Dave, trying to tick me off ;), wrote: >Of note, re: IPGATE. Since it's first release back in 1998 as part of the >MTREXX package, >IPAGTE development has continued on inside IBM. The current version is much >faster, written >to use CMS Pipelines more, and can encrypt the IP data stream. Just FYI.
I figured as much. I'm pretty convinced that what I have here is a bug. Now what I need is time to go tracking it down. I sure would like to just open an ETR and let IBM deal with it. This is an extremely useful function for those of us with way too many VM systems on opposite sides of the country. PS. And if the IBM insider is listening I'd be happy to *test* your new improved IPGATE. 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 Dave Jones Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [IBMVM] IPGATE question Of note, re: IPGATE. Since it's first release back in 1998 as part of the MTREXX package, IPAGTE development has continued on inside IBM. The current version is much faster, written to use CMS Pipelines more, and can encrypt the IP data stream. Just FYI. Kris Buelens wrote: > 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 -- DJ V/Soft z/VM and mainframe Linux expertise, training, consulting, and software development www.vsoft-software.com
