I thought I had an answer, but no. (Hard to test; can’t IPL) Trying to make this clearer.
We currently have a single VIPA and two physical INTERFACE statements, let's say ... INTERFACE VIPALINK1 DEFINE VIRTUAL IPADDR 7.7.7.7 INTERFACE LINK0010 DEFINE IPAQENET PORTNAME T0010 IPADDR 10.1.1.1/29 SOURCEVIPAINT VIPALINK1 ... and INTERFACE LINK0020 DEFINE IPAQENET PORTNAME T0020 IPADDR 10.1.1.2/29 SOURCEVIPAINT VIPALINK1 ... We would like to add a second VIPA, VIPALINK2, very much like the first, except with IPADDR 7.7.7.8. Do I need to create more IPAQENET INTERFACES (with or without new ports) and give them a SOURCEVIPAINT VIPALINK2? Or is there any way to simply use the current existing IPAQENET INTERFACEs and associate them with VIPALINK2? The obvious challenge would be, how would the app/system know which VIPA to use? Fair question. One of my peers suggested that as we expect the traffic would be inbound, it would come in on 7.7.7.8. Further, any session created from inbound 7.7.7.8 should go back out on 7.7.7.8. Beyond the above technical question, some may want to ask why? What is tobe gained. The answeris,multiple applications are using 7.7.7.7 with most unsecured. We intend to require ALL traffic on 7.7.7.8 be AT-TLS encrypted. Then test and migrate apps, independently, on to 7.7.7.8. Thanking in advance, Bob Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 5:22 PM, roscoe5 <[rosc...@protonmail.com](mailto:On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 5:22 PM, roscoe5 <<a href=)> wrote: > Never mind, I figured it out. > As is too often, I was making it more complicated than necessary. > > Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:43 PM, roscoe5 > <[0000056b62686b81-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu](mailto:On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 > at 6:43 PM, roscoe5 <<a href=)> wrote: > >> Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: roscoe5 <rosc...@protonmail.com> >>> Date: On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:39 PM >>> Subject: Fw: Multiple VIPAs >>> To: ibm-m...@listserv.ua.edux <ibm-m...@listserv.ua.edux> >>> Cc: >>> >>> Hello, >>> In our TCP/IP (z/OS 3.1) we define OSA interfaces with IP addresses, and >>> use the SourceVipaInt to refer to a Virtual IP address/interface. That much >>> is working fine. >>> I want to add another VIPA IP Address, where users can continue to use >>> applications on (for example) 7.7.7.7 or get to the same services on the >>> new 7.7.7.8 address. >>> The plan is to use PAgent on the new address and enforce >>> security/encryption. >>> >>> My question is, in the TCPIP Profile configuration, can I assign a native >>> (not virtual) interface to two virtual interfaces (7.7.7.7 and 7.7.7.8)? Or >>> do I need to duplicate the native interfaces with IPAQENET, PORTNAME, >>> IPADDR, etc., and refer these new interfaces to the 7.7.7.8 virtual address? >>> Thanks in advance, >>> Bob >>> >>> Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
