I'm impressed that you have it intermittently working. I've never gotten a Hipersocket connection in z/OS as a VM guest to work. One of my colleagues is working with IBM on this problem.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:45 PM, O'Brien, Dennis L < dennis.l.o'br...@bankofamerica.com <dennis.l.o%27br...@bankofamerica.com>>wrote: > We're starting to test hipersockets between Linux guests on z/VM and z/OS > systems in separate LPAR's. z/OS is having intermittent trouble pinging one > of the four Linux guests, but is fine with the other three. All four Linux > guests have no trouble pinging z/OS. Someone suggested that the device > addresses used have to be unique among all the LPAR's. E.g. if z/OS in LPAR > 1 allocates FC00-FC02, then I shouldn't allocate real FC00-FC02 on z/VM in > LPAR 2 to a Linux guest, but should start with FC03 or FC04. I've never > heard of such a restriction, and the source of the advice is suspect. Is > there such a restriction? I found a Redbook, "e-Business Intelligence: Data > Mart Solutions with DB2 for Linux on zSeries", SG24-6294-00, that used the > same addresses on z/OS in one LPAR and a Linux guest in another LPAR. Note > that the z/OS TCP/IP configuration doesn't specify UCB's, just CHPID > numbers, but z/OS allocates the lowest three UCB's on the CHPID. > > If the device addresses aren't the problem, what else should I look at? > The TCP/IP configurations on the Linux guests are identical, except of > course for the IP address. The intermittently-working guest has an IP > address that ends in ".1". I know that ".1" addresses are customarily used > for routers, but there are no routers in this configuration. > > Dennis O'Brien > > My computer beat me at chess, but it was no match for me in kickboxing. > -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems 1700 Summit Lake Drive Tallahassee, FL. 32317
