RE: Virtual Ethernet -- MIDRANGE-L

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.