On Thursday, 10/13/2005 at 02:34 EST, Tom Duerbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, my requests to the networking group for some networking changes, > ended up being sent to a "level 3 guru". At least I could find some > common terms with networking, but this guy is speaking gibberish<G>. > > > I wasn't paying attention to the IP addresses I've now been assigned, so > I let this one slip thru. They gave me 192.168.192/22. Huh?
22-bit mask: 255.255.252.0 > I get the impression that the mainframe now own: > > 192.168.192.x > 192.168.193.x > 192.168.194.x > 192.168.195.x > > So, a thousand addresses should be sufficient<G>. Actually, I made so > many requests that they may be confused. So I'm accepting them and > trying to do things in a piece meal fashion. Hopefully you can live within those limits! :-) > Anyway, in z/VM 5.1, I need a subnet mask and subnet value for this. It > doesn't seem simple. This VM image will have 192.168.193.3. My initial > guess is a subnet mask of 0.0.255.0 and a subnet value of 0.0.3.0 but > that didn't work in my first test. (At this point I don't know if the > "level 3 guy" made the changes correctly or if I didn't make the changes > right. (Right now, this is on the unused IFL side, so I have time for > testing.) Eventually, I'll put in VM's vswitch for support of the Linux > images. VM TCP/IP config = 0.0.252.0 0.0.192.0 > Background: > > They are not going to be routed. > They are part of a virtual lan assigned to the mainframe. > They are "seg 3". I don't know if that is a term, or a label, like > "third segment" or what. It is the name of the IEEE VLAN in the physical switch. > What I wanted: > > We have 2 OSA card, each with 2 GBE ports. > We have a 390 engine and an IFL. > I see a 390 lpar plus multiple IFL lpars (all running under z/VM images). > A linux image may be IPL'ed in any of the lpars (so a LPAR can be taken > down for maintenance). > I wanted all IP addresses to be available on any of the 4 GBE fibers. This is a case where different VSWITCHes can share an OSA even when VLANs are in use. > So I think that is the virtual LAN that networking setup. Hence they > don't need to do routing. I think that is good. Yes!! Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
