Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Timothy Sipples]

Brian Westerman wrote:
>EE doesn't preclude you from using it on the same processor complex.

Exactly. The flexibility and greater future proof-ness is valuable.

Rob Schramm wrote:
>z/os 1.4 runs on a z13s mono-cpu with no accommodation other than having
>all available maintenance applied. Multi-cpu's is a wait-state.

OK, that's lucky. However, I would not assume the status quo "forever."
It's prudent to plan ahead. That's Enterprise Extender.

I wouldn't be nervous about EE here, but if for some reason you're nervous,
just backstop EE with CTCA if you wish. Anything *could* break, so
following that logic logically, use both paths. And, of course, configure
both correctly and test. That's always true.


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE,
Multi-Geography
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Brian Westerman]

EE doesn't preclude you from using it ont he same processor complex.  In fact, 
that's one of the methods in the example where the site has 3 (or 4) LPARs all 
interconnected via EE to provide cross domain access.

On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 17:31:21 +, Rob Schramm  wrote:

>Tim,
>
>It sounds like you are recommending using EE for all communication between
>a z/OS 1.4 system and a z/OS 2.2 system where the z/OS 2.2 system would be
>a CMC.  If I use CTC connections encryption isn't really an issue since all
>the systems are on the same CEC.  Additionally, it seems that EE has gone
>thru some pretty good growing pains thru the years.. and the z/OS 1.4
>systems are firmly stuck in the past.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Rob Schramm
>
>On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:16 AM Timothy Sipples  wrote:
>
>> If I understand the question correctly, I'd recommend Enterprise Extender
>> (EE). It's likely to be the more future proof option in various ways, and
>> that'll be helpful. EE is also proving to be broadly interoperable across
>> long spans of time.
>>
>> z/OS 1.4 supported IPv6 fairly well but not for EE, so it looks like you'll
>> have to use IPv4 on both ends, for the UDP connectivity that EE uses. It
>> wasn't really until z/OS 2.1 that EE was fully IPv6 enabled. If IPv6 is a
>> necessity (and probably even if not) then, going from memory (please double
>> check this) you should be able to set up an IPv6 IPsec tunnel between z/OS
>> 1.4 and z/OS 2.2 -- i.e. the tunnel gets established using IPv6 addresses
>> at both ends -- and then run IPv4 EE across that tunnel. Bear in mind that
>> the security characteristics of that IPsec tunnel will be governed by its
>> lowest denominator: z/OS 1.4.
>>
>> Speaking of security, EE also supports SNA Session-Level Encryption (SLE)
>> and always has, although I'd want more than that. SNA SLE only supports the
>> DES and 3DES algorithms.
>>
>> The usual, wise advice applies here about trying to bring up z/OS 1.4 and
>> the applications it's running to a supported z/OS release as expeditiously
>> as possible.
>>
>>
>> 
>> Timothy Sipples
>> IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE,
>> Multi-Geography
>> E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>
>--
>
>Rob Schramm
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Cieri, Anthony]

I agree that it is not advisable without coding HPRSESLM=DISABLED.


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Rob Schramm
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 4:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

Tony,

Based upon the note in the 1.10 migration, it would seem to indicate that using 
z/OS 2.2 EE to communicate with a z/OS 1.4 system would be inadvisable?  Or 
just inadvisable without the ATCSTRxx HPRSESLM=DISABLED?

Rob Schramm

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:16 PM Cieri, Anthony <aci...@seic.com> wrote:

>
> I did some more digging and it appears that the HPRSESLM VTAM 
> start option that I referred to earlier was introduced in z/OS V1.10. 
> We are a service Bureau shop and I recall having some issues when we 
> upgraded from z/OS V1.9 to V1.11. Those scars are what lead to my 
> first reply!!!  I also found an old discussion  in the archives at:
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bit.listserv.ibm-main/6QggnT04
> hlw
>
> This discussion points to other document and tech notes for 
> back ground information. To avoid this particular issue, code 
> HPRSESLM=DISABLED in the ATCSTRxx member for the z/OS V2.2 VTAM.
>
>
> HTH
> Tony
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Rob Schramm
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:37 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4
>
> Tim,
>
> z/os 1.4 runs on a z13s mono-cpu with no accommodation other than 
> having all available maintenance applied.  Multi-cpu's is a wait-state.
>
> I am most concerned with Tony's comments about EE over the years.   The
> chance of these ending up on separate CECs is very low.  But I always 
> like to position for the unlikely.  I want to conserve my efforts.. to 
> establish communication between the LPARs and pick the method that is 
> most likely to work coupled with having the best flexibility.  But # 1 
> priority is that it works.
>
> Rob Schramm
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:23 AM Timothy Sipples <sipp...@sg.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > z/OS 1.4 and z/OS 2.2 are far enough apart that there was never a 
> > single IBM machine model that officially supported both releases. 
> > IBM supported running z/OS 1.4 up to the z9 models, and z/OS 2.2 
> > starts with the z10 models. If you've got them both running on one 
> > CEC, it's lucky, and congratulations. Please make sure you're not 
> > running z/OS
> > 1.4 in Bimodal Accommodation (ESA/390 31-bit mode), by the way, for 
> > at least two big reasons.
> >
> > With that background, I don't think you can or should assume a 
> > single CEC "forever," or even for very long. At least, it'd be 
> > prudent not to "wire in" such rigidity. If you're still nervous, you 
> > can set up both EE and CTCA connections. I recommend configuring EE 
> > (over a HiperSocket if on the same
> > CEC) as primary/favored since the performance characteristics are 
> > likely to be better, but you can backstop EE with CTCA if you wish.
> >
> > EE officially debuted with OS/390 Version 2 Release 7 in early 1999, 
> > was backported to OS/390 Version 2 Release 6, and was circulating in 
> > earlier form before that. EE certainly wasn't fresh off the boat 
> > with z/OS 1.4, which reached End of Service in 2007, over 8 years 
> > after EE debuted. z/OS
> > 1.4 is plenty new enough for these purposes. I recall plenty of EE 
> > adoption in z/OS 1.4 and prior.
> >
> >
> > 
> > --
> > --
> > Timothy Sipples
> > IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE, 
> > Multi-Geography
> > E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com
> >
> > 
> > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, 
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO 
> > IBM-MAIN
> >
> --
>
> Rob Schramm
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 

Rob Schramm

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Rob Schramm]

Tony,

Based upon the note in the 1.10 migration, it would seem to indicate that
using z/OS 2.2 EE to communicate with a z/OS 1.4 system would be
inadvisable?  Or just inadvisable without the ATCSTRxx HPRSESLM=DISABLED?

Rob Schramm

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:16 PM Cieri, Anthony <aci...@seic.com> wrote:

>
> I did some more digging and it appears that the HPRSESLM VTAM
> start option that I referred to earlier was introduced in z/OS V1.10. We
> are a service Bureau shop and I recall having some issues when we upgraded
> from z/OS V1.9 to V1.11. Those scars are what lead to my first reply!!!  I
> also found an old discussion  in the archives at:
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bit.listserv.ibm-main/6QggnT04hlw
>
> This discussion points to other document and tech notes for back
> ground information. To avoid this particular issue, code HPRSESLM=DISABLED
> in the ATCSTRxx member for the z/OS V2.2 VTAM.
>
>
> HTH
> Tony
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Rob Schramm
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:37 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4
>
> Tim,
>
> z/os 1.4 runs on a z13s mono-cpu with no accommodation other than having
> all available maintenance applied.  Multi-cpu's is a wait-state.
>
> I am most concerned with Tony's comments about EE over the years.   The
> chance of these ending up on separate CECs is very low.  But I always like
> to position for the unlikely.  I want to conserve my efforts.. to establish
> communication between the LPARs and pick the method that is most likely to
> work coupled with having the best flexibility.  But # 1 priority is that it
> works.
>
> Rob Schramm
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:23 AM Timothy Sipples <sipp...@sg.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > z/OS 1.4 and z/OS 2.2 are far enough apart that there was never a
> > single IBM machine model that officially supported both releases. IBM
> > supported running z/OS 1.4 up to the z9 models, and z/OS 2.2 starts
> > with the z10 models. If you've got them both running on one CEC, it's
> > lucky, and congratulations. Please make sure you're not running z/OS
> > 1.4 in Bimodal Accommodation (ESA/390 31-bit mode), by the way, for at
> > least two big reasons.
> >
> > With that background, I don't think you can or should assume a single
> > CEC "forever," or even for very long. At least, it'd be prudent not to
> > "wire in" such rigidity. If you're still nervous, you can set up both
> > EE and CTCA connections. I recommend configuring EE (over a
> > HiperSocket if on the same
> > CEC) as primary/favored since the performance characteristics are
> > likely to be better, but you can backstop EE with CTCA if you wish.
> >
> > EE officially debuted with OS/390 Version 2 Release 7 in early 1999,
> > was backported to OS/390 Version 2 Release 6, and was circulating in
> > earlier form before that. EE certainly wasn't fresh off the boat with
> > z/OS 1.4, which reached End of Service in 2007, over 8 years after EE
> > debuted. z/OS
> > 1.4 is plenty new enough for these purposes. I recall plenty of EE
> > adoption in z/OS 1.4 and prior.
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Timothy Sipples
> > IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE,
> > Multi-Geography
> > E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> > email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
> --
>
> Rob Schramm
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 

Rob Schramm

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Cieri, Anthony]

I did some more digging and it appears that the HPRSESLM VTAM start 
option that I referred to earlier was introduced in z/OS V1.10. We are a 
service Bureau shop and I recall having some issues when we upgraded from z/OS 
V1.9 to V1.11. Those scars are what lead to my first reply!!!  I also found an 
old discussion  in the archives at:


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bit.listserv.ibm-main/6QggnT04hlw

This discussion points to other document and tech notes for back ground 
information. To avoid this particular issue, code HPRSESLM=DISABLED in the 
ATCSTRxx member for the z/OS V2.2 VTAM. 


HTH
Tony


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Rob Schramm
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

Tim,

z/os 1.4 runs on a z13s mono-cpu with no accommodation other than having all 
available maintenance applied.  Multi-cpu's is a wait-state.

I am most concerned with Tony's comments about EE over the years.   The
chance of these ending up on separate CECs is very low.  But I always like to 
position for the unlikely.  I want to conserve my efforts.. to establish 
communication between the LPARs and pick the method that is most likely to work 
coupled with having the best flexibility.  But # 1 priority is that it works.

Rob Schramm



On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:23 AM Timothy Sipples <sipp...@sg.ibm.com> wrote:

> z/OS 1.4 and z/OS 2.2 are far enough apart that there was never a 
> single IBM machine model that officially supported both releases. IBM 
> supported running z/OS 1.4 up to the z9 models, and z/OS 2.2 starts 
> with the z10 models. If you've got them both running on one CEC, it's 
> lucky, and congratulations. Please make sure you're not running z/OS 
> 1.4 in Bimodal Accommodation (ESA/390 31-bit mode), by the way, for at 
> least two big reasons.
>
> With that background, I don't think you can or should assume a single 
> CEC "forever," or even for very long. At least, it'd be prudent not to 
> "wire in" such rigidity. If you're still nervous, you can set up both 
> EE and CTCA connections. I recommend configuring EE (over a 
> HiperSocket if on the same
> CEC) as primary/favored since the performance characteristics are 
> likely to be better, but you can backstop EE with CTCA if you wish.
>
> EE officially debuted with OS/390 Version 2 Release 7 in early 1999, 
> was backported to OS/390 Version 2 Release 6, and was circulating in 
> earlier form before that. EE certainly wasn't fresh off the boat with 
> z/OS 1.4, which reached End of Service in 2007, over 8 years after EE 
> debuted. z/OS
> 1.4 is plenty new enough for these purposes. I recall plenty of EE 
> adoption in z/OS 1.4 and prior.
>
>
> --
> --
> Timothy Sipples
> IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE, 
> Multi-Geography
> E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 

Rob Schramm

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Timothy Sipples]

z/OS 1.4 and z/OS 2.2 are far enough apart that there was never a single
IBM machine model that officially supported both releases. IBM supported
running z/OS 1.4 up to the z9 models, and z/OS 2.2 starts with the z10
models. If you've got them both running on one CEC, it's lucky, and
congratulations. Please make sure you're not running z/OS 1.4 in Bimodal
Accommodation (ESA/390 31-bit mode), by the way, for at least two big
reasons.

With that background, I don't think you can or should assume a single CEC
"forever," or even for very long. At least, it'd be prudent not to "wire
in" such rigidity. If you're still nervous, you can set up both EE and CTCA
connections. I recommend configuring EE (over a HiperSocket if on the same
CEC) as primary/favored since the performance characteristics are likely to
be better, but you can backstop EE with CTCA if you wish.

EE officially debuted with OS/390 Version 2 Release 7 in early 1999, was
backported to OS/390 Version 2 Release 6, and was circulating in earlier
form before that. EE certainly wasn't fresh off the boat with z/OS 1.4,
which reached End of Service in 2007, over 8 years after EE debuted. z/OS
1.4 is plenty new enough for these purposes. I recall plenty of EE adoption
in z/OS 1.4 and prior.


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE,
Multi-Geography
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Rob Schramm]

Tim,

It sounds like you are recommending using EE for all communication between
a z/OS 1.4 system and a z/OS 2.2 system where the z/OS 2.2 system would be
a CMC.  If I use CTC connections encryption isn't really an issue since all
the systems are on the same CEC.  Additionally, it seems that EE has gone
thru some pretty good growing pains thru the years.. and the z/OS 1.4
systems are firmly stuck in the past.

Thoughts?

Rob Schramm

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:16 AM Timothy Sipples  wrote:

> If I understand the question correctly, I'd recommend Enterprise Extender
> (EE). It's likely to be the more future proof option in various ways, and
> that'll be helpful. EE is also proving to be broadly interoperable across
> long spans of time.
>
> z/OS 1.4 supported IPv6 fairly well but not for EE, so it looks like you'll
> have to use IPv4 on both ends, for the UDP connectivity that EE uses. It
> wasn't really until z/OS 2.1 that EE was fully IPv6 enabled. If IPv6 is a
> necessity (and probably even if not) then, going from memory (please double
> check this) you should be able to set up an IPv6 IPsec tunnel between z/OS
> 1.4 and z/OS 2.2 -- i.e. the tunnel gets established using IPv6 addresses
> at both ends -- and then run IPv4 EE across that tunnel. Bear in mind that
> the security characteristics of that IPsec tunnel will be governed by its
> lowest denominator: z/OS 1.4.
>
> Speaking of security, EE also supports SNA Session-Level Encryption (SLE)
> and always has, although I'd want more than that. SNA SLE only supports the
> DES and 3DES algorithms.
>
> The usual, wise advice applies here about trying to bring up z/OS 1.4 and
> the applications it's running to a supported z/OS release as expeditiously
> as possible.
>
>
> 
> Timothy Sipples
> IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE,
> Multi-Geography
> E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 

Rob Schramm

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Timothy Sipples]

If I understand the question correctly, I'd recommend Enterprise Extender
(EE). It's likely to be the more future proof option in various ways, and
that'll be helpful. EE is also proving to be broadly interoperable across
long spans of time.

z/OS 1.4 supported IPv6 fairly well but not for EE, so it looks like you'll
have to use IPv4 on both ends, for the UDP connectivity that EE uses. It
wasn't really until z/OS 2.1 that EE was fully IPv6 enabled. If IPv6 is a
necessity (and probably even if not) then, going from memory (please double
check this) you should be able to set up an IPv6 IPsec tunnel between z/OS
1.4 and z/OS 2.2 -- i.e. the tunnel gets established using IPv6 addresses
at both ends -- and then run IPv4 EE across that tunnel. Bear in mind that
the security characteristics of that IPsec tunnel will be governed by its
lowest denominator: z/OS 1.4.

Speaking of security, EE also supports SNA Session-Level Encryption (SLE)
and always has, although I'd want more than that. SNA SLE only supports the
DES and 3DES algorithms.

The usual, wise advice applies here about trying to bring up z/OS 1.4 and
the applications it's running to a supported z/OS release as expeditiously
as possible.


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE,
Multi-Geography
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Rob Schramm]

Tony,

Thanks.. that is what I was looking for.

Rob Schramm

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 3:45 PM Cieri, Anthony <aci...@seic.com> wrote:

>
> You might get more feedback using the listserver
> ibmtc...@vm.marist.edu
>
> More Communication Server folks hang out there
>
>
> For my 2 cent...I am going strictly by memory here...
>
> I believe that more of the changes in Comm. Server (VTAM) between
> z/OS 1.4 and current were in the realm of APPN/EE/HPR. If you chose EE, you
> would be doing all of the aforementioned in VTAM. It is likely that EE
> connections are possible between the 1.4 system and current, however, there
> were some enhancements along the way that are NOT compatible with "older"
> versions of VTAM. HPRSESLIM is one that comes to mind. If the 1.4 VTAM does
> NOT support HPRSESLM (I don't recall exactly when it was introduced), then
> if it is ENABLED in the VTAMOPTS of the current system, it would prevent
> the connection from being established.
>
> If you chose CTC (MPC) for the connections, you could use Subarea
> SNA (CDRMs). Of course, it is NOT the IBM preferred choice, but it is
> stable and it is definitely supported at the z/OS 1.4 level of VTAM. There
> will be some setup and coordination involved. The amount will depend upon
> the number of systems you have to connect to the CMC.
>
>
> Hth
> Tony
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Rob Schramm
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 4:47 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4
>
> What I want to do is run a z/OS 2.2 system as a CMC.  Currently, there is
> no connection between my z/OS 2.2 system and the z/OS 1.4 systems.  My
> concern is whether the z/OS 1.4 systems will be able to communicate with
> the z/OS 2.2 system across CTCs. Or if it would be better to attempt to run
> the communication across EE.  All of these system are in the same physical
> CEC.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob Schramm
>
>
>
>
> Rob Schramm
> Senior Systems Consultant
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Brian Westerman <
> brian_wester...@syzygyinc.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what you are getting at.  If you have a z/OS 1.4 system
> > connected via EE (or a "real" CTC connection) to a 2.2 system and you
> > tn3270 into that new(er) system, then every EE (or CTC connected, (i.e.
> > cross domain)) application that is defined to that new(er) system
> > (even if cross domain to the old box) is available.  I think what you
> > are trying to get at is that IF your old system doesn't support TCP/IP
> > but can be connected to a new(er) system that does support both EE (or
> > a CTC connection to the older box) and TCP/IP can you get to the VTAM
> > applications that are available to the older system via the
> > connections between the old system and new system, then the answer is
> > yes.  But since z/OS 1.4 also supported TCP/IP you don't need the
> > other new(er) system for that.
> >
> > How you get INTO the system (any system) via TCP then any (VTAM)
> > applications are available once you are there are available whether
> > the connection is through a physical CTC between the two systems or EE
> > (which can use IP).
> >
> > So I'm a little confused by the question.  Just because you can't
> > directly connect to the CICS region on the old(er) system via TCP,
> > doesn't mean that you can't get to it via a TCP connected device.
> > That's what the emulators are for.  But maybe that's not your question
> either.
> >
> > Sorry that I can't help any more without some clarifications.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> > email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
> to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 

Rob Schramm

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Cieri, Anthony]

You might get more feedback using the listserver ibmtc...@vm.marist.edu

More Communication Server folks hang out there


For my 2 cent...I am going strictly by memory here...

I believe that more of the changes in Comm. Server (VTAM) between z/OS 
1.4 and current were in the realm of APPN/EE/HPR. If you chose EE, you would be 
doing all of the aforementioned in VTAM. It is likely that EE connections are 
possible between the 1.4 system and current, however, there were some 
enhancements along the way that are NOT compatible with "older" versions of 
VTAM. HPRSESLIM is one that comes to mind. If the 1.4 VTAM does NOT support 
HPRSESLM (I don't recall exactly when it was introduced), then if it is ENABLED 
in the VTAMOPTS of the current system, it would prevent the connection from 
being established.

If you chose CTC (MPC) for the connections, you could use Subarea SNA 
(CDRMs). Of course, it is NOT the IBM preferred choice, but it is stable and it 
is definitely supported at the z/OS 1.4 level of VTAM. There will be some setup 
and coordination involved. The amount will depend upon the number of systems 
you have to connect to the CMC.


Hth
Tony   



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Rob Schramm
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 4:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

What I want to do is run a z/OS 2.2 system as a CMC.  Currently, there is no 
connection between my z/OS 2.2 system and the z/OS 1.4 systems.  My concern is 
whether the z/OS 1.4 systems will be able to communicate with the z/OS 2.2 
system across CTCs. Or if it would be better to attempt to run the 
communication across EE.  All of these system are in the same physical CEC.

Thanks,
Rob Schramm




Rob Schramm
Senior Systems Consultant


On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Brian Westerman < 
brian_wester...@syzygyinc.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what you are getting at.  If you have a z/OS 1.4 system 
> connected via EE (or a "real" CTC connection) to a 2.2 system and you
> tn3270 into that new(er) system, then every EE (or CTC connected, (i.e.
> cross domain)) application that is defined to that new(er) system 
> (even if cross domain to the old box) is available.  I think what you 
> are trying to get at is that IF your old system doesn't support TCP/IP 
> but can be connected to a new(er) system that does support both EE (or 
> a CTC connection to the older box) and TCP/IP can you get to the VTAM 
> applications that are available to the older system via the 
> connections between the old system and new system, then the answer is 
> yes.  But since z/OS 1.4 also supported TCP/IP you don't need the 
> other new(er) system for that.
>
> How you get INTO the system (any system) via TCP then any (VTAM) 
> applications are available once you are there are available whether 
> the connection is through a physical CTC between the two systems or EE 
> (which can use IP).
>
> So I'm a little confused by the question.  Just because you can't 
> directly connect to the CICS region on the old(er) system via TCP, 
> doesn't mean that you can't get to it via a TCP connected device.  
> That's what the emulators are for.  But maybe that's not your question either.
>
> Sorry that I can't help any more without some clarifications.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Seymour J Metz]

Are you talking about a cross-domain session between a terminal on the current 
z/OS and a CICS on z/OS 1.4? Or are you talking about an application on the 
current z/OS that serves a a gateway between the user and the old CICS? Also, 
what type of connectivity do you have between the old and new systems.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu> on behalf of Rob 
Schramm <rob.schr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 4:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

Listers,

I am sure that the terminology in this question will make Communication
Server enthusiasts want to jail me for general abuse of terms or being
non-specific.

I want to know if anyone is communicating with old out of support VTAM's ..
.such as having old frozen applications running on a z/OS .. let's say 1.4
communicating with a current release of z/OS... such that the user
establishes a session with the current release of z/OS via TN3270 and
utilizes MPC or EE to communicate with the old out of support z/OS CICS or
TSO.

Thanks,

Rob Schramm

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Rob Schramm]

What I want to do is run a z/OS 2.2 system as a CMC.  Currently, there is
no connection between my z/OS 2.2 system and the z/OS 1.4 systems.  My
concern is whether the z/OS 1.4 systems will be able to communicate with
the z/OS 2.2 system across CTCs. Or if it would be better to attempt to run
the communication across EE.  All of these system are in the same physical
CEC.

Thanks,
Rob Schramm




Rob Schramm
Senior Systems Consultant


On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Brian Westerman <
brian_wester...@syzygyinc.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what you are getting at.  If you have a z/OS 1.4 system
> connected via EE (or a "real" CTC connection) to a 2.2 system and you
> tn3270 into that new(er) system, then every EE (or CTC connected, (i.e.
> cross domain)) application that is defined to that new(er) system (even if
> cross domain to the old box) is available.  I think what you are trying to
> get at is that IF your old system doesn't support TCP/IP but can be
> connected to a new(er) system that does support both EE (or a CTC
> connection to the older box) and TCP/IP can you get to the VTAM
> applications that are available to the older system via the connections
> between the old system and new system, then the answer is yes.  But since
> z/OS 1.4 also supported TCP/IP you don't need the other new(er) system for
> that.
>
> How you get INTO the system (any system) via TCP then any (VTAM)
> applications are available once you are there are available whether the
> connection is through a physical CTC between the two systems or EE (which
> can use IP).
>
> So I'm a little confused by the question.  Just because you can't directly
> connect to the CICS region on the old(er) system via TCP, doesn't mean that
> you can't get to it via a TCP connected device.  That's what the emulators
> are for.  But maybe that's not your question either.
>
> Sorry that I can't help any more without some clarifications.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Brian Westerman]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  If you have a z/OS 1.4 system connected 
via EE (or a "real" CTC connection) to a 2.2 system and you tn3270 into that 
new(er) system, then every EE (or CTC connected, (i.e. cross domain)) 
application that is defined to that new(er) system (even if cross domain to the 
old box) is available.  I think what you are trying to get at is that IF your 
old system doesn't support TCP/IP but can be connected to a new(er) system that 
does support both EE (or a CTC connection to the older box) and TCP/IP can you 
get to the VTAM applications that are available to the older system via the 
connections between the old system and new system, then the answer is yes.  But 
since z/OS 1.4 also supported TCP/IP you don't need the other new(er) system 
for that.

How you get INTO the system (any system) via TCP then any (VTAM) applications 
are available once you are there are available whether the connection is 
through a physical CTC between the two systems or EE (which can use IP).  

So I'm a little confused by the question.  Just because you can't directly 
connect to the CICS region on the old(er) system via TCP, doesn't mean that you 
can't get to it via a TCP connected device.  That's what the emulators are for. 
 But maybe that's not your question either.

Sorry that I can't help any more without some clarifications.

Brian

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

VTAM communication z/OS 2.2 and z/OS 1.4

[Rob Schramm]

Listers,

I am sure that the terminology in this question will make Communication
Server enthusiasts want to jail me for general abuse of terms or being
non-specific.

I want to know if anyone is communicating with old out of support VTAM's ..
.such as having old frozen applications running on a z/OS .. let's say 1.4
communicating with a current release of z/OS... such that the user
establishes a session with the current release of z/OS via TN3270 and
utilizes MPC or EE to communicate with the old out of support z/OS CICS or
TSO.

Thanks,

Rob Schramm

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN