinford at lsil.com
Thu Nov 18 15:24:31 PST 1999

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Binford, Charles" <charles.binford at lsil.com>
I'm confused.  I've always consider LOGO as the compliment to PLOGI.  We
don't PLOGI into FFFFFE so why is there even a discussion about sending LOGO
to FFFFFE?  Also,  I would reword Steve's statement a little.  He said
"...17.5 and 15.4.8 *appear* to mean the LOGO only applies to N_Ports..."  I
think 17.5.1 is pretty explicit that LOGO is for N_Ports.

Charles Binford
LSI Logic Storage Systems
(316) 636-8566

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Wakeley [mailto:matt_wakeley at agilent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 8:24 PM
To: SteveB
Cc: fc at network.com; t10 at t10.org
Subject: Re: Discussion of FCP-2 login requirements for ELS, Revision 1

SteveB wrote:

> Since FC-FS 17.5 and 15.4.8 appear to mean the LOGO only applies to
N_Ports, current Fabric implementations may reject LOGO to FFFFFE and leave
the N_Port logged in.  I think that FC-FS should make it clear what the
response of FFFFFE is to LOGO.  If LOGO to FFFFFE does log off the N_Port,
it is a change from current behaviour.

Current behavior on all fabrics?  Since there are no "clear" words, it could
be implemented
one way or the other. I think it should be allowed.

It's kinda like you telling someone "I'm leaving now" and they say "I object
to you leaving" and you say (using Dal's language) "<finger> you, I'm
leaving anyway!"

Yeah, I know, the fabric has to handle the case of the node just
"disappearing" anyway, but it's just as easy to send an accept as it is a


* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org

More information about the T10 mailing list