On Friday, 10/27/2006 at 05:47 EST, Dennis Schaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There was some confusion about whether any z/OS systems were sharing the > OSA port with VM during the test; I heard two different answers to the > question. > > So, it seems plausible that SETing the VSWITCH definition to specify > PRIROUTER might have corrected this problem. Its too bad VSWITCH doesn't > support a SECROUTER option similar to TCPIP itself.
Are you saying that you can reach the guests behind your virtual router via another path? (It seems strange to me that you would want data to normally route via some other path rather than directly via the VSWITCH.) If the only path to those guests is via your virtual router, then you MUST be PRIROUTER. The whole concept of PRIROUTER is that the owning OSA is connected to a routing host. You can have your cake or eat it, not both. :-) I keep saying "Do not share OSAs being used by VSWITCHes." (It's not that you can't, it's that you *shouldn't*.) That said, if you don't have VM TCPIP on the VSWITCH, and if you aren't using VLANs, you can change it to TYPE ETHERNET (layer 2). PRIROUTER is not required in that case since packets are routed by MAC address, not IP address. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
