Two stable fabrics have overlapping domains. After a switch from the first domain is joined to a switch from the second domain, both switches become isolated. What caused the problem?

Question

Options

• AThe autoreconfigure option is disabled on both switches.
• BThe autoreconfigure option is enabled on both switches.
• CThe rcf-reject option is enabled on the interfaces.
• DThe rcf-reject option is disabled on the interfaces.

• A
  83% (19)
• B
  9% (2)
• C
  4% (1)
• D
  4% (1)

Explanation

When two Fibre Channel fabrics with overlapping Domain IDs merge, a Reconfigure Fabric (RCF) must be triggered to reassign one fabric's domain IDs and resolve the conflict. With autoreconfigure disabled on both switches, neither fabric will automatically initiate that RCF - so the conflict goes unresolved and both switches are segmented/isolated rather than merged. This is the root cause.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• B is the opposite of the problem - if autoreconfigure were enabled, the switches would automatically trigger an RCF to resolve the domain ID overlap and merge successfully.
• C (rcf-reject enabled) would cause the switches to reject incoming RCF frames, which is a different failure mode. Here, the issue is that no RCF is ever even initiated, not that one is being rejected.
• D (rcf-reject disabled) is actually the desired state - it means RCF frames are accepted, which helps merging succeed.

Memory tip: Think of autoreconfigure as the "fix-it trigger." If both sides have it off (disabled), no one fires the fix, and both ports go dark. The word auto = automatic resolution; no auto = no resolution = isolation.

No community discussion yet for this question.