Hi Bob, We use VISARA's SCON-22L controllers that have both COAX and Ethernet connections. We needed the COAX attachment to connect to the SUN ( STK ) 9310 SILOs as we didn't have the budget for the STK Ethernet LMU attachments ( we have 4 STK LMU units ). When we acquired the VISARA SCON-22L controllers in 2004, we had many of the requirements you listed. In particular, NO PC-based console devices, especially Windows-based. So we acquired the VISARA NCT console terminals ( over 40 ). Some of them we ordered with COAX cards in the NCT console, however, every NCT comes with an Ethernet connection standard. On day 1, we were able to replace our IBM 3174 console controllers with the SCON-22Ls with little effort. Literally, on day 2, we were able to replace our aging IBM 3471 dumb terminals with the COAX NCTs with even less effort. If we had acquired additional Ethernet- based LUs on our SCON-22Ls, we would have converted the COAX NCTs to Ethernet long ago. So far, the NCTs have performed as VISARA advertises and they meet some of the requirements you have: No Hard Disk, Not Windows-based, etc.
I am curious why you feel you must have COAX to avoid the company LAN/WAN. The reason I ask is I assume you have one or more z800/z900/z890/z990 processor(s) ( or even 9672s ). I also assume you have one or more IBM Hardware Management Console(s) that are connected to those processor(s). Lastly, I hope you have the HMC(s) and the processor (s) 'attached' to each other via an Ethernet 'private' ( our network folks preferred the term 'limited access ' ) LAN. If all the above is true, then you have the same 'basic' setup that we had back in 2004. We simply replaced the IBM-supplied Ethernet HUBs with a couple of CISCO Ethernet switches and connected the Ethernet NCTs, VISARA SCON-22Ls and other Ethernet equipment to these switches. As far as the corporate network was concerned, this 'private network' didn't exist. In our case, this didn't last long ( a couple of months ) because of a requirement to support a 'dual command center' configuration. In that case, this 'private' LAN was changed to a 'limited access' LAN by placing a CISCO Router between the CISCO Ethernet switches and the company LAN/WAN at each site. An 'access list' was added to each router so that the 'private' LAN segment at one location could contact any device with the 'private' LAN segment at the other location. To this day, this all works the way it is suppose to. The only times we have ever experienced any problems with this configuration is when the network folks modify the 'access list' in those routers. Feel free to contact me off-list if you have any questions regarding this info. Glenn Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
