AW: simple hipersocket communication between LPARS, pls help
Hi Vic, Well, we're here to help :) Two partitions (z/os and RHEL4) involved. want to communicate. One interface is OSA Express, working fine, VIPA- and omproute-configured. Is this the z/OS system that has VIPA and OSPF, or both z/OS and Linux? z/os has VIPA and OMPROUTE, Linux has none of it. What I don't quite see at the moment: how do I *prevent* the z/os- LPAR from choosing the usual way (of being routed): is it by defining a static route for the hipersocket interface in the Profile-dataset? BSDROUTINGPARMS or BEGINROUTES or whatever? Defining a static route is one way. You need to take care to ensure that the static route is not imported into your OSPF domain and exported to the rest of the network via OMPROUTE, or you may find your z/OS system becoming a router for your Linux system... This is what I am trying to find out - if this happens or not and how to prevent it from happening. In the meantime I do have a connection (hurray!!!), so that if I ping my Linux-Partition from the z/os-partition: ping 192.168.57.134 (this is the OSA interface of the Linux partition) or ping 192.168.60.4 (this is the hipersocket interface of the Linux partition) all is well. But how can I find out - well, just what you say: that we don't get routed in some suspicios manner? Tracrte does not give me any usable hints. tracerte 192.168.57.134 (OSA intf) output: CS V1R4: Traceroute to 192.168.57.134 (192.168.57.134): 1 192.168.57.134 (192.168.57.134) 5 ms 4 ms 2 ms *** tracerte 192.168.60.4 (hipersocket intf) output: CS V1R4: Traceroute to 192.168.60.4 (192.168.60.4): 1 192.168.60.4 (192.168.60.4) 4 ms 3 ms 2 ms *** One hop, that's all. Don't worry about HWADDR, it's used on other platforms to distinguish multiple network interfaces of the same hardware type. If you choose to use static routing, you will need to create a file called route-hsi0 that contains the detail of the route you wish to create. The format will be: vipa-address of z/OS via HSI interface of z/OS This will ensure that any traffic directed to the VIPA of z/OS goes via HiperSockets. If you had zebra or quagga set up on Linux zebra? quagga? something like a linux zoo? So this kind of stuff, whatever it may be, is necessary for setting up VIPA? Because this is what I will do later, I suppose. We have kernel 2.6. to provide VIPA there, you could define the HiperSockets to OMPROUTE and to zebra/quagga and let OSPF handle the definition of appropriate routing entries. In this case, more-so than static routing above, you will need to take even more care to ensure that the HiperSockets network is not visible to the exterior network (LAN) unless it's REALLY what you want. Be aware that all of this needs to be done with involvement from the network/router people at your shop. Yes, what we did is: our network staff gave me a subnet which is not involved in any kind of routing, not known for the rest of the world, so to say, and this is what I use now. - Cheers, Vic Cross Thanks so much! Anna -- 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
AW: simple hipersocket communication between LPARS, pls help
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Vic Cross *EXTERN* Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. April 2006 13:15 An: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Betreff: Re: simple hipersocket communication between LPARS, pls help G'day Anna, On 26/04/2006, at 5:43 pm, Fuhrmann Anna wrote: If you choose to use static routing for the moment yes you will need to create a file called route-hsi0 to be created also in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts ? that contains the detail of the route you wish to create. The format will be: vipa-address of z/OS via HSI interface of z/OS This will ensure that any traffic directed to the VIPA of z/OS goes via HiperSockets. This is fine, I can do that in any case. Is it also necessary if the applications (we plan to implement) use the IP-address the HSI interface of z/os directly, and not the VIPA-Address of z/OS? So that every conversation from-Linux-to-z/os and back explicitly uses the HSI-Address? Thanks so much ... Anna ~~ Dr. Anna Fuhrmann Systemprogrammierung Mainframe MA 14-ADV * Magistrat der Stadt Wien +43 1 4000 91639 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
Re: AW: simple hipersocket communication between LPARS, pls help
I'm not sure if the following is what you're trying to accomplish. But it sounds like it. We have a VM production machine (LPAR, if you will) and an IFL running VM, running Linux (running UDB). I set up two ways to get into the Linux guest. One was with hiper-sockets for apps that were running on VM and the other an OSA card for Java apps. running on WAS servers, etc. Each access point has a unique IP address. i.e. the OSA has it's own ip addr and the hipersocket (hsi0) has its own unique ip addr. We then used which ever ip addr depending on how we needed to access the UDB. Hope that helps. Steve G. Fuhrmann Anna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: Linux on 390 Port LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU 04/26/2006 06:32 AM Please respond to Linux on 390 Port To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU cc: Subject:AW: simple hipersocket communication between LPARS, pls help Hi Vic, Well, we're here to help :) Two partitions (z/os and RHEL4) involved. want to communicate. One interface is OSA Express, working fine, VIPA- and omproute-configured. Is this the z/OS system that has VIPA and OSPF, or both z/OS and Linux? z/os has VIPA and OMPROUTE, Linux has none of it. What I don't quite see at the moment: how do I *prevent* the z/os- LPAR from choosing the usual way (of being routed): is it by defining a static route for the hipersocket interface in the Profile-dataset? BSDROUTINGPARMS or BEGINROUTES or whatever? Defining a static route is one way. You need to take care to ensure that the static route is not imported into your OSPF domain and exported to the rest of the network via OMPROUTE, or you may find your z/OS system becoming a router for your Linux system... This is what I am trying to find out - if this happens or not and how to prevent it from happening. In the meantime I do have a connection (hurray!!!), so that if I ping my Linux-Partition from the z/os-partition: ping 192.168.57.134 (this is the OSA interface of the Linux partition) or ping 192.168.60.4 (this is the hipersocket interface of the Linux partition) all is well. But how can I find out - well, just what you say: that we don't get routed in some suspicios manner? Tracrte does not give me any usable hints. tracerte 192.168.57.134 (OSA intf) output: CS V1R4: Traceroute to 192.168.57.134 (192.168.57.134): 1 192.168.57.134 (192.168.57.134) 5 ms 4 ms 2 ms *** tracerte 192.168.60.4 (hipersocket intf) output: CS V1R4: Traceroute to 192.168.60.4 (192.168.60.4): 1 192.168.60.4 (192.168.60.4) 4 ms 3 ms 2 ms *** One hop, that's all. Don't worry about HWADDR, it's used on other platforms to distinguish multiple network interfaces of the same hardware type. If you choose to use static routing, you will need to create a file called route-hsi0 that contains the detail of the route you wish to create. The format will be: vipa-address of z/OS via HSI interface of z/OS This will ensure that any traffic directed to the VIPA of z/OS goes via HiperSockets. If you had zebra or quagga set up on Linux zebra? quagga? something like a linux zoo? So this kind of stuff, whatever it may be, is necessary for setting up VIPA? Because this is what I will do later, I suppose. We have kernel 2.6. to provide VIPA there, you could define the HiperSockets to OMPROUTE and to zebra/quagga and let OSPF handle the definition of appropriate routing entries. In this case, more-so than static routing above, you will need to take even more care to ensure that the HiperSockets network is not visible to the exterior network (LAN) unless it's REALLY what you want. Be aware that all of this needs to be done with involvement from the network/router people at your shop. Yes, what we did is: our network staff gave me a subnet which is not involved in any kind of routing, not known for the rest of the world, so to say, and this is what I use now. - Cheers, Vic Cross Thanks so much! Anna -- 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 -- 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
Re: AW: simple hipersocket communication between LPARS, pls help
On 26/04/2006, at 9:51 pm, Fuhrmann Anna wrote: (in reply to me saying) file called route-hsi0 to be created also in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts ? Yes, sorry, I distracted myself checking the answer and forgot to give it! :) I also forgot to mention that if you do nothing else other than add the route to Linux, this will work bi-directionally (i.e. traffic will be sent and received over the HiperSockets) *only* if the connections are initiated by Linux, and if you are not using source VIPA on Linux (which you have said you are not). If connections are being initiated from z/OS, you will need to add a static route for Linux's IP address to z/OS's routing table otherwise its outbound traffic will go over the OSA. This will ensure that any traffic directed to the VIPA of z/OS goes via HiperSockets. This is fine, I can do that in any case. Is it also necessary if the applications (we plan to implement) use the IP-address the HSI interface of z/os directly, and not the VIPA- Address of z/OS? So that every conversation from-Linux-to-z/os and back explicitly uses the HSI-Address? You're right, if you do it that way you will avoid the need to code a route to the z/OS VIPA on the hsi0 interface (or to Linux's IP in z/ OS TCPIP). That is indeed one way to connect directly via the HiperSockets (and exactly what's working for Steve as suggested in his note). Adding the static routes via HiperSockets gives you the benefit of not having to make any application changes in order for *all* the Linux-to-z/OS traffic to be sent over HiperSockets -- if that is not what you want, and it's fair enough that you might only want to send certain traffic over HiperSockets, then addressing to the interface gives you control over what traffic will use HiperSockets. IMO, it's probably the only situation where it's okay to use an interface address instead of a VIPA -- if your HiperSockets isn't available you're likely having bigger problems with your system than whether two LPARs can talk to each other! :D It does, however, create a temptation to use one of my pet peeves: hard-coded IP addresses. What happens if you need to change the IP subnet allocated to your HiperSockets? Your applications may all have to change. Make sure to define the interface IP addresses to DNS to minimise the number of changes you might have to make in the future[1]. Then give the apps people the name rather than the IP address -- it's easier for you to change (or arrange to have changed) one DNS entry than for several application people to make possibly dozens of application changes... Thanks so much ... You're welcome! Hope we've been helpful. Cheers, Vic Cross [1] Network folks often have several DNS entries for a single piece of network kit, each different name referring to a different interface (it's easy to come up with a usable naming convention too, like the hostname zephyr would have zephyr-eth0, zephyr-hsi0, and so on). -- 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
