On Tuesday, 02/25/2003 at 10:50ZE12, Vic Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Alan Altmark wrote: > > > You will never be able to ping from your PC to linux03. Your config files > > describe a network that looks like: > > .------. > > |router| > > ---192.168.1 / 24 ----| |=== 192.168.1.120 === LINUX03 > > | (VM) | > > '......' > > The problem is that the machines on the 192.168.1 subnet think that > > Which 192.168.1 subnet? ;-)
Don't be a wise guy! :-) Since the mask is /24, the trailing zero isn't required, and make it more obvious that we are talking about a /24. > > > LINUX03 is on the same LAN segment. How do they know that LINUX03 is > > "behind" 192.168.1.50? Unless you are going to explicitly tell those > > machines that .120 is routed through .50, all attempts by those machines > > to find (via ARP) .120 will fail. > > I suspect that it's not even getting that far. When LINUX03 tries to ping > VM, VM will be trying to send the ICMP replies out the OSA, instead of to > the HiperSockets. Host routes have priority over subnet routes. Without the output from NETSTAT GATE, we have no idea if there were errrors and if the host route was established. > > If you used a point-to-point link (IUCV, virtual CTC), then VM TCP/IP > > could perform Proxy ARP functions to help you, but using a Guest LAN > > prevents that. > > Ok, didn't realise that... So Proxy ARP is not usable at all in this > configuration? Even to hide another network behind VM TCP/IP? Forget > about Proxy ARP a bit longer, then... ;-) Proxy ARP can hide hosts. It cannot hide a network. Ever since Proxy ARP support went in, I've been preaching that it was a quick fix for a problem that would eventually require a network routing solution. Enter, stage right, Guest LANs. Now you have to pay up! :-) Procrastinating doesn't help...my wife is right.... Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
