, January 07, 2011 1:47 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z10, z/VM 5.4 and OSA Express 3
On Thursday, 01/06/2011 at 09:46 EST, "Hughes, Jim"
wrote:
> Would we be able to put 2 IODEVICE statements following one controller
and use
> different channel addresses on them?
>
On Thursday, 01/06/2011 at 09:46 EST, "Hughes, Jim"
wrote:
> Would we be able to put 2 IODEVICE statements following one controller
and use
> different channel addresses on them?
>
> Would be valid to define address E000-E00F on one IODEVICE statement and
> addresses C010-C01F on the other a
V.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z10, z/VM 5.4 and OSA Express 3
I do all of my IOGEN work from z/OS so my answer is partly base on z/OS HCD.
I defined two control units on the one channel. The first control unit had 8
devices and the second has another 8 devices.
Control
ughes
x5586
"It is fun to do the impossible." Quote from Walt Disney
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Alan Altmark
Sent: Thu 1/6/2011 5:54 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z10, z/VM 5.4 and OSA Express 3
On Thursday, 01/06/20
-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of Hughes, Jim
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 4:37 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: z10, z/VM 5.4 and OSA Express 3
We have a new Z10 with 2 four port OSA Express 3 cards and 1 two port
OSA Express cards.
I am
On Thursday, 01/06/2011 at 05:42 EST, "Hughes, Jim"
wrote:
> We have a new Z10 with 2 four port OSA Express 3 cards and 1 two port
> OSA Express cards.
The two-port card is an OSA Express 2.
> I am a little confused about the IOCP for these devices.
>
> I am reading t
We have a new Z10 with 2 four port OSA Express 3 cards and 1 two port
OSA Express cards.
I am a little confused about the IOCP for these devices.
I am reading the IOCP manual and I am a little confused about having two
ports on a card.
Would I define one CNTLUNIT and one IODEVICE for each pair
On Monday, 07/12/2010 at 01:55 EDT, "Frank M. Ramaekers"
wrote:
> And this cannot be changed via Dynamic I/O reconfiguration? (Requires
> an IOCP update and an activation.)
I don't know why not. Remove the chpid from all LPARs and then add it
again with the new type. (I don't think you can
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: OSA-Express hardware configuration
On Monday, 07/12/2010 at 12:42 EDT, "Frank M. Ramaekers"
wrote:
> What determines a GBE or 1000Base-t as far as OSC, OSD or OSE. Does
the IOCP
> or is there something in the HMC/SE that configures t
On Monday, 07/12/2010 at 12:42 EDT, "Frank M. Ramaekers"
wrote:
> What determines a GBE or 1000Base-t as far as OSC, OSD or OSE. Does
the IOCP
> or is there something in the HMC/SE that configures these?
The chpid type in the IOCP determines the operating mode of the OSA. The
OSA Advanced
What determines a GBE or 1000Base-t as far as OSC, OSD or OSE. Does
the IOCP or is there something in the HMC/SE that configures these?
Frank M. Ramaekers Jr.
Systems Programmer
MCP, MCP+I, MCSE & RHCE
American Income Life Insurance Co.
Phone: (254)761-6649
1200 Wooded Acres Dr.
Fax
David,
Thank you for the response and the info. I will review the Red Alert and
apply the PTF.
Regards,
Steve.
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:49 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: OSA Express
We are new to running zVM 5.4 and have Red Hat zLinux as guest machines.
We are using OSA Express 3. Two OSAs on different chpids and on differen
t
NIC addresses. We separated the two OSA because we wan
We are new to running zVM 5.4 and have Red Hat zLinux as guest machines.
We are using OSA Express 3. Two OSAs on different chpids and on differen
t
NIC addresses. We separated the two OSA because we want the primary OSA
to be used only for production traffic and the secondary OSA for
tion problem,
> esp since both z/OS see the "random errors".
> What does IBM say?
>
>
> Marcy
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Pace
> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> 04/26/2010 11:11 AM
> Please respond to
> The IBM z/VM Operating System
>
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
VSWITCH & OSA-Express 3
Can you run both a Layer 2 vswitch and a Layer 3 vswitch in a z/VM LPAR
using the same OSA-Express 3 port on a z10? Obviously different real
addresses, but on the same OSA port.
I've read the OSA-Express Customer?s Guide and Referen
Subject
Re: VSWITCH & OSA-Express 3
Bill -
are 643 & 613 on the same OSA port? It appears that your Layer 3
fail-over address and Layer 2 are on the same port, but not your Layer 3
primary addresses.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Bill Munson
wrote:
here is our Sys Config
EV 613 ETHERNET
>
> good luck
>
> munson
> 201-418-7588
>
>
>
>
> Mark Pace
> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> 04/26/2010 11:11 AM
> Please respond to
> The IBM z/VM Operating System
>
>
> To
> IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> cc
>
>
VSWITCH VM3AWTCH RDEV 613 ETHERNET
good luck
munson
201-418-7588
Mark Pace
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
04/26/2010 11:11 AM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
VSWITCH & OSA-Express 3
Can you run both a Layer 2 vswitch a
Can you run both a Layer 2 vswitch and a Layer 3 vswitch in a z/VM LPAR
using the same OSA-Express 3 port on a z10? Obviously different real
addresses, but on the same OSA port.
I've read the OSA-Express Customer’s Guide and Reference and I'm confused.
>From the system config
D
10:42 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: OSA EXPRESS ERROR
Message: IPL605E Unable to Initialize IJBOSA, return code:122
Message: IPL609E Unable to initialize OSA Express, Link: VSE1
Try to schedule an outage for a hour and perform:
1. Re-catalog your OSA VSE definitions
Message: IPL605E Unable to Initialize IJBOSA, return code:122
Message: IPL609E Unable to initialize OSA Express, Link: VSE1
Try to schedule an outage for a hour and perform:
1. Re-catalog your OSA VSE definitions.
2. Reseed the OSA card by the CE
3. IML to re-sense the
]
Ed Martin
330-588-4723
ext 40441
From: Jablonski, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:29 AM
To: Edward M. Martin
Subject: RE: OSA EXPRESS ERROR
Yes both are offline what is the command to place back online
John Jablonski
The only catch will be if there are different addresses defined for the
CPA that map to different LU groups. The DIAL solution won't allow you
to simulate that capability w/o a small CP mod to allow DIAL to start at
a particular SPECIAL address and seek upward from a specific vaddr. That
mod may ha
great ideas one and all. The clients are presented with a ussmsg10
selection screen with a choice of about 8 or so VTAM apps; 1 goes to
z/VM the others out to SNA land. So the MSG10 screen will have to be
presentned to the users when SCEXIT DIALs VTAM.
David
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Monday, 10/3
Ethernet Copper card Generated on IOCP as OSE, and use OSA/SF to configure in SNA mode, Will have high cpu's than 7200 offload, but can work, osa will appear as XCA on VTAM.
Regards
The IBM z/VM Operating System wrote on 10/30/2006 01:25:04 PM:
> > You don't, not directly. To transport SNA tra
On Monday, 10/30/2006 at 02:38 CST, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've chatted with the client aome more and have a better idea of what's
> actually happening
> 1) an end user TN3270s to a specific IP address,
Ah. Now that's a horse of a different color. This is the old-style
"TN
> > If all they're doing is tn3270 traffic to a VTAM application
> > solicitor, convert it to using DIAL VTAM in the VM TELNET
> > connection exit. There will be a slight increase in host CPU
> > utilization (the main point of using the CPA tn3270 server was
> > to offload the IP stack cycles outsi
I've chatted with the client aome more and have a better idea of what's
actually happening
1) an end user TN3270s to a specific IP address,
2) the Cisco router then connects the TN3270 cleint to a VTAM Netview
Access Services application (NVAS) [The magic incantation "VTAM LST" was
also h
> You don't, not directly. To transport SNA traffic over an IP
> network requires Enterprise Extender (EE) aka High Performance
> Routing/IP (HPR/IP) technology. This service is provided for VM
> and VSE by IBM Communications Server for Linux. It can talk to
> other EE implementations.
Alan:
The
> If all they're doing is tn3270 traffic to a VTAM application
> solicitor, convert it to using DIAL VTAM in the VM TELNET
> connection exit. There will be a slight increase in host CPU
> utilization (the main point of using the CPA tn3270 server was
> to offload the IP stack cycles outside the hos
> Here's some more detailsthe end users TN3270 to a
> specific IP address and are presented with a VTAM
> application selection menu; from there they can select which
> system and application they want to connect to. Some of
> these applications are in fact on the z/VM box itself,
> others are
A SNA card approach
that David B. suggests. Does anyone have any opinions on
which would work better?
Many thanks for all the responses; I appreciate it. Have a
good one.
DJ
- Original Message Follows -
From: Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re:
o VTAM running 0on the
> z/VM system.
>
> How can I replace that functionality with an OSA-Express
> card on a z9-BC processor?
You don't, not directly. To transport SNA traffic over an IP network
requires Enterprise Extender (EE) aka High Performance Routing/IP (HPR/IP)
techno
At a client site, they currently have a Cisco 7200 box
attached to a z/VM system...the Cisco box takes IP traffic
from the external network and converts it to SNA style
packets, which it then hands off to VTAM running 0on the
z/VM system.
How can I replace that functionality with an OSA-Express
Thank you all for your help I really really appreciate it!!
Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Altmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: VSWITCH on Shared OSA-Express
On Tuesday, 07/25/2006 at 04:36 AST, Rob
On Tuesday, 07/25/2006 at 04:36 AST, Rob Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Under what situations would an OSA-Express used for a VSWITCH
configuration
> be a PriRouter? The CP Commands manual states, "PRIrouter... will act
as a
> primary router to the virtual switch&q
Under what situations would an OSA-Express used for a VSWITCH configuration
be a PriRouter? The CP Commands manual states, "PRIrouter... will act as a
primary router to the virtual switch". I'm not much of a network guy but
it seems as though the OSA is pretty "du
On Tuesday, 07/25/2006 at 02:52 EST, Brian Nielsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, if you have the OSA addresses defined you can use them to share the
> physical OSA port. I've done this with multiple vswitches, the VM TCPIP
> stack, Linux guests, and 2nd level VM guests. However, you are limi
2006 15:38:08 -0400, Rob Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I currently have an OSA-Express port used soley by a z/VM 5.1 TCPIP stac
k
using QDIO. The user directory entry for this machine has DEDICATE
statements (for the OSA-Express). My OSD DEV/LINK definition
specificies &quo
Rob: Yes this will work. The vswitch will end up on the same network as
your other stacks on the same osa port. As long as this is tolerable
you will be just fine.
David
Rob Schwartz wrote:
I currently have an OSA-Express port used soley by a z/VM 5.1 TCPIP
stack using QDIO. The user
I currently have an OSA-Express port used soley by a z/VM 5.1
TCPIP stack using QDIO. The user directory entry for this machine has
DEDICATE statements (for the OSA-Express). My OSD DEV/LINK definition
specificies "PRIROUTER". I do all my routing to Linux guests through the
TC
--- Richard Troth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've heard C referred to as a glorified assembler.
Ric (or should it be Rich its been a long time)
When I was first introduced to "C" I thought that it
was great.
Firstly, if you were a beginer you could make all the
mistakes that you make in high
On Thursday, 07/20/2006 at 12:40 EST, Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the extent that large parts of the VM TCP/IP stack are written in C,
the
> exposure exists. I'm
> sure that IBM is well aware of this, and I hope they have found and
plugged all
> such holes, but there can be n
bly in C.
-- R,
Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by:
The IBM z/VM
Operating System
07/20/2006 01:40 AM
Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating
System
From
Alan Ackerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: OSA Express, ZVM TCPIP,
an
ET (Eric Thomas, the author of the Revised LISTSERV) told me on VMSHARE m
any, many years ago
that the underlying cause of most buffer overruns is the C language. The
basic concept of moving
characters until you find a x'00' (or CR or LF) will ALWAYS lead to buffe
r overruns. (A number of
the b
On Thursday, 07/06/2006 at 04:21 MST, Dave Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- "Hughes, Jim - OIT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Should I be concerned with buffer overrun security
> > exposures?
>
> Despite what others say I personally have seen buffer
> run security exposures in the VSCS SNA c
--- "Hughes, Jim - OIT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the management types near me is concerned
> about TCPIP "buffer
> overrun security exposure" on our ZVM 5.2 Z890
> system.
>
> I am not an expert with windows and linux tcpip
> security exposures. The
> management type is windows and l
ly 05, 2006 5:11 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: OSA Express, ZVM TCPIP, and Security
What's wrong with the truth? Mainframe code was written
by professionals in an architecture that doesn't support
such nonsense?
>From: Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PRO
> David,
> Now you just need to re-write this in manager-speak, so it can be
given
> to the suits in a language they understand.
> :-)
Demonstration of the suggested proof is left as an exercise to the
reader.
8-)
David Boyes
Sine Nomine Associates
What's wrong with the truth? Mainframe code was written
by professionals in an architecture that doesn't support
such nonsense?
>From: Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On 7/6/06, Schuh, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You want him to say that VM TCPIP has a built-in firewall
On 7/6/06, Schuh, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You want him to say that VM TCPIP has a built-in firewall or some such?
It would probably also be fair to say the VM TCP/IP code was written
well before this bug was introduced...about the same logic as
applying a PTF early "before it be
Subject:Re: OSA Express, ZVM TCPIP, and Security
On: Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 04:15:04PM -0400,David Boyes Wrote:
} > One of the management types near me is concerned about TCPIP "buffer
} > overrun security exposure" on our ZVM 5.2 Z890 system.
} > Should I be concerned with buff
On: Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 04:15:04PM -0400,David Boyes Wrote:
} > One of the management types near me is concerned about TCPIP "buffer
} > overrun security exposure" on our ZVM 5.2 Z890 system.
} > Should I be concerned with buffer overrun security exposures? If I
} > should not be concerned, how
> One of the management types near me is concerned about TCPIP "buffer
> overrun security exposure" on our ZVM 5.2 Z890 system.
> Should I be concerned with buffer overrun security exposures? If I
> should not be concerned, how would I go about giving comfort to the
> concerned management types?
Hughes, Jim - OIT wrote:
One of the management types near me is concerned about TCPIP "buffer overrun security exposure" on our ZVM 5.2 Z890 system.
Ask them which vendor's TCP/IP stack has this vulnerability they're
asking about. Microsoft? Sun? HP?
I am not an expert with windows and
One of the management types near me is concerned about TCPIP "buffer
overrun security exposure" on our ZVM 5.2 Z890 system.
I am not an expert with windows and linux tcpip security exposures. The
management type is windows and linux fluent.
Should I be concerned with buffer overrun security exp
57 matches
Mail list logo
