Author |
Message
|
bruce2359 |
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 9409 Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
System Admins have copied the entire file system from one server to the other and changed the DNS IP address. |
The entire filesystem from / root - which means the complete o/s, too? Copied it to identical hardware and drivers? _________________ I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fjb_saper |
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003 Posts: 20700 Location: LI,NY
|
That extract on the MF error logs looked awfully like an IP V6 address. You are aware of course that IP V6 is not supported by WMQ 5.1 ?? (as it did not exist back then ) _________________ MQ & Broker admin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
fjb_saper wrote: |
That extract on the MF error logs looked awfully like an IP V6 address. |
Vitor wrote: |
If this:
harshatej1 wrote: |
connection ::ffff:172.26.90.137 (::ffff:172.26.90.137) |
In any way indicates a IPv4 address in an IPv6 format then this will not work in v5.1 |
And that's what I meant about it being network. The new route to the new box is seeing the IPv4 address going through an IPv6 network appliance and being converted.
So yes, from the perspective of your network people it's great and most modern software would work in this scenario.
WMQv5.1 will not. It's too old. _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
harshatej1 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Nov 2013 Posts: 61
|
We are using only IP v4. Network people confirmed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
We are using only IP v4. Network people confirmed |
Then what's up with that IPv6 style address? How do they explain that?
As my associate correctly points out, according to the network people it's never a network issue.
And why (in the face of all sense and reason) are you still trying to get WMQv5.1 to work on what is presumably a modern platform? If it's not a more modern platform why the move? And why not upgrade as part of the move? _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
harshatej1 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Nov 2013 Posts: 61
|
I don't know much regarding networks. But what network people said that both sender(source) and receiver(destination) are with only IP v4 address without any compliance in b/w them.
We have already proposed our clients to upgrade. But they are not willing to do so. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
But what network people said that both sender and receiver are with only IP v4 address without any compliance in b/w them. |
Vitor wrote: |
Then what's up with that IPv6 style address? How do they explain that? |
harshatej1 wrote: |
We have already proposed our clients to upgrade. But they are not willing to do so. |
What reason do your clients give for staying with 20 year old software? If they think moving will be faster than upgrading then boy, that decision's paying dividends isn't it?
More importantly, why are you still working with clients who are putting this kind of unreasonable restriction on you and will blame / sue you when this move fails? _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
exerk |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Posts: 6339
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
We are using only IP v4. Network people confirmed |
There is a whole world of difference to an IPv4-only network and an IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Address, which is what you appear to have. It's a transition used to represent IPv4 addresses in IPv6, and is mainly used as an OS API medium to allow IPv4 via the IPv6 networking APIs.*
Just out of curiosity, what's your reason for using such a dinosaur version of MQ Series?
EDIT: Skip the above question, I see it's been answered.
* Thank you Google, just in case someone thinks I've suddenly become intelligent and know what I'm talking about! _________________ It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
harshatej1 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Nov 2013 Posts: 61
|
there is no work on mq as there is only one local queue, one sender and one receiver channel. I think this is the reason why they don't want to spend money on MQ. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
exerk |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Posts: 6339
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
there is no work on mq as there is only one local queue, one sender and one receiver channel. I think this is the reason why they don't want to spend money on MQ. |
So why not have them upgrade to a supported WMQ Client? Put a Gateway Queue Manager and IPT between your back-end and them. Simples! _________________ It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
harshatej1 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Nov 2013 Posts: 61
|
But they are not willing to.
What else can I do from my side regarding the issue that I posted?(receiver channel) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
there is no work on mq as there is only one local queue, one sender and one receiver channel. I think this is the reason why they don't want to spend money on MQ. |
There's more than that - there's the WMQ infrastructure on the MF you're trying to connect with.
And no matter how little MQ work there is, presumably it's valuable to the business or they wouldn't be doing it. Using 20 year old software introduces significant risk that it will stop working (as you've discovered) and whatever money they make from this will be lost. _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
What else can I do from my side regarding the issue that I posted?(receiver channel) |
Nothing. _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
What else can I do from my side regarding the issue that I posted?(receiver channel) |
Or more elaborately:
The WMQv5.1 estate has been moved to this new server, and all the needed network settings (DNS names and so forth) are now correct for this new estate. The error that you're getting would appear to be from the network layer, and are probably due to the v5.1 MCA being unable to handle a IPv4 mapped address.
This is the risk of making any change to software which has been unmaintained for 20 years. Your clients have willingly taken that risk, and now it's come home to roost. _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
exerk |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Posts: 6339
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
What else can I do from my side regarding the issue that I posted?(receiver channel) |
Stand there and try not to look smug when you tell them "...I told you so!..." _________________ It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|