David - thanks - that is my fear that using the 9.x.x.x would cause problems thus the reason for asking.
We have used internally much of these private networks due to medical and lab equipment. The 14.x.x.x network sounds promising - can anyone confirm that it is really available for private usage? Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist From: David Boyes <dbo...@sinenomine.net> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date: 01/14/2009 08:17 AM Subject: Re: Private Subnet for Hipersocket connections Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> Don?t do this. It will cause all sorts of random problems that you?ll deeply regret later. There are three reserved address spaces in RFC 1918 (192.168.x.x, 172.12.x.x, and 10.x.x.x). I strongly doubt they are using all of these ? particularly the 172.12 space seems to be rarely used. If you absolutely must use another space, 14.x.x.x was originally allocated to MERIT internal infrastructure, and was historically available for internal networks (in fact it was hardcoded into the IBM stack for a while long long ago), but you would be better off if you could use the 172 space. On 1/14/09 10:31 AM, "Lionel B. Dyck" <lionel.b.d...@kp.org> wrote: I need to find a subnet that isn't used internally that I can define for use strictly on each individual CEC between z/vm+linux and z/os across a hipersocket link. It seems our network folks are using all of the defined public subnets somewhere within our internal network which precludes using any of those for use within the CEC. Someone suggested using the IBM subnet (9.x.x.x) but I can not find any doc that 'blesses' such a use.
