Alan, The only reason I said that, I guess, is that the Linux default for point-to-point seems to be all ones, and the various installation scripts in the distributions do the same thing. On the other hand, I didn't realize that specifying .252 would do any good, regardless of what software was running.
Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Alan Altmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Network config question On Thursday, 01/17/2002 at 10:03 EST, "Post, Mark K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since you're going to be using point-to-point connections between z/VM and > your Linux/390 guests, the netmask on _those_ connections will (have to) be > 255.255.255.255. The netmask of the connection between z/VM and your WAN is > a totally separate issue, so if they want you to use 255.255.255.252, then > go ahead. (It's a pretty _small_ subnet, but since you've only got one > system in it (z/VM itself), that should be OK.) Mark, if you use static routing, then 255.255.255.255 (HOST) routes are ok. If you use dynamic routing (esp. OSPF), then I suggest .252. (I've seen enough OSPF routing/config problems to convince me, even if it annoys me philosophically.) Regards, Alan IBM Senior Software Engineer z/VM Development, Endicott, NY Phone 607.752.6027 fax 607.752.1497 t/l 852
