> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Diehl, Gary (MVSSupport) > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: z990 IP Consoles > > > John, > > Thanks for your comments. > > On our intranet, we can control who can get into what via firewall > rules. We want multiple operators to be able to view the same master > console(s) at the same time for proper monitoring, shift turnover, > monitoring cross over between multiple office locations, etc. > Also, if > I'm looking at the console and I want my team mate that is 800 miles > away to see what I'm seeing, it's a good thing to have them > also be able > to get into the same master console and watch me type commands and see > what is going on (or vice versa!). AP Viewer allows this. Why can't > ICC?
I don't know. It just sounds "weird" to me. I guess that I'm still stuck in the "green screen" mindset <grin>. Can't have two green screens connected to a single coax. I can envision doing this. I even envision a TN3270E "fan out" server. I.e. the "fan out" server connects to the mainframe. The real people connect to the "fan out" server. They all see the same TN3270 screen. I guess the "fan out" server would allow the user to select (or specify via the LUNAME parameter in the connect request) which mainframe screen (LU or address) they want to view. > > I would never expect VTAM to allow multiple connections to > the same LU, > it's not designed to allow it, but it does allow multiple > connections to > the same host. A host can have one IP address, and accept multiple > clients. Why can't ICC, with it's one IP address, accept multiple > clients? I thought that you could, but they each got a different z/OS device number (3270 screen). > > Also, the consoles _won't_ autoreconnect after IPL. Or after any kind > of error. Not until you go through an annoying set of > commands to reset > it thoroughly, and then "jump in really quick" to get the first > connection, and pray nobody else tries to connect to it, or > you have to > do it again. Also, the ICC consoles didn't automatically > come up after > IPL when the CONSOLE address space initialized -- they had to manually > be varied on later. This stinks! Big time! > > I think we would have been happier if we had simply gotten "connection > refused" when trying to connect via a second telnet session, > rather than > an obscure error, a lock-up of console services on the ICC, and an > annoying manual recovery process. > Totally agreed! > I'd like to hear from anyone else that has tried the ICC. > What are your > comments? Did you have the same problems we had? > No, I have an extra OSA that I've genned as an ICC, but I haven't gotten around to really doing anything with it yet. Management is so resistant to my "messing around" with things at times. > Best regards, > > Gary Diehl Guess that I'll stay with the Visara. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer UICI Insurance Center Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
