Just to be clear, a CTC naming convention is not tied uniquely to ESCON or FICON architecture. We implemented a scheme in the mid-90s under ESCON well before the advent of FICON. It's still in effect.
The scheme we adopted (at IBM's suggestion) uses CEC, partition, direction (in or out for XCF) to construct a four-digit unit number. It has served us well for decades. The only 'cost' is that lots of addresses are reserved for CTC. In our case, all 4xxx and 5xxx addresses. I'm sure a more limited scheme could be utilized, but we connect every LPAR in every CEC to every other LPAR via CTC, so lots of addresses are utilized. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Allan Staller Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: CTC conventions Thanks Rob, I found that book, but went right past the "ESCON CTC Device Numbering Scheme" on page 5. A virtual beer to you! -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jackson, Rob Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CTC conventions Goog this, Allan: "redbook paper ficon ctc implementation." Top of the list. First Tennessee Bank Mainframe Technical Support -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Allan Staller Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: CTC conventions [External Email] Esteemed Listers, I am in the process of adding a new LPAR to my sysplex and need some documentation for CTC naming conventions. Many moons ago, there existed a document with a suggested naming convention such that device addresses could be associated with a particular LPAR and the direction of data flow. This would, in turn, enable simple specification of PATHIN/PATHOUT statements in SYS1.PARMLIB(COUPLExx). After a couple of hours spent with various search engines, websites, etc. I am unable to locate this suggested convention. I have found fragments of documentation that use the convention, but no expression of the convention itself. Does anyone, by chance, still have a copy? If so, can you post a copy or a link? A virtual beer to all responders, and thanks in advance, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
