Robert, About the only thing you can't get out of this thread is broadcast support on your Guest LAN. Everything else should be available to you as you sit now with z/VM 4.2 and a 9672. No new hardware, etc.
Further, there is another option from SuSE. For free, they will send you CDs with their GA code on them. You just don't get any support during the trial. That meets your $0 budget constraints as well, if you want to go that route. But, even if you don't, you should be able to succeed in implementing a Guest LAN. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Nix, Robert P. [mailto:Nix.Robert@;mayo.edu] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... This has gone completely off track, and in no way resembles or answers my original questions. We're running zVM 4.2, not 4.2. We're on a 9672, not a z-series, we have a single OSA interface, shared with a zOS image, and no option for adding hardware interfaces, and we don't have any money budgeted for the trial, not even the $500 for the true trial from SuSE. Answers that involve any of the things we don't have don't help. Sorry to be blunt, but I was really looking for which way I should be going, within the walls I have around me. The answers have been fairly much the same as "Put out your resume, and find a job at a company with a different system..." ---- Robert P. Nix internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 200 1st St. SW page: 507-255-3450 Rochester, MN 55905 ---- "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:57:41AM -0500, Dave Myers wrote: > > So according to the statements below...I CAN use SUSE SLES7 > > to play the guest lan game, using QDIO instead of virtual hipersockets? > > Am I correct in this assumption? > > Any testimony from someone who has setup guest lans with SUSE SLES7? > > Tia > > Dave Myers > > Yeah, as long as you're running one of the more recent patches that > fixes virtual qeth support, it works fine. > > On a virtual LAN, the only difference is whether you specify it as type > QDIO or leave it unset (in the VM LAN definition statment). > > Then if it's a qdio LAN, you define your virtual NIC to the guest as > TYPE QDIO (which really means OSA, since both HiperSockets and OSA are > QDIO devices). > > Virtual OSAs support broadcast (under z/VM 4.3). HiperSockets don't. > That's pretty much the difference between them. They use the same > driver, but OSA is aliased to interface ethX and HiperSockets to hsiX. > > Here's something from an SLES-based guest... > > r2:~ # ifconfig > eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 > inet addr:192.168.130.67 Mask:255.255.255.192 > inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link > UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 > RX packets:473155 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:553105 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 > RX bytes:45294696 (43.1 Mb) TX bytes:161088571 (153.6 Mb) > Interrupt:17 > > eth2:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 > inet addr:192.168.130.68 Mask:255.255.255.192 > UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 > Interrupt:17 > > hsi0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 > inet addr:192.168.129.4 Mask:255.255.255.0 > inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link > UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 > RX packets:2517010 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:1719082 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 > RX bytes:1009596522 (962.8 Mb) TX bytes:276571455 (263.7 Mb) > Interrupt:11 > > hsi0:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 > inet addr:192.168.129.5 Mask:255.255.255.0 > UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 > Interrupt:11 > > hsi1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 > inet addr:192.168.130.2 Mask:255.255.255.192 > inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link > UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1> > RX packets:1660330 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:2378314 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 > RX bytes:211072990 (201.2 Mb) TX bytes:977121122 (931.8 Mb) > Interrupt:14 > > hsi1:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 > inet addr:192.168.130.4 Mask:255.255.255.192 > UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 > Interrupt:14 > > lo Link encap:Local Loopback > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 > inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 > RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 > RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) > > > Notice that I have one "eth" device and two "hsi" devices. These are > all virtual; this router lives on two HiperSockets and one OSA segment. > Also note the dummy addresses (XXXN:0): this is VRT in action; r1 > contains the other side of the pair, but r2 is currently holding the > virtual addresses. Here's the routing table... > > r2:~ # route -n > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface > 192.168.131.0 192.168.130.10 255.255.255.192 UG 0 0 0 hsi1 > 192.168.131.64 192.168.130.10 255.255.255.192 UG 0 0 0 hsi1 > 192.168.130.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.192 U 0 0 0 hsi1 > 192.168.130.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.192 U 0 0 0 eth2 > 192.168.129.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 hsi0 > 0.0.0.0 192.168.129.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 hsi0 > > > Adam
