Hi Romney, I ran a trace which is too big to include here, but I'm seeing "Passed Route F" and "DontRoute F" in the trace, here's a snip:
DTCPDO065I DispatchDatagram: Dest 152.225.118.49, protocol 17 dispatch mode 0, P assed Route F, DontRoute F DTCPDO066I DispatchDatagram releases LastRouteEntry DTCPDO080I FindRoute looking for route for: 152.225.118.49 DTCPDO077I FindRoute found HostRTE for 152.225.118.49 on interface CTC504 DTCPDO067I DispatchDatagram allocates LastRouteEntry DTCPDO044I Ipdown: Link: Link Name: CTC504, Link Type: CTC, Dev Name: CTC504, De v Type: CTC, Queuesize: 0 DTCPDO046I Ipdown: FirstHop 152.225.118.49 DTCPDO027I IP-down: ShouldFragment: Datagram: 78 Packet size:1492 DTCPRC001I version: 4 DTCPRC002I Internet Header Length: 5 = 20 bytes DTCPRC009I Type of Service:Precedence = Routine DTCPRC010I Total Length: 78 bytes DTCPRC011I Identification: 37557 DTCPRC009I Flags: May Fragment, Last Fragment DTCPRC009I Fragment Offset: 0 DTCPRC019I Time To Live: 124 DTCPRC020I Protocol: UDP DTCPRC021I Header CheckSum: 56509 DTCPRC022I Source Address: 98E12738 DTCPRC023I Destination Address: 98E17631 DTCIPU031I IP-up examining: DTCPRC001I version: 4 DTCPRC002I Internet Header Length: 5 = 20 bytes DTCPRC009I Type of Service:Precedence = Internetwork control DTCPRC010I Total Length: 106 bytes DTCPRC011I Identification: 1057 DTCPRC009I Flags: May Fragment, Last Fragment DTCPRC009I Fragment Offset: 0 DTCPRC019I Time To Live: 255 DTCPRC020I Protocol: ICMP DTCPRC021I Header CheckSum: 59269 DTCPRC022I Source Address: 98E17631 DTCPRC023I Destination Address: 98E12738 DTCIPU037I IP-up: datagram ID 1057, len 106, Protocol ICMP from 152.225.118.4 9 DTCIPU040I IP-up: forward datagram DTCPDO065I DispatchDatagram: Dest 152.225.39.56, protocol 1 dispatch mode 0, Pas sed Route F, DontRoute F DTCPDO066I DispatchDatagram releases LastRouteEntry DTCPDO080I FindRoute looking for route for: 152.225.39.56 DTCPDO077I FindRoute found DefaultRTE for * on interface SHUTTLE3 DTCPDO067I DispatchDatagram allocates LastRouteEntry DTCPDO044I Ipdown: Link: Link Name: SHUTTLE3, Link Type: ETHERNET, Dev Name: SHU TTLE3, Dev Type: LCS, Queuesize: 0 DTCPDO046I Ipdown: FirstHop 152.225.118.1 In the trace "SHUTTLE3" is our gigabit connection, 152.225.39.56 is the IP address of the Win2K workstation I ran the tracert from, 152.225.118.49 is the address I was tracing (a Linux/390 guest VCTC'd to the TCPIP at 152.225.118.46). Is this perhaphs because I have not provided explicit routing, but rather use the "DefaultRoute" in VM's TCPIP configuration? Michael Coffin, VM Systems Programmer Internal Revenue Service - Room 6527 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20224 Voice: (202) 927-4188 FAX: (202) 622-3123 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Romney White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Odd TraceRoute To Linux/390 Guests via VM TCPIP Michael: Run the test with TRACE IPUP IPDOWN ICMP enabled. It looks as though the packet is being dropped by VM TCP/IP. The trace will show what is going on. Romney On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:45:19 -0500 Coffin Michael C said: >Hi Rob, > >Yes, pinging works fine to/from the guests. In fact all IP traffic >to/from the guests works fine - but traceroute shows this timeout at >.46 (the VM TCPIP server). I'd just like to understand why it times >out and clear it up if possible. > >I'm not sure what you mean by "the status of the VCTC device". It's >pairs are coupled and working fine or we wouldn't be able to talk >between the Linux/390 and VM TCPIP machines. > >-TIA > >Michael Coffin, VM Systems Programmer >Internal Revenue Service - Room 6527 >1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. >Washington, D.C. 20224 > >Voice: (202) 927-4188 FAX: (202) 622-3123 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rob Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:43 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Odd TraceRoute To Linux/390 Guests via VM TCPIP > > >Can you ping from VM to .49? > >What's the status of the VCTC device? > >Can you ping from the .49 Linux machine to .46? > > >Robert C Schwartz >Technical Services >Boscovs Department Stores LLC >610-929-7387 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Coffin Michael C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:20 AM >Subject: Re: Odd TraceRoute To Linux/390 Guests via VM TCPIP > > >> Arrggh - I have guests at both .49 and .50, I evidently included the >> trace to .49 (same results). Strike .50 in my note and replace it >> with .49 >(sorry >> for the confusion). >> >> Michael Coffin, VM Systems Programmer >> Internal Revenue Service - Room 6527 >> 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. >> Washington, D.C. 20224 >> >> Voice: (202) 927-4188 FAX: (202) 622-3123 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rob Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:21 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Odd TraceRoute To Linux/390 Guests via VM TCPIP >> >> >> Hey Michael, >> >> Am I missing something here... What is 152.225.118.49???? >> >> Rob >> >> Robert C Schwartz >> Technical Services >> Boscovs Department Stores LLC >> 610-929-7387 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Michael Coffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:02 AM >> Subject: Odd TraceRoute To Linux/390 Guests via VM TCPIP >> >> >> > (Crossposted on VMESA-L and Linux-VM) >> > >> > Hi Folks, >> > >> > I'm in the process of implementing gigabit ethernet for a client >> > and am very curious about something. I have a TCPIP stack on VM >> > (VM/ESA >> > 2.4.0) with a dedicated gigabit card at IP address 152.225.118.46. >> > I have a Linux/390 guest virtual machine VCTC coupled to this TCPIP >> > virtual machine at IP address 152.225.118.50. Take a look at the >> > traceroute below, when I trace to .46 it's nice and clean. However >> > when I trace to .50 .46 times out. Any idea what causes this? VM's >> > TCPIP is proxyarping for these guests, by the way. >> > >> > I:\>tracert 152.225.118.46 >> > >> > Tracing route to 152.225.118.46 over a maximum of 30 hops >> > >> > 1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 152.225.39.2 >> > 2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 152.225.119.194 >> > 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 152.225.46.36 >> > 4 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 152.225.118.46 >> > >> > Trace complete. >> > >> > I:\>tracert 152.225.118.49 >> > >> > Tracing route to 152.225.118.49 over a maximum of 30 hops >> > >> > 1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 152.225.39.2 >> > 2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 152.225.119.194 >> > 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 152.225.46.36 >> > 4 * * * Request timed out. >> > 5 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 152.225.118.49 >> > >> > Trace complete. >> > >> > Thanks in advance. :) >> > >> > -Michael Coffin
