RE: Virtual Ethernet

["Bradley V. Stone" <bvstone@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think a tracert would help much to determine the path it's taking,
as it will probably be only one hop either way.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ingvaldson, Scott
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:00 AM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: RE: Virtual Ethernet
>
>
> 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.