On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:35:18 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
No, you just didn't think it through. The Devil is in the details.
...
The entire node is a chunk of code. There is no node type for the
hardware itself.
...
Well, you're the one with the FAP; I
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/01/2006
at 02:36 PM, Patrick O'Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Well, you're the one with the FAP; I can only argue from what I
remember, and that memory is over 15 years old. My recolection is
that node type wasn't code at all; that it was a description of the
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/28/2006
at 03:09 PM, Patrick O'Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think you misunderstood my point.
No, you just didn't think it through. The Devil is in the details.
The Finite State Machines in your FAP describe what programs have to
do - programs written in
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/27/2006
at 02:57 PM, Patrick O'Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has
always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program
In such boxen there was no node type or PU type independent of the
software.
--
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:34:17 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/27/2006
at 02:57 PM, Patrick O'Keefe said:
Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has
always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program
In such boxen there was no node
Ed,
It was ever thus - or at least as long as I have been contributing to fora
such as the IBM-MAIN list/group.
As far as Thomas is concerned I know I am - and I suspect Pat at least is -
twiddling my/his thumbs until Thomas comes back to us with sufficient
details for us to be able to work on
Pat,
It's interesting that the independent study material I dug out of my
basement, dating from 1977, keeps using descriptions such as PU.Tx node,
where x is 1, 2, 4 or 5. This seems to show that back in the early days of
SNA there was a tight association between the PU type and the node type
Pat,
Well, you have a point regarding the baggage that the ACTPU[1] may carry. So
you're right that you should check any proposed candidate in order to be
sure it isn't just a fix for the benefit of external DLUR, for example,
managing the adjacent link station.
[1] I think the DACTPU - hitherto
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:34:17 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has
always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program
In such boxen there was no node type or PU type independent of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick O'Keefe) writes:
Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has
always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program (as described
in a FAP and probably originally desiged using FAPL). The PU never
had to match the node type (although each
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/27/2006
at 03:35 AM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Oh horror! In checking this last item I found the following in the
description of the ACTPU request in the SNA Formats manual: PU
T2.0|2.1 in the text alongside the X'0E' control vector. The
gangrene is
Shmuel,
That is why I added the following explanation/excuse for PU T2.0 being
mentioned (and then explained away as being just the same as PU T2 in that
explanatory note):
quote
I suspect that PU T2.0 is mentioned because of the earlier rule that a node
always has a PU of the same type. Thus
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:42:18 +0200, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
... Thus making the description of the node depend upon
the type of the PU it contains, as is implied by ... it is the PU that
has
a type designation and that 'type i node' is an alias for 'PU_Ti node'
obviously breaks
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:35:32 +0200, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The test over whether a parameter/operand really relates to the PU entity
rather than the adjacent link station or to the boundary function or to some
function with VTAM is whether it affects a byte or a bit in the ACTPU
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:09:30 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my 4th attempt to reply to this posting. Please forgive me if one
or more of the previous copies show up.
...
I think the text you found logically, if not chronologically,
precedes the
Pat,
Comments are embedded.
Incidentally what is this web interface with which you are having so much
trouble?
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: Patrick O'Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, 26 April, 2006 5:34 PM
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/26/2006
at 10:34 AM, Patrick O'Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
A search of the web shows an -02 version of
SNA FORMAT AND PROTOCOL REFERENCE: ARCHITECTURAL LOGIC (SC30-3112).
That's the edition I have.
If you have a copy of that I'd strongly recommend you hold onto
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:35:32 +0200, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Incidentally what is this web interface with which you are having so much
trouble?
...
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Pat O'Keefe
--
For
Pat,
I'm copying what came into my reader. Did you hit the wrong button
somewhere. I can't see anything new.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: Patrick O'Keefe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Monday, 24 April, 2006 10:57 PM
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:37:11 +0200, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
I'm copying what came into my reader. Did you hit the wrong button
somewhere. I can't see anything new.
...
I use the web interface to IBM-Main. This has recently been restructured,
and has the Quote Original Message
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/24/2006
at 02:26 AM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think the text you found logically, if not chronologically,
precedes the introduction of the type 2.1 node and the introduction
of the control point as the entity managing the node rather than
always the PU.
USSTAB - fine - but why only some of the LUs?
To reply to that question only, you don't need USSTAB's for printers.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
Some of these questions I am asking the originator of the project and have
not gotten an answer yet.
Some I can answer: Yes, all of the sessions are 5250/3270, some are
printers, but they are still considered 'of that type'.
The other 3 questions will remain unanswered for now.
Sorry.
On
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:09:30 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
In lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt;, on 04/24/2006
at 02:26 AM, Chris Mason lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt; said:
gt;I think the text you found logically, if not chronologically,
gt;precedes the introduction of the type 2.1
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/22/2006
at 07:02 PM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[5] A PU is always type 2. There is no qualification possible for the
2. There are masses of misleading instances of the horrible term PU
2.1 - it hurts my fingers to type it - out there, some of it
shamefully
Shmuel,
If this were clearly documented anywhere I could come down somewhat harder
on those who propagate these supposedly qualified descriptions of the PU
entity.
Maybe I can demonstrate in a negative way. Searching for 2.1 in the SNA
Formats manual gives 4 hits.
The first, strangely enough,
Thomas and Desi,
Here's the commentary on your sample switched major nodes. I'll deal with
Thomas's first and add any extra comments on Desi's at the end.
VBUILD
TYPE=SWNET - fine
MAXGRP - obsolete since VTAM V4R4[1]
MAXNO - obsolete since VTAM V4R4[1]
PU
ADDR - fine and it's quite correct that
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/20/2006
at 10:10 AM, Thomas Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I hope I don't sound too stupid here, but I am trying to define an
AS400 to the mainframe (a z/os system).
Define as what?
Previously this AS400 was defined using a
SWNET definition which pointed to a
So many responses, so little I know. I believe the project (as my boss is
wont to call it) to connect the 'new' as400 to the mainframe, is probably
(but I'm not completely sure of this) going to be running the same programs
the older one did. They did mostly inhouse apps of a database nature, and
Thomas,
This is becoming like some detective story where clues are being left but
it's not sure which clues are useful and which are red herrings.
At least we now know that this concerns both SNA *and* IP communications - I
think. If the supplied sample definition is supposed to be a guide to
I hope I don't sound too stupid here, but I am trying to define an AS400 to
the mainframe (a z/os system). Previously this AS400 was defined using a
SWNET definition which pointed to a TIC off a 3745. Now the AS400 has been
replaced and only has an IP address to identify it. Someone been this
Thomas,
Normally this would be for the IBMTCP-L list/group but you've started it
here so we'll continue here. In any case I get the impression that most who
are active on IBMTCP-L are active here also.
It's implied that you run SNA applications on your AS/400 so the first thing
we need to know
Perhaps I need to explain further. To put your fears at rest, our 3745 is
alive and well. We have several other AS400's defined and still functioning
through the 3745. They are all defined as SWNET type applications. Even the
AS400 which is being replaced is still defined there, however it is/has
Thomas,
I thought we were making progress - until I got to the last paragraph. This
looks as if it might be a PC user who is trying to access an SNA application
on the AS/400 (and need to access the AS/400 through the mainframe?) - or -
who is trying to access a mainframe application using the
Are you trying to configure the AS/400 with an IP host address that can
talk to a z/OS IP stack? What do want to do? FTP?
Disclaimer: The information contained in this communication is confidential and
only for the use of the intended addressee(s). If you have received this
communication in
The question does not compute.
We still don't know what the business mission(s) might be. We know there
was some sort of connectivity, but here is nothing to say the connection
was actually used for anything: it was just there.
Perhaps you are talking nothing more than 3270 green screen. In
I think everyone so far is overlooking a possibility: that this new
AS/400 is configured to support Enterprise Extender. In that case, the IP
address is sufficient to connect to it, as long as you have EE running in
your Communication Server. You will also need to make sure that UDP ports
Aha! This has nothing to do with the AS/400. Rather, you are asking how
to acquire/install/activate/configure Enterprise Extender. EE appears to
be a suite of products offered by Cisco and IBM that do SNA over IP
networks.
I would start here:
Tim,
I know my posts tend to be rather long, particularly so when I need to guess
many possibilities from sparse input.
However, if you read them fully you'll see that on both my responses to this
query I managed to find an excuse to mention Enterprise Extender.
We all await clarifications from
39 matches
Mail list logo
