FYI, IBM took requirement MR051355 on this issue. VSWITCHes should drop
duplicate IP's, like real switches do. Indeed, the way OSA's do.
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf
Of Mark Wheeler
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSE
On Monday, 05/02/2011 at 11:48 EDT, Mark Wheeler
wrote:
> The situation is that the IPs were registered on one VSWITCH, and passed
on to
> real switches in the external network. Later, another host registered
the same
> IPs on a different VSWITCH, which failed to pass them on to the external
.162 are dups.
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 10:53:54 -0500
From: dbo...@sinenomine.net
Subject: Re: Duplicate IPs on VSWITCHes - Feature or Defect
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
The situation is that the IPs were registered on one VSWITCH, and passed on to
real switches in the external network
The situation is that the IPs were registered on one VSWITCH, and passed on to
real switches in the external network. Later, another host registered the same
IPs on a different VSWITCH, which failed to pass them on to the external
network (rejected because they were dups). The 2nd VSWITCH detect
were dups). The 2nd VSWITCH detected this error,
but retained the IPs (for itself) anyway. The question is whether the 2nd
VSWITCH should have retained them given it knew they were dups.
Mark
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 10:32:30 -0500
From: dbo...@sinenomine.net
Subject: Re: Duplicate I
Are these layer 2 or layer 3? If layer 2, then they are (and should be) paying
zero attention to the IP address. Layer 2 cares only about MAC addresses.
Layer 3 is more subtle. Technically a real switch should attempt only to insert
the address in the forwarding table and then the latest entry wi
