Author |
Message
|
bruce2359 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 9405 Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
connection ::ffff:172.26.90.137 (::ffff:172.26.90.137)
(queue manager MQM.XXXX)
TRPTYPE=TCP
+CSQX599E *MQA CSQXRESP Channel B.TO.A ended abnormally |
IP addresses that contain hex characters like : and ffff are IPV6 addresses, despite what your network people are telling you. MQ v5 did/does not support IPV6.
One possible solution would be for you/your network people to implement an IPV4-IPV6 translation appliance. Search google. There are a variety of such appliances available. _________________ 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 |
|
|
harshatej1 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Nov 2013 Posts: 61
|
CSQX207E MQA CSQXRCTL Invalid
data
received,
connection
(IP)
(queue manager
????)
TRPTYPE=TCP
CSQ9023E MQA CSQXCRPS '
START CHANNEL' ABNORMAL COMPLETION |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bruce2359 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 9405 Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Search google for CSQX207E. _________________ 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 |
|
|
harshatej1 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Nov 2013 Posts: 61
|
It says that dont send messages larger than TCP/IP default limt.
But we never sent any message, we just tried to start the channel. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
CSQX207E MQA CSQXRCTL Invalid
data
received, |
So what version of WMQ are they running on the MF then? Is it the same MF and the same configuration the "old" distributed queue manager used to run on? _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
harshatej1 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Nov 2013 Posts: 61
|
yes MQ v5.1 on MF side also and distributed queuing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
exerk |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Posts: 6339
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
yes MQ v5.1 on MF side also and distributed queuing. |
So, out of support at both ends. At this point I suggest you give up and go look for another job. _________________ 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 |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
It says that dont send messages larger than TCP/IP default limt. |
Of course, there's no chance the default TCP/IP packet size was changed (and increased) when the network wasn't moved from IPv4 to IPv6..... _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
harshatej1 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Nov 2013 Posts: 61
|
Tomorrow, we are having the bridge call, and I don't know what to tell. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vitor |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
Tomorrow, we are having the bridge call, and I don't know what to tell. |
"This is what you get for a) using 20 year old software & b) trying to move it"
Personally I'd include "c) I quit & d) bet the money you saved not doing upgrades doesn't seem like a saving now!" _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
exerk |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Posts: 6339
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
Tomorrow, we are having the bridge call, and I don't know what to tell. |
Tell them to look at this thread as a starter for 10, especially the post above this one _________________ 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 |
|
|
bruce2359 |
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 9405 Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
harshatej1 wrote: |
Tomorrow, we are having the bridge call, and I don't know what to tell. |
Tell them the facts:
- MQ v5 does not support IPv6
- MQ detected a channel failure
- the error logs showed an IPv6 address
- the error message CSQX207E indicated an oversized packet
- from the CSQX207E error message, reference http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21318513
Quote: |
Cause
A message segment larger than the TCP/IP default buffer limit of 16383 has been sent by the remote queue manager. |
This seems clearly a network issue, and a self-inflicted one, at that. _________________ 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 |
|
|
|