magined you knew about it already.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 February, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: TCP/IP over Cisco router CIP
> Chris,
>
> It probabl
failure situations is in providing multiple
destination addresses for a particular name. Thus a well-written client
program can try the next address in the list in the structure returned by
the gethostbyname() call if there is a failure on the current address it is
trying. You don't need VIPAs fo
Chris,
It probably looks like I have a seriously broken ALU if I say "4 years ago"
on list and "you were about 3 years ahead of me" in the off-list
email. Faulty memory is probabably more to blame, but I actually had 2
introductions to this issue. The first was when I was first playing with
OSPF
ather closely with what we now have with
Advertise_VIPA_Routes - but it was bound to, being so obvious.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 February, 2006 10:55 PM
Subje
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:45:29 +0100, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>There was an issue with VIPAs and OMPROUTE OSPF dynamic routing. Ideally
it
>should be possible to advertise a VIPA using a "host", single (the VIPA
>itself) address rather than a subnet range. When I examined setting
ssion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:45 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TCP/IP over Cisco router CIP
Hal,
I'm pretty sure you are using VIPA as I would expect but a couple of
clarifications might help.
I think you may
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:34:22 +0100, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Patrick,
>
>Thank you for your response.
>
>I'm not sure you completely understood. I asked about dynamic VIPA and your
>example is for a static VIPA.
Ah yes, you hit the nail on the head, I didn't compeletely understand
n what they have achieved.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick Lyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 February, 2006 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: TCP/IP over Cisco router CIP
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:45:29 +0100,
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:45:29 +0100, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>There was an issue with VIPAs and OMPROUTE OSPF dynamic routing. Ideally it
>should be possible to advertise a VIPA using a "host", single (the VIPA
>itself) address rather than a subnet range. When I examined setting this
ris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Hal Merritt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February, 2006 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: TCP/IP over Cisco router CIP
> Gee, I sure am glad no one told us it could not be done. I have two
>
Kittendorf, Craig wrote:
Our network people and their hired consultant insist that we can not
have multiple IP address on one OSA. The also refer to VIPA as "viper",
maybe because the consultant claimed we were creating "poisoned" routes.
Anyway we do have a VIPA and three OSA-E cards working pe
Hal Merritt wrote:
Gee, I sure am glad no one told us it could not be done. I have two
OSA's servicing five LPARs with 15 'static' IP addresses each and
another dozen VIPA's that wander around.
I want very much to use the third OSA and dynamic routing to eliminate a
single point of failure, bu
Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kittendorf, Craig
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:41 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TCP/IP over Cisco router CIP
Our network people and their hired consultant insist that we can not
have multiple IP address on one OSA. The also r
-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TCP/IP over Cisco router CIP
Craig,
Does this mean that your network people and their hired consultant are
speaking out of sunless regions?
Ah, "split horizon and poisoned reverse". That's RIP stuff isn't it?
Probably your network people should hire a con
iscussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chris Mason
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:57 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: TCP/IP over Cisco router CIP
>
> Neal,
>
> What makes you think that only a CISCO guru might have the answer? As
> far as
perfectly.
I don't understand why 'you "should" be using lots of VIPA' with our one
stack?
Thanks,
Craig
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:57 AM
To: IBM-MA
think
that's what you are saying in a rather more complicated way.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Timothy Sipples" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February, 2006 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: TCP/IP over Cisco router CI
r handshaking
program - tell me that the address I use in the wide, wide world of the
Internet is - currently - 80.2x0.140.74 (obviously slightly disguised).
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Gilmartin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Original Message -
From: "John S. Giltner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February, 2006 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: TCP/IP over Cisco router CIP
> Neal Eckhardt wrote:
> > I hope all of you Cisco Guru's have
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:46:05 -0700, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But this provokes a question: if someone walks into an internet
>cafe with his laptop running z/OS under Flex-ES or MVS 3.8
>under Hercules, can he exploit DHCP to assign a local IP
>address for the OS system? And can
>But this provokes a question: if someone walks into an internet
>cafe with his laptop running z/OS under Flex-ES or MVS 3.8
>under Hercules, can he exploit DHCP to assign a local IP
>address for the OS system? And can an OSA be emulated using
>an 802.11g card?
AFAIK z/OS doesn't have a DHCP clie
In a recent note, John S. Giltner, Jr. said:
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:51:01 -0500
>
> Neal Eckhardt wrote:
> >
> > When our network was upgraded many years ago, the consultant made the
> > unfortunate decision of putting the mainframe on it's own network at
> > address 192.168.1.1 and
Neal Eckhardt wrote:
I hope all of you Cisco Guru's have a good answer for me.
When our network was upgraded many years ago, the consultant made the
unfortunate decision of putting the mainframe on it's own network at
address 192.168.1.1 and as we all know, that address conflicts with
just abou
23 matches
Mail list logo
