When I was installing and testing on z/VM 5.2 in a guest I used supernetting of class C addresses in the z/VM 5.2 guest's TCPIP stack. There was a problem getting TCPIP to accept the supernetting syntax and I openned a PMR. APAR PK18025 (PTF UK11188) was created to resolve the problem. Without this APAR I got an error message on the TCPIP console:
DTCPRS158E Line 75: Subnet Mask specified on GATEWAY statement is not valid or DTCPAR123I Line 75: Unknown link name in GATEWAY cmd depending on which supernetting syntax I was using. I don't use supernetting anymore, but once the syntax was accepted it did work for me. Brian Nielsen On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:05:39 -0600, Tom Duerbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We have a supernet defined on z/VM 5.1. >I have been installing z/VM 5.2 on second level and had a lot of >problems getting the TCP/IP portion to work. Eventually, we downgraded >the second level system to a single class C network. Great, that gets >me going again. > >Then, last night, it dawned on me that this isn't a first level/second >level problem. z/VM 5.2 seems to have some problems in the supernet >arena. > >So, is there anyone out there, that is running z/VM 5.2 with >supernetting? > >This is really only for planning/scheduling. I have the next two >weekends that are possible conversion weekends. Then comes Christmas >weekend and New Years weekend, which may, or may not be good conversion >weekends. > >I expect to get some maintenance related to this problem before we go >into production. But I started wondering if it was just how I was >specifying a supernet, or if supernets in general, just wasn't tested >sufficiently. > >Obviously, once we get this fixed, I'll have to do a lot more testing >in order to get my confidence up. I also have several projects that I >delayed for the 5.2 conversion, that I may need to reschedule for prior >to 5.2 conversion. > >Oh well, fun times. > >Tom Duerbusch >THD Consulting >======================== ========================= ========================
