The consoles look all happy - the sender (client) says:
IPGATEY0000000013 started.                                           
IPGATEY0000000013 Request from MARCY for LNXSFS at 4567 10.103.28.161
IPGATEY0000000013 Thread terminating ... Read rc = 0 (0 )            
IPGATEY0000000013 ended.                                             

The receiver (where LNXSFS lives) says:
IPGATEI0000000004 started. (3 2 AF_INET 3279 10.93.27.253)                   
IPGATEI0000000004 User MARCY from 10.93.27.253 has been accepted for LNXSFS  
IPGATEI0000000004 ended.                                                     

I have admin auth on the filepool for myself, so that's not it.  And I can get 
to the filepool from a system in the ISFC collection (over ctc), so I don't 
think its missing anything either.




Marcy 

 
"This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you 
are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must 
not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any 
information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise 
the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for 
your cooperation."


-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kris 
Buelens
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:34 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] IPGATE question

Did you have a look at the consoles of the two involved IPGATE users?

As for Query RESOURCE: on the remote systems, IPGATE must be the owning userid 
of the filepool.  That's the trick: IPGATE tells CP it is the owner of the 
filepool resource.  Hence if a connect request comes in, CP sends it to IPGATE, 
IPGATE reads the APPC message and sends that -using TCP/IP- to its IPGATE 
partner at the central site, where that I¨PGATE users issues an APPC connect 
request that CP then needs to resolve.
I don't remember what IPGATE tells on its console, but a TCP/IP session should 
be built between both IPGATE users.  I think the central IPGATE will check the 
authorisation of the remote user before it tries to reach SFS, which in turn 
can refuse the connection.

2008/8/20 Marcy Cortes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Tried it both ways.
>
> The other system that works looks like this:
> Resource: POOL1     Type: Local   Owning Userid: IPGATE
>
> acc pool1:marcy. c
>
> Ready; T=0.01/0.01 10:05:04
>
> q disk c
>
> LABEL  VDEV M  STAT   CYL TYPE BLKSZ   FILES  BLKS USED-(%) BLKS LEFT
> BLK TOTAL
> -      DIR  C   R/W     -    - 4096      142             -          -
> -
> Ready; T=0.01/0.01 10:06:44
>
> q search
>
> MDC191  191   A    R/W
>
> -       DIR   C    R/W   POOL1:MARCY.
>
> MNT325  325   H    R/O
>
> MNT319  319   P    R/O
>
> MNT190  190   S    R/O
>
> ISP192  301   V    R/O
>
> MNT19E  19E   Y/S  R/O
>
> MON198  120   Z    R/O
>
> Ready; T=0.01/0.01 10:06:47
>
>
>
> The only difference I can find in the 2 configuration is the difference
> in TCPIPUSERID.   I may have to go create a stack with that name TCPIP
> in order to prove that (fun fun).
>
> I can access LNXSFS from the other systems in the ISFC collection just 
> fine to so I'm pretty sure the SFS is set up correctly.
>
>
>
> Marcy
>
>
> "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the 
> addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based 
> on this message or any information herein. If you have received this 
> message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail 
> and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation."
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> On Behalf Of Imler, Steven J
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:04 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [IBMVM] IPGATE question
>
> I think you need to make the LNXSFS FilePool a *global* resource ...
>
>
> JR (Steven) Imler
> CA
> Senior Sustaining Engineer
> Tel: +1 703 708 3479
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Marcy Cortes
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 01:02 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: IPGATE question
> >
> > Hmm.  Well, I see it is picking up the correct TCPIPUSERID by peering
> > into IPGATE1 MTREXX.   It seems to accept the connection:
> >
> > flag"
> >
> > IPGATEI0000000006 started. (3 2 AF_INET 3276 10.93.27.253)
> >
> > IPGATEI0000000006 User MARCY from 10.93.27.253 has been accepted for 
> > LNXSFS
> > IPGATEI0000000006 ended.
> >
> >
> >
> > And yet on the remote system I get:
> > acc lnxsfs:sles9. c
> > DMSACR1151E File pool LNXSFS is unavailable Ready(00055); 
> > T=0.01/0.01
> > 10:00:32
> >
> >
> >
> > Q resource on the remote system indicates it is there too:
> > Resource: LNXSFS    Type: Local   Owning Userid: IPGATE
> >
> > I can't see anything I might have misconfigured - it is simple 
> > really
> -
> > and I do have it running to another system.
> >
> > Anyone have a clue what I could check next?
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> > "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
> If
> > you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the 
> > addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action 
> > based
> on
> > this message or any information herein. If you have received this 
> > message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply 
> > e-mail
>
> > and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation."
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Thomas Kern
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:51 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [IBMVM] IPGATE question
> >
> > I have a second stack to use the HyperSockets between a CP and an 
> > IFL systems. The IPGATE servers have a TCPIP DATA on their A-disk 
> > which defin= es the TCPIPUSERID.
> >
> > /Tom Kern
> > /301-903-2211
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:39:53 -0500, Marcy Cortes 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Is anyone using IPGATE with a TCPIP stack who has a name other than 
> > >TCPIP?  I have one system working and another which doesn't and
> that's
> > >the only difference I can find.
> > >
> > >
> > >Marcy



--
Kris Buelens,
IBM Belgium, VM customer support

Reply via email to