Re: Ethernet Bridging

[DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> So would that be a total of 3 lines on the first lpar?  #1-physical 
network bridged to #2-virtual LIND,  and #3-virtual LIND with LPAR#1's 
intended IP address.

Yes!  The first two lines pair up and create the Bridge while the third 
line is the line used for IP on the host partition.

Advanced option is to create an EtherChannel to the switch using two 
physical Ethernet ports and cables. This gives some redundancy and 
additional bandwidth as well. For best redundancy you'd want these to be 
different physical Ethernet adapters as well.


        - Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com
www.iInTheCloud.com

On 8/20/2013 2:39 PM, Mitchell, Dana wrote:

> Thanks Doc!
>
> <Quote>
> You can use just one physical line on the IBM i Host partition and have that bridge to the desired internal VLAN. Then you can put a virtual adapter on the host partition to that VLAN as well. The IP traffic for the host then goes to the internal VLAN and then back out across the bridge.
>
> The bridge itself appears to use virtually no CPU at all as long as you follow IBMs recommendations.
> </Quote>
>
> So would that be a total of 3 lines on the first lpar?  #1-physical network bridged to #2-virtual LIND,  and #3-virtual LIND with LPAR#1's intended IP address.
>
> This would be a good tidbit to include in the article along with IBM's warning of what *not* to do....
>
> Dana
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of DrFranken
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:23 PM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: Re: Ethernet Bridging
>
> First discontinuing the HEA was essentially unintentional. When they got to the point where it was no longer supported they couldn't put it back.
> Besides the HEA had other weird limitations of it's own. Future stuff may fill that gap but it's done now so.....
>
> As to bridging it works great and it's not just for 3 or more LPARs, it works with 2 as well (or actually even 1!) And with the right magic incantations the bridge with allow IBM i to use 802.1Q VLANs too!
>
> As you read, DO NOT put an IP address on the bridge itself. This is bad and will burn CPU especially should you attempt any comm trace. At least IBM lets you, put an address on a bridge in Cisco gear and you shut down the bridge!
>
> Remember it's the bridge operating in promiscuous mode so that it can learn who's on the inside and who's on the outside so it can bridge all 'interesting' packets and ignore the others that causes the issue here.
> Because the adapter is seeing every packet if there is an IP address there then IP gets the packets too and that's a lot of extra work.
>
> You can use just one physical line on the IBM i Host partition and have that bridge to the desired internal VLAN. Then you can put a virtual adapter on the host partition to that VLAN as well. The IP traffic for the host then goes to the internal VLAN and then back out across the bridge.
>
> The bridge itself appears to use virtually no CPU at all as long as you follow IBMs recommendations.
>
>           - Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
>
> www.frankeni.com
> www.iDevCloud.com
> www.iInTheCloud.com