John, Thanks for your time and the thorough response. I’m not too concerned about the applications, but your comments confirmed what I thought in that area. One quick test failed to work in the OSPF space (did not recognize the new IP address). However, I think I’ll have another test opportunity soon, so I’ll continue down this path. Thanks again!
Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 7:40 AM, John S. Giltner, Jr. <[[email protected]](mailto:On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 7:40 AM, John S. Giltner, Jr. <<a href=)> wrote: > You should only need to add a new VIPA: > > For all traffic that is initiated to your system, they just specify the > destination IP address 7.7.7.8, or create a DNS entry that resolves to that > address and have them use that host name. > > For most of traffic the that you initiate outbound I would look at using > SRCIP entries with job names something like > > SRCIP > > JOBNAME MYTSTJOB 7.7.7.8 > > ENDSRCIP > > Then any job you submit with the name MYTSTJOB will use the address 7.7.7.8 > as its source IP address. You can add multiple job names as needed or even > code a pattern like MYTSTJ* and then any job that starts with MYTSTJ willuse > 7.7.7.8 > > You can either update you existing TCPIP parameter and issue the OBEY > command, or if you use PDS for your TCPIP parameters just create a new member > with all of your SRCIP parameters and obey that member. > > To keep the SRCIP parameters across IPL's in your normal TCPIP parameters > just INCLUDE the DSN of where you have coded the SRCIP statements. > > Once a TCP connection is setup between two IP addresses, all traffic will > flow between those to addresses. So there is nothing that would cause a > connection that was established with 7.7.7.8 to start flowing with 7.7.7.7. > > If you are still running standard FTP then you could have problems because it > uses 2 TCP connections and it could be tough to have both connections use the > new IP address. > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 20:50:24 +0000, roscoe5 <[email protected]> wrote: > >>I thought I had an answer, but no. >>(Hard to test; can’t IPL) >> >>Trying to make this clearer. >> >>We currently have a single VIPA and two physical INTERFACE statements, let's >>say ... >> >>INTERFACE VIPALINK1 DEFINE VIRTUAL IPADDR 7.7.7.7 >> >>INTERFACE LINK0010 >> >>DEFINE IPAQENET >> >>PORTNAME T0010 >> >>IPADDR 10.1.1.1/29 >> >>SOURCEVIPAINT VIPALINK1 >> >>... >> >>add >> >>NTTERFACE LINK0020 >> >>DEFINE IPAQENET >> >>PORTNAME T0020 >> >>IPADR 10.1.1.2/29 >> >>SOURCEVIPAINT VIPALINK1 >> >>... >> >>We woul like to add a second VIPA, VIPALINK2, very much like the first, >>except with IPADDR 7.7.7.8. >> >>Do I need to create more IPAQENET INTERFACES (with or without new ports) and >>give them a SOURCEVIPAINT VIPALINK2? >> >>Or is there any way to simply use the current existing IPAQENET INTERFACEs >>and associate them with VIPALINK2? >> >>The obvious challengewwould be, how would the app/system know which VIPA to >>use? Fair question. >> >>One of my peers suggested that as we expect the traffic would be inbound, it >>would come in on 7.7.7.8. >> >>Further, any session created from inbound 7.7.7.8 shulld go back out on >>7.7.7.8. >> >>Beyond the above technical question, some may want to ask why? What is tobe >>gained. >> >>The answeris,multiple applications are using 7.7.7.7 with most unsecured. >> >>We intend to require ALL traffic on 7.7.7.8 be AT-TLS encrypted. >> >>Then test and migrate apps, independently, on to 7.7.7.8. >> >>Thanking in advance, >> >>Bob >> >>ennt from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS >> >>On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 5:22 PM, roscoe5 <[[email protected]](mailto:On >>Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 5:22 PM, roscoe5 <<a href=)> wrote: >> >>> Never mind, I figured it out. >>> As is too often, I was making it more complicated than necessary. >>> >>> Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:43 PM, roscoe5 >>> <[[email protected]](mailto:On Fri, Aug 2, >>> 2024 at 6:43 PM, roscoe5 <<a href=)> wrote: >>> >>>> Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS >>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: roscoe5 <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:39 PM >>>>> Subject: Fw: Multiple VIPAs >>>>> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> In our TCP/IP (z/OS 3.1) we define OSA interfaces with IP addresses, and >>>>> use the SourceVipaInt to refer to a Virtual IP address/interface. That >>>>> much is working fine. >>>>> I want to add another VIPA IP Address, where users can continue to use >>>>> applications on (for example) 7.7.7.7 or get to the same services on the >>>>> new 7.7.7.8 address. >>>>> The plan is to use PAgent on the new address and enforce >>>>> security/encryption. >>>>> >>>>> My question is, in the TCPIP Profile configuration, can I assign a native >>>>> (not virtual) interface to two virtual interfaces (7.7.7.7 and 7.7.7.8)? >>>>> Or do I need to duplicate the native interfaces with IPAQENET, PORTNAME, >>>>> IPADDR, etc., and refer these new interfaces to the 7.7.7.8 virtual >>>>> address? >>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>> Bob >>>>> >>>>> Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>>> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
