Vfc interface down until "shut/no shut" on Ethernet interface(s)

Question

Hello, I'm hoping someone out there has had this problem and knows the solution, or can provide some insight as to whether the problem is with the CNA, Host OS, or Nexus.  I've not yet posted anything to the Brocade discussion forums about this issue.
I have vfc interfaces that are not coming up naturally; the log states that it fails "waiting for flogi" (see 'google').   The only solution that I've found posted for that problem is to apply the QoS settings for FCoE.  Those settings were already applied during the initial configuration of the switch, and I've since double and triple checked them.  I've also gone through the Cisco Nexus 5000 Troubleshooting Guide, Troubleshooting FCoE Issues, and everything checks out except a couple of things:
1)  The interfaces don't get past the FIP Solicitation stage: They show Triggered Event: [FCOE_MGR_VFC_EV_FIP_SOLICITATION] over and over again.
2)  While the troubleshooting guide states that the FCoE vLAN should be STP forwarding on the underlying Ethernet interfaces, it is not.  However, I have a working configuration elsewhere (with different make/model CNA hardware and Nexus software revisions) and the FCoE vLAN is not STP forwarding on those underlying Ethernet interfaces either.
The interesting part is that if I do a "shut" then "no  shut" on the underlying Ethernet interfaces, after the hosts have  completely booted, the vfc interfaces come up and successfully register in the flogi database.  At that point everything is functional.  If the hosts then reboot, the vfc  interfaces fail to come up until I perform the "shut/no shut" on the underlying Ethernet interfaces.
One other noteworthy symptom is that during POST, when the CNA initializes, it displays the error message "Link initialization failed. Disabling BIOS."
Here is a configuration synopsis:
Cisco Nexus 5548UP [Ver. 5.1(3)N2(1)]
Brocade 1020 CNA [Rev. 3.2.1.0]
ESXi vSphere [Ver 5.1], [CNA Driver Rev. 3.2.1.0]
There are two vSANs; A-side and B-side.  Each is bound to a unique and dedicated vLAN.
Po1 is the vPC peer-link.  The FCoE vLANs are *not* allowed on it.
Po1011 is DB1's vPC port-channel.  It is an 802.1q Trunk; the native vLAN (1) and the FCoE vLANs are allowed, among other Ethernet data vLANs.
Po1021 is DB1's vPC port-channel.  It is an 802.1q Trunk; the native vLAN (1) and the FCoE vLANs are allowed, among other Ethernet data vLANs.
vfc1011 is DB1's Virtual FC interface.  It is a Trunk (mode TF), allowing the A-side vSAN only.  It is in the vSAN membership database.
vfc1021 is DB2's Virtual FC interface.  It is a Trunk (mode TF), allowing the B-side vSAN only.  It is in the vSAN membership database.
EDIT:  The Port-Channels are LACP.
Thanks for your time.
Message was edited by: Michael Hertrick

Answer 1

I agree that the more distance you can put between the fabrics ever converging into one, the better off you are.  You don't want faults on one SAN to interrupt and cause faults on your redundant SAN.
Nevertheless, the aforementioned configuration does not converge the two vSANs. 
The host does not bridge between the two adapters, nor do the switches bridge between the two.  Remember, even though you bind the vfc to the port-channel in the configuration, the vfc is really bound only to the Ethernet interface on the local switch and is not participating in the port-channel at all.  There is no way, with that configuration as-is, for SAN A traffic to land on SAN B.  A series of a few mis-configurations would be required for the SAN segmentation to be eroded. 
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9670/configuration_guide_c07-543563.html
See sections "Configuration Parameters That Must Be Identical" and "Configuration Parameters That Should Be Identical"
Under "must" there is:
Enable or disable state per VLAN"
Under "should" there is:
Spanning Tree Protocol interface settings: 
VLANs (Rapid Per-VLAN Spanning Tree Plus [PVST+])
Would you mind pointing out in the document you linked where Cisco recommends that the allowed vLANs on each side of the vPC should be different?  I didn't exactly find that.  What I did see was that they have vlan 101 and 102 allowed on both port-channel11 and port-channel12 in their example.  vsan 101 is bound to vlan 101, vsan 102 is bound to vlan 102.
Kind Regards.