× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  1.  Home
  2. MIDRANGE-L
  3. January 2008

Re: Virtual Ethernet

If you use addresses that are not in your "regular" network address range, then using 255.255.255.0 as your subnet mask is the easiest. Not wanting to getinto a whole subnet mask tutorial, this means you could have 255 hosts 1 to 254)

so if you use my example:

Address Mask Description Type
1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 ETHLINEV *ELAN

and on the other host

Address Mask Description Type
1.1.1.2 255.255.255.0 ETHLINEV *ELAN


These are actual examples on my LPAR'd system.

You will not need a routeing entry

I just add some host table entries:


Address Name
1.1.1.1 P0
1.1.1.2 P1

Bryan


Ingvaldson, Scott said the following on 1/21/2008 11:29 AM:
I can try that, but Subnet Masks confuse me. What can I use that will
make ADDTCPRTE happy?

I'm not sure how much growth to plan for, we have 4 LPARs now, but there
is potential for more and I'd like to plan for 32 to be on the safe
side.

Regards,

Scott Ingvaldson
Senior IBM Support Specialist
Fiserv Midwest


-----Original Message-----
From: bryan dietz [mailto:bdietz400@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:05 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethernet

I would try using an IP address range for the v-ethernet that is not
close to your regular network.

ie. if you have 192.168.x.x for regular incoming traffic try a
10.x.x.xaddress for the internal v-ethernet.

I have even used 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2 for the two partitions v-ethernet.

Bryan


On Jan 21, 2008 10:59 AM, Ingvaldson, Scott
<scott.ingvaldson@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I'm "assuming" that's what is happening, but I'm not sure exacly how to prove it, short of a trace and I'm thinking that this should not be

that hard to solve. I can ping the 192.168 addresses from either LPAR

but not from any network attached workstations (which is what I would
expect.) I set up host table entries to point to the 198.162 addresses and tried to set up a route to force the outgoing traffic to

the virtual ethernet line, but could not due to msgTCP264F - SUBNETMASK parameter value not valid, RC0006 - The route does not have

a subnet mask that masks the corresponding one bits in the host portion of the route destination.

The LPAR IP addresses are configured as 192.168.10.xxx and I have tried subnet masks of 255.255.255.0, 255.255.0.0 and 255.255.254.0.

Regards,

Scott Ingvaldson
Senior IBM Support Specialist
Fiserv Midwest


-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Helgren [mailto:Pete@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:41 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethernet

Any chance it is routing the long way around? I don't know how your network is configured but I had one customer that was using the "external" ports rather than the V-lan. I think we added some routing

entries but I don't exactly remember. Use traceroute to see if the route is OK?

Pete Helgren

Ingvaldson, Scott wrote:
I'm trying to get virtual ethernet connectivity set up between LPARs

on a 550 here. We need to do a daily transfer of a 60 GB library between LPARs.

I created the resources and lines, gave them IP addresses,
(192.168.10.xxx) varied them on and got them talking. Unfortunately

it doesn't seem any faster than it was before.

This is the LIND on both sides:

CRTLINETH LIND(VRTETH01) RSRCNAME(CMN13) ONLINE(*YES) +
VRYWAIT(*NOWAIT) MAXCTL(40) ADPTADR(*ADPT) +
EXCHID(0569D5FF) ETHSTD(*ALL) LINESPEED(1G) DUPLEX(*FULL) +
MAXFRAME(8996) SSAP((04 1496 *SNA)(12 1496 *NONSNA)(AA +
8996 *NONSNA)(C8 1496 *HPR)) THRESHOLD(*OFF) +
GENTSTFRM(*YES) LINKSPEED(*MAX) COSTCNN(0) COSTBYTE(0) +
SECURITY(*NONSECURE) PRPDLY(*LAN) USRDFN1(128) +
USRDFN2(128) USRDFN3(128) AUTOCRTCTL(*YES) +
AUTODLTCTL(1440) CMNRCYLMT(2 5) MSGQ(*SYSVAL) +
TEXT('Virtual Ethernet')

An FTP using the new interface gave me this:
59497012608 bytes transferred in 4442.494 seconds. Transfer rate
13392.705 KB/sec.

That's 74 minutes for 60 GB, is that a reasonable speed over virtual

ethernet? I can save it to tape faster than that.

Regards,

Scott Ingvaldson
Senior IBM Support Specialist
Fiserv Midwest

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.





As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
Replies:
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.