John Yes, it's confusing but then it's IBM!
The DYNAMICXCF parameter of the IPCONFIG statement was originally set up as a way of creating an interface connected to a sort of "LAN switch" managed by the sysplex logic so that an interface in a Communications Server (CS) IP instance in one sysplex member LPAR can connect to a CS IP instance in another sysplex member LPAR using just one IP address per instance. However it has been extended to cover two other situations: 1. Interfaces to connect a CS IP instance to another CS IP instance running within the same LPAR (IUTSAMEH)[1] 2. Interfaces to connect a CS IP instance running within the one LPAR to another CS IP instance running within another LPAR within the same physical machine aka Central Electronic Complex (CEC) (HiperSockets) In neither of these cases is the "XCF" part of the name "DYNAMICXCF" relevant, hence the confusion. Continuing with the "LAN switch" concept: in 1 the "switch" is managed by the CS IP instances working together with the z/OS image within the LPAR; in 2 the "switch" is managed by the HiperSockets logic. You can confirm the various uses of the DYNAMICXCF parameter of the IPCONFIG statement in the following CS IP Configuration Guide sections: - "HiperSockets concepts and connectivity" in Chapter 2, "IP configuration overview" - "Dynamic XCF" in Chapter 8, "TCP/IP in a sysplex" You should go carefully through the whole of the second reference in order to find examples of exactly what the DYNAMICXCF parameter of the IPCONFIG statement does in various configurations. It is only at the end of this section that HiperSockets is covered. - The CS SNA component, that is VTAM, has remained true to the strict meaning of XCF, as it were, since allows for the automatic creation of connections only within a sysplex. Thus, in order to get the benefit of HiperSockets, you are obliged to set up SNA connections using Enterprise Extender definitions. Chris Mason [1] Actually this may not have been so much an "extension" as also having been provided originally. Perhaps some alert participant can confirm or deny this. On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:51:15 -0700, John Au <john...@paccar.com> wrote: >Chris, > >I thought dynamicxcf would not work when connecting from 2 separate base >sysplexes. I been attempting to connect using TRLE definitions via MPC >and local major nodes for each LPAR without any luck. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On >Behalf Of Chris Mason >Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 12:59 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >Subject: Re: Configuring APPN using Hipersockets > >John > >Yes - you are obliged to use Enterprise Extender. In the Communications >Server IP component, you should rely on the IPCONFIG statement >DYNAMICXCF parameter in order to establish IP interfaces to >HiperSockets. > >If you need sample for setting up Enterprise Extender, please post >again. > >If you do post again, please say more about your configuration. > >Chris Mason > >On Mon, 18 May 2009 12:43:59 -0500, John Au <john...@paccar.com> >wrote: > >>Is there a way to connect APPN Network Nodes on separate LPARs and >>separate base sysplexes within the same CEC using Hipersockets? If so, >are >>there some sample configurations, I can take a look at. Everything >I've tried >>gets me to a status of "Pending request connections". Any info on this >would >>be most appreciated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
