Oh, okay. My z/OS systems in LPARS work fine with Hipersockets. The z/OS systems that are z/VM guest systems, not so much.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, O'Brien, Dennis L < dennis.l.o'[email protected] <dennis.l.o%[email protected]>>wrote: > The z/OS systems are in separate LPAR’s. > > > > Dennis O’Brien > > > > My computer beat me at chess, but it was no match for me in kickboxing. > > > > *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Mark Pace > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 02, 2009 05:57 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [IBMVM] Duplicate hipersocket device addresses > > > > I'm impressed that you have it intermittently working. I've never gotten a > Hipersocket connection in z/OS as a VM guest to work. One of my colleagues > is working with IBM on this problem. > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:45 PM, O'Brien, Dennis L < > dennis.l.o'[email protected] <dennis.l.o%[email protected]>> > wrote: > > We're starting to test hipersockets between Linux guests on z/VM and z/OS > systems in separate LPAR's. z/OS is having intermittent trouble pinging one > of the four Linux guests, but is fine with the other three. All four Linux > guests have no trouble pinging z/OS. Someone suggested that the device > addresses used have to be unique among all the LPAR's. E.g. if z/OS in LPAR > 1 allocates FC00-FC02, then I shouldn't allocate real FC00-FC02 on z/VM in > LPAR 2 to a Linux guest, but should start with FC03 or FC04. I've never > heard of such a restriction, and the source of the advice is suspect. Is > there such a restriction? I found a Redbook, "e-Business Intelligence: Data > Mart Solutions with DB2 for Linux on zSeries", SG24-6294-00, that used the > same addresses on z/OS in one LPAR and a Linux guest in another LPAR. Note > that the z/OS TCP/IP configuration doesn't specify UCB's, just CHPID > numbers, but z/OS allocates the lowest three UCB's on the CHPID. > > If the device addresses aren't the problem, what else should I look at? > The TCP/IP configurations on the Linux guests are identical, except of > course for the IP address. The intermittently-working guest has an IP > address that ends in ".1". I know that ".1" addresses are customarily used > for routers, but there are no routers in this configuration. > > Dennis O'Brien > > My computer beat me at chess, but it was no match for me in kickboxing. > > > > > -- > Mark Pace > Mainline Information Systems > 1700 Summit Lake Drive > Tallahassee, FL. 32317 > -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems 1700 Summit Lake Drive Tallahassee, FL. 32317
