How many systems do you need to connect? A few class Cs is a fair amount of
address space (1 class C is 253 usable addresses), and you can easily
optimize the use of addresses using NAT or a virtual router, etc. IPv6 is an
interesting option, but keep in mind that there will need to be some kind of
On Wednesday, 01/14/2009 at 01:10 EST, "Lionel B. Dyck"
wrote:
> What we are planning is a single hipersocket connection between z/vm and
z/os
> with each linux guest having two IP addresses. One IP address would be
on the
> public side and connected to one guest lan. The other IP address wo
RE: IPv6Unless the latest z/OS has changed philosophies, careful here,
VM and z/OS operate at different IP layers. Not saying it won't work, just
be aware of the difference.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Lionel B. Dyck wrote:
> *All I know is that my network folks tell me they can't give
From:
Ivica Brodaric
To:
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Date:
01/14/2009 10:00 AM
Subject:
Re: Private Subnet for Hipersocket connections
Sent by:
The IBM z/VM Operating System
> All I know is that my network folks tell me they can't give me anything
more
> than a few class 'C'
> All I know is that my network folks tell me they can't give me anything more
> than a few class 'C' subnets and those require justification.
Sounds like a standard, prudent, response from the Networking People -
never give away too much of what you have too easily and never give an
impression of
On Wednesday, 01/14/2009 at 11:57 EST, "Lionel B. Dyck"
wrote:
> The suggestion on using IPV6 sounds interesting. Since the network would
be
> strictly within the CEC between z/vm, linux, and to/from z/os keeping it
'all
> in the family' might be the way to go. Something to look at. Any
a
All I know is that my network folks tell me they can't give me anything
more than a few class 'C' subnets and those require justification.
I will go back and ask again.
The suggestion on using IPV6 sounds interesting. Since the network would
be strictly within the CEC between z/vm, linux, and
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Alan Altmark wrote:
> On Wednesday, 01/14/2009 at 11:30 EST, "Lionel B. Dyck"
> wrote:
>
> > The 14.x.x.x network sounds promising - can anyone confirm that it is
> really
> > available for private usage?
>
> No, it is not. IANA.org shows that it is UNALLOCATED, meanin
On Jan 14, 2009, at 10:43 AM, David Boyes wrote:
This is also why Sun stopped using real addresses in their
documentation
examples. Too many people actually set their systems up to run using
Sun's
actual address space and when they connected to the public Internet,
Extremely Weird Things
> We have used internally much of these private networks
Really? Wow, that's a lot of IP addresses ~(2**24 + 2**20 + 2**16) Fewer
of course with subnetting, but still ...
>> There are three reserved address spaces in RFC 1918 (192.168.x.x,
172.12.x.x, and 10.x.x.x).
So there's even more - 172.1
On 1/14/09 11:32 AM, "Rob van der Heij" wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:17 PM, David Boyes wrote:
>
>> Don't do this. It will cause all sorts of random problems that you'll deeply
>> regret later.
>
> Tee hee hee. The "random" problems are expected when your company gets
> bought by IBM or
If you know that the environment will never need to talk to a specific
subnet, you can overload a subnet, but it¹s a bad idea overall.
If you use it, you will need to insert specific routes in the systems that
use the interconnection. You can insert host routes in a init script so that
it can be d
On Wednesday, 01/14/2009 at 11:30 EST, "Lionel B. Dyck"
wrote:
> The 14.x.x.x network sounds promising - can anyone confirm that it is
really
> available for private usage?
No, it is not. IANA.org shows that it is UNALLOCATED, meaning that they
could allocate it. (Unlikely, and likely onl
On Wednesday, 01/14/2009 at 10:36 EST, "Lionel B. Dyck"
wrote:
> I need to find a subnet that isn't used internally that I can define for
use
> strictly on each individual CEC between z/vm+linux and z/os across a
> hipersocket link. It seems our network folks are using all of the
defined
> p
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:17 PM, David Boyes wrote:
> Don't do this. It will cause all sorts of random problems that you'll deeply
> regret later.
Tee hee hee. The "random" problems are expected when your company gets
bought by IBM or when you outsource your business to IBM since
duplicate IP ad
usage?
Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist
From:
David Boyes
To:
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Date:
01/14/2009 08:17 AM
Subject:
Re: Private Subnet for Hipersocket connections
Sent by:
The IBM z/VM Operating System
Don?t do this. It will cause all sorts of random problems that you?ll
deeply
Don¹t do this. It will cause all sorts of random problems that you¹ll deeply
regret later.
There are three reserved address spaces in RFC 1918 (192.168.x.x,
172.12.x.x, and 10.x.x.x). I strongly doubt they are using all of these
particularly the 172.12 space seems to be rarely used. If you abso
I need to find a subnet that isn't used internally that I can define for
use strictly on each individual CEC between z/vm+linux and z/os across a
hipersocket link. It seems our network folks are using all of the defined
public subnets somewhere within our internal network which precludes using
18 matches
Mail list logo
