> An interesting finding and a question; you use the term "must" with
respect
> to configuring the PORTNAME option of DEFINE VSWITCH when it appears to
be
> optional parameter. I might be taking this out of context as the
statements
> made only refer to the placement of the PORTNAME parameter ("PORTNAME
must
> be the last parameter") but it reads like this parameter is not
optional. I
> find that it really isn't necessary to address the port name when
defining a
> functional switch but it might be prudent to do so. Is there any
situation
> that you can think of where not addressing the OSA port name in the
switch
> definition might trip someone up?This, while a little misleading, is not incorrect. The portname, while optional, MUST be the last parameter if it is specified. Not specifying the portname should not cause any problems, and is probably the better way to go. That way if someone changes it on some other system using the device, it won't break the VSWITCH's ability to use the OSA. > Also, when configuring the TCPIP service machines to autolog, I find it > helpful to put the MODIFY VSWITCH GRANT statements in SYSTEM CONFIG instead > of using CP SET VSWITCH GRANT from the profile of AUTOLOG1. This saved me a > lot of typing yesterday when AUTOLOG1 didn't start forcing me to manually > start the Controller service machines (still researching why AUTOLOG1 didn't > start). You do make mention of configuring access to the switch through CP > SET VSWITCH but not through MODIFY. Do you see a disadvantage to making use > of MODIFY from SYSTEM CONFIG in this manner? > The SYSTEM CONFIG file is the better place to grant access. Regards, Miguel Diaz Staff Software Engineer TCP/IP for z/VM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
