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.