Re: TCP/IP anomality
I may not answer your question, but I can show you what we have with three OSA-2 cards: HOME xxx.yyy.225.131 VIPA1 xxx.yyy.225.2 OSA4 xxx.yyy.225.3 OSA5 xxx.yyy.225.4 OSA6 BEGINRoutes ROUTE xxx.yyy.225.0 255.255.255.0 = OSA4 MTU 1500 ROUTE xxx.yyy.225.0 255.255.255.0 = OSA5 MTU 1500 ROUTE xxx.yyy.225.0 255.255.255.0 = OSA6 MTU 1500 ROUTE DEFAULT xxx.yyy.225.1 OSA4 MTU 1500 ROUTE DEFAULT xxx.yyy.225.1 OSA5 MTU 1500 ROUTE DEFAULT xxx.yyy.225.1 OSA6 MTU 1500 ENDRoutes I also specify SourceVIPA. Don't know if that helps, Craig -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Itschak Mugzach Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: TCP/IP anomality Good Morning, Our MF is equipped with two OSA cards. The following devices are defined: Vipa, card1 and card2. The Beginroutes statement defines some static routes, all of them, except one, uses card2. The default route is also pointing to card2. There is one route statement that defines a static route to card1. MVS is 1.4. The abnormality is that if card2 is defined under the vipa, it is not accessed and traceroute shows that tcp/ip does know the route to the device (tries 1*, 2* etc). If this card is removed from the VIPA, placed before, TCPIP access the device. We started to implement VIPA and we have a mixed environment where some connections use the VIPA address and some uses card2 address. We plan to fully implement VIPA, but until then want to solve that behavior. I hope I explained myself... Any idea what happens, and why? Thanks for your help. Itschak -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: TCP/IP anomality
Something to consider that inbound and outbound traffic are two completely different things. There is no concept of a 'session'. Here is my understanding: VIPA only sets an address for inbound traffic. As a logical entity, it is not tied to any physical device. Packets addressed to the VIPA IP address will be accepted from anywhere. Outbound traffic requires some sort of routing statement which includes the physical device to use. VIPA is not relevant in this direction. I don't understand your statement '... card2 is defined under the vipa ...'. Of course, my understanding may be flawed. HTH and good luck. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Itschak Mugzach Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: TCP/IP anomality Good Morning, Our MF is equipped with two OSA cards. The following devices are defined: Vipa, card1 and card2. The Beginroutes statement defines some static routes, all of them, except one, uses card2. The default route is also pointing to card2. There is one route statement that defines a static route to card1. MVS is 1.4. The abnormality is that if card2 is defined under the vipa, it is not accessed and traceroute shows that tcp/ip does know the route to the device (tries 1*, 2* etc). If this card is removed from the VIPA, placed before, TCPIP access the device. We started to implement VIPA and we have a mixed environment where some connections use the VIPA address and some uses card2 address. We plan to fully implement VIPA, but until then want to solve that behavior. I hope I explained myself... Any idea what happens, and why? Thanks for your help. Itschak -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: TCP/IP anomality
Interesting. I keep running across this statement in the IP doc: Only one default route to a destination gateway or router can be specified. Confusing. So many options. So few brain cells. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Kittendorf Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:47 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: TCP/IP anomality I may not answer your question, but I can show you what we have with three OSA-2 cards: HOME xxx.yyy.225.131 VIPA1 xxx.yyy.225.2 OSA4 xxx.yyy.225.3 OSA5 xxx.yyy.225.4 OSA6 BEGINRoutes ROUTE xxx.yyy.225.0 255.255.255.0 = OSA4 MTU 1500 ROUTE xxx.yyy.225.0 255.255.255.0 = OSA5 MTU 1500 ROUTE xxx.yyy.225.0 255.255.255.0 = OSA6 MTU 1500 ROUTE DEFAULT xxx.yyy.225.1 OSA4 MTU 1500 ROUTE DEFAULT xxx.yyy.225.1 OSA5 MTU 1500 ROUTE DEFAULT xxx.yyy.225.1 OSA6 MTU 1500 ENDRoutes I also specify SourceVIPA. Don't know if that helps, Craig -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
