On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Harold Grovesteen wrote: > These parameters provide load sharing for outbound traffic from z/VM to > the network. Work with your networking people to ensure that they are > supporting equal cost routing to provide load sharing of traffic inbound > to z/VM. Use OSPF if you can for quickest recovery of a network path > failure. You and the routers adjacent to z/VM must use the same routing > protocol for this to work. Even if your network generally uses a > different routing protocol (EIGRP for example), OSPF or RIP can be > integrated on the network side to accommodate the z/VM requirements.
I started to say something similar last time, but didn't follow it through :) On this topic, I have to add one comment about the original poster's configuration (refresher: that config has the VIPA as another address on the same Ethernet segment as the OSAs). When it comes to balancing inbound traffic, no routing configuration will reliably ensure that traffic is shared between the interfaces. Reason: the neighbouring routers do not actually route to reach the VIPA, since it is the same subnet. They will simply use ARP to reach it, and then you're just getting the ARP response randomness I mentioned last time. While it might be possible to force-advertise the VIPA via OSPF (or RIP) using a host mask, which would in theory result in the two equal-cost routes we need for multipathing, whether the neighbour routers actually took any notice of those routes would be another question. I don't mean to harp on that aspect of the configuration, but this was something that occurred to me as important in this context. Cheers, Vic Cross ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
