Frank,
I had 7 VSE's that originally each had a dedicated OSA and changed all of
them to use a single VSWITCH. I never saw a OSA capacity problem. In fact I
saw some improvement, probably because a) all OSA ports went to the same
network switch, and b) a fair amount of traffic was VSE to VSE, now that
never hits the OSA ports, just the VSWITCH. Plus I gained the failover
feature. Also I did not connect my VM TCPIP stack to the VSWITCH.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Alan Altmark <alan_altm...@us.ibm.com>wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11/11/2009 at 04:31 EST, "Frank M. Ramaekers"
> <framaek...@ailife.com> wrote:
> > That's great, if I was wanting to rework the entire mainframe network.
> > My plans were just to route any intra-mainframe IP traffic onto a
> > VSwitch and leave all of the external communication to the current
> > method(s) (dedicated OSA). (You know the adage KISS).
> >
> > I do like the redundancy with VSWITCH with multiple OSAs though. (Maybe
> > sometime in the future.)
>
> As a side note, did you discuss with your Network People first? To do
> what you want with VM TCP/IP means creation of another IP subnet and
> addresses and, possibly, the use of VIPA. That depends on whether or not
> you care about what IP address VM TCP/IP uses as an origin IP on outbound
> packets.
>
> Yes, reconfiguring network flows can be a non-trivial effort. That's why
> they deserve some thought before you deploy. Rule #1 of virtual
> networking: Never EVER make virtual network configuration changes without
> the express [written, preferably] approval of the Networking People. Just
> "peeling off" the packets to a particular host is easily done, but the
> ramifications of doing so are glued to the Law of Unintended Consequences.
> ("What? I need VIPA just to do *that*? That means MPROUTE!")
>
> Alan Altmark
> z/VM Development
> IBM Endicott
>
