Skip to Main Content
IBM Z Hardware and Operating Systems Ideas Portal


This is the public portal for all IBM Z Hardware and Operating System related offerings. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).


Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.

ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Not under consideration
Workspace z/OS
Created by Guest
Created on Aug 4, 2017

TCPIP profile needs better handling for deprecated parms / out of order parms

Hi IBM,
This past weekend, we had the upgrade on our production systems AMVS ,
where we moved from 2.1 to 2.2,post the IPL we had TCPIP that came up
without IPSEC as we had a degraded parm in the IPCONFIG block.

The problem was that a deprecated key word for claw devices was still
in the TCP/IP profile. This prevented TCP/IP from reading in the
IPCONFIG statements which unfortunately also included the IPSec
keyword. So AMvS came up with IPSecurity = no and so pagent does not
give iked its polices and looks like iked had the issue.

We removed the keyword and reipléd and it came up good.

00.09.33 STC18614 EZZ0334I IP FORWARDING IS DISABLED
00.09.33 STC18614 EZZ0351I SOURCEVIPA SUPPORT IS ENABLED
00.09.33 STC18614 EZZ0754I IPSEC STATEMENT WAS NOT PROCESSED BECAUSE
IP SECURITY IS NOT ENABLED
00.09.33 STC18614 EZZ0338I TCP PORTS 1 THRU 1023 ARE RESERVED
00.09.33 STC18614 EZZ0338I UDP PORTS 1 THRU 1023 ARE RESERVED

IPCONFIG NODATAGRAMFWD
SOURCEVIPA
STOPONCLAWERROR
MULTIPATH
PATHMTUDISCOVERY
NOSEGMENTATIONOFFLOAD
IPSECURITY
QDIOACCELERATOR
IGNOREREDIRECT

We understand that this parameter is not supported by 2.2, but we would
need a better handling of these situations by having a RFE to have all
the valid parameters accepted and only drop the invalid ones when
processing a configuration.

Also, the order of the parameters sometimes makes a difference if a
parameter will be used or not. All parameters should be analyzed and
accepted if valid not dropped just because they follow instead of
precede another parameter..

Also one more thing we would like to see for the IPCONFIG/TCPCONFIG
type portion of the profile is to have a begin and end block ,so the
stack knows it has to read the entire block till it reaches the END
portion for the corresponding set of statements. Like
VIPADYNAMIC/ENDVIPADYNAMIC or BEGINROUTES /ENDROUTES

So we need to have the IPCONFIG / TCPCONFIG sort of profile statements, to be changed to block statement format

Idea priority Medium
  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Apr 19, 2023
    This item is unlikely to be given high enough priority to be placed into product plan. One workaround to consider is to use multiple IPCONFIG / TCPCONFIG statements so the failure only affects the parameter on each statement.
  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Oct 30, 2020

    This item is not in our plans but is being kept in our backlog.