Jake Anderson asks:
>Is DLSW supported in z16 hardware ?

If you're asking whether you can get SNA traffic to/from your IBM z16 when that 
SNA traffic is encapsulated via DLSw, the answer is yes, probably, with 
caveats. But please don't stick with DLSw! Here are the details....

DLSw stands for Data-Link Switching. It's one of the 3 (or more?) ways to carry 
SNA traffic over an IP network. There's a Wikipedia article about DLSw 
available here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data-Link_Switching

Enterprise Extender (IETF RFC 2352) superseded DLSw and AnyNet SNA over TCP/IP 
about a quarter century ago.

The IBM z16 is the last model to support the OSE CHPID type which probably 
prompted your question. This CHPID type is used by classic SNA and even pre-SNA 
protocols when they're terminated directly at the IBM Z server via Ethernet 
(OSA-Express). Enterprise Extender (SNA over UDP) does not use the OSE CHPID 
type, so that's perfectly fine. Since EE isn't limited to OSE devices it can 
take advantage of all the wonderful, much faster network adapters. Relatedly, 
z/OS 2.5 is the last release of z/OS to support the OSE CHPID type. z/OS 3.1 
drops support for this CHPID type on every server. In other words, the very end 
of the road for OSE is the z16 running z/OS 2.5.

One of the big reasons IBM presumably dropped support for non-EE SNA/pre-SNA 
traffic over Ethernet is that it simply cannot be secured. Yes, SNA supports 
encrypted connections, but the algorithm is weak and vulnerable. Enterprise 
Extender (over fiber and copper Ethernet) and FICON CTC links (which still 
support non-EE SNA traffic) can be and should be strongly encrypted. 
HiperSockets also remain an option for pre-EE SNA traffic within a server.

To check whether your z/OS environment is configured with any links that depend 
on the OSE CHPID type please refer to SNA APAR OA62208 for the appropriate z/OS 
Health Check.

OK, so what about DLSw -- and AnyNet SNA over TCP/IP for that matter? Well, IBM 
dropped support a long time ago for AnyNet SNA over TCP/IP. If it still somehow 
works for you, OK, but Enterprise Extender superseded AnyNet. Please get onto 
Enterprise Extender or something else via TCP/IP that's also supported. I 
believe Cisco, a big supporter of DLSw, dropped support for DLSw a long time 
ago, too. When they supported DLSw it was between their switches/routers. 
Between the IBM Z server and their switch or router it was classic SNA -- with 
the OSE CHPID type. If that's how you're using DLSw (or similar), and if for 
some strange reason you can't get to Enterprise Extender, there are a couple 
speculative options I can think of:

1. As the Wikipedia article states, Cisco supported Enterprise Extender in 
their switches. They called it "SNAsW." So if you configure SNAsW for the hop 
between the switch and your IBM Z server, and DLSw on the "front side" of that 
switch, that might work -- if that was ever a viable configuration Cisco 
offered.

2. If Cisco supported a FICON CTC link between their switch and the IBM Z 
server, and if there's still a FICON CTC link speed available that's compatible 
on both ends, then that should work. If there's too much of a gap in link 
speeds between the old Cisco equipment and the much newer IBM Z server then 
inserting a FICON switch in the middle that "straddles" FICON link speeds might 
work. But that's extra silly isn't it?

3. Find a software implementation of DLSw and see if you can run it on z/OS, 
getting "both sides" wired together. I don't recall any vendor or developer who 
created a DLSw software stack on z/OS, although it seems technically possible. 
I found one open source implementation with a little searching.

————— 
Timothy Sipples 
Senior Architect 
Digital Assets, Industry Solutions, and Cybersecurity 
IBM Z/LinuxONE, Asia-Pacific 
[email protected] 



----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
  • Dlsw z16 Jake Anderson
    • Re: Dlsw z16 Timothy Sipples

Reply via email to