Fibre channel zoning by port: bad idea?

I have a single FC switch here that has a bunch of servers hanging off of it. Currently it is zoned (as per my previous question, Fibre Channel zoning best practices) by WWN, one zone for each pair of (server, disk array).

My question is, is there any reason I shouldn't do this zoning by port instead of WWN? The switch is already labeled with a server name per port, and I don't expect to do any moving of cables. I'm tending toward zoning by port because it allows me to replace an FC card without rezoning. That's not something you need to do often, you say? You're probably right, but I'm in the middle of a period where I have to do it a lot.

If it matters, it's a QLogic switch with QLogic or Brocade FC cards and a NetApp filer.

Solution 1:

If you ever foresee implementing NPIV, you'll need to be doing WWN zoning. We're currently doing port zoning on the SAN that I manage, but that's for no other reason than it's always been done like that here. Within the next few weeks, I'll be switching over to WWN zoning. There are significant pros and cons to both approaches, though there's a strong security argument to be made for doing WWN zoning. It's really just a matter of how your organization chooses to do things.

Solution 2:

If it's that simple then no, I guess it'll be fine. I do mine WWN-to-host-ports simply because I have multiple hosts/ports, so a switch-port-to-host-port thang wouldn't work out but you should do whatever makes sense to your situation and what you've described doesn't set any alarms going :)