On 03/05/2019 02:18 PM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote:
Our RS/6000 running DirectTalk/6000 had one VTAM LU for each voice channel
so that each call had its own dedicated 3270 session. Under the "3270
Operations" display it would show the list of LUs, and which, if any,
scripts were running
Grant,
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 04:02:33PM -0700, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> Why do there need to be 10 VTAM/SNA nodes defined for the RS/6000?
> Wouldn't it be one node unto itself, much like a 3174, with the 10
> VTAM/SNA nodes for the terminals behind it?
Our RS/6000 running
> On Feb 23, 2019, at 3:01 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/19 6:15 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> SNAP as a way of encoding bridged Ethernet II frames applies only to
>> non-Ethernet LANs, all of which have larger MTU.
>
> Nope. I'm quite sure that NetBIOS used SNAP
Al, that was actually a quote from a message I wrote - I am the one with
the 3274 floppies.
Let me know what you are looking for.
I am not at all familiar with what makes a "set", though I suppose I
could just send the latest version I can find with each of the different
sorts (SYST - which I
On 2/22/19 6:15 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
SNAP as a way of encoding bridged Ethernet II frames applies only to
non-Ethernet LANs, all of which have larger MTU.
Nope. I'm quite sure that NetBIOS used SNAP on Ethernet.
I'm betting that 3174's Ethernet interfaces also used DLC / LLC2
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 02/21/2019 07:43 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> ...
>> The mapping from Ethernet to 802.2 SNAP is trivial, but yes, you do need
>> that mapping.
>
> I'm still pontificating how trivial the mapping between Ethernet
On 02/21/2019 07:43 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
"raw 802.3" is a bug, caused by a programmer not understanding how the
specs work.
I thought people started using 802.3 /before/ the 802.2 specification
was finished. Thus it's hard to follow what doesn't exit. Or at least
that's what
On 02/21/2019 04:02 AM, Dave Wade wrote:
I think we have a layer disconnect here. There is a PHYSICAL connection,
but logically the SNA traffic just passes through the box. You define
the MAC addresses of the end points in the 3174 but it knows nothing of
the traffic passing through. As far
> On Feb 20, 2019, at 11:31 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 2/20/19 12:23 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> Please note that among LANs, there is Token Ring (802.5) and there is
>> everything else.
>
> I think it really depends on how you look at them.
>
> From a frame
>
> I'll give you that a "gateway", as in a network layer gateway or router, does
> have network protocols that it routes / bridges between. (They may be on a
> single interface, a la one-armed-router.)
>
> > The 3174 NEVER accepts any sort of incoming connections. Just physical
> > terminals.
On 2/20/19 12:23 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Please note that among LANs, there is Token Ring (802.5) and there is
everything else.
I think it really depends on how you look at them.
From a frame formatting point of view, Ethernet is the odd ball when
looking at how TCP/IP is carried.
On 2/20/19 12:13 PM, Ken Seefried via cctalk wrote:
re: Cisco and IBM protocols
If you're really interested, all of this is exhaustively documented
under the umbrella of Cisco's "IBM Feature Set".
Thank you Ken. That's the type of information I'm wanting to figure out.
There's a *lot* here
On 2/20/19 4:24 PM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote:
I have the 2513 now. I'm new to Cisco router commands and configuration.
If you could give me a crash course on the commands that would display the
parts of the configuration that would settle things for your curiosity,
I'll see what it
On 2/18/19 1:20 AM, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote:
So the 3174 does not do this. 3270 terminals don't talk SNA/3270 to the
3174 as defined in the IBM 3270 data streams. They are usually pretty dumb
and from what I can gather all keystrokes go to the 3174 just as for an
ASCII terminal. It only
It was thus said that the Great Kevin Monceaux via cctalk once stated:
> Grant,
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 07:36:11PM -0700, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>
> > If the 2513 you have is the one that was used for this, I'd love to see
> > the config, if it's still on there. That would very
Grant,
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 07:36:11PM -0700, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> If the 2513 you have is the one that was used for this, I'd love to see
> the config, if it's still on there. That would very likely settle
> things for my curiosity.
I have the 2513 now. I'm new to Cisco
> FDDI didn't live all that long because 100 Mb Ethernet replaced it, but while
> it was out there it made a fine backbone for Ethernet-based LANs.
And a good sized chunk of the Internet ran over it for a good long while.
Also pretty bullet proof.
--
Will
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:23 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Ken Seefried via cctalk
> > wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > You can bridge between TR (and FDDI) and ethernet on a Cisco,
> > generally for non-routable protocols (e.g. NetBIOS); see:
> > 'translational bridging'.
> On Feb 20, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Ken Seefried via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> ...
> You can bridge between TR (and FDDI) and ethernet on a Cisco,
> generally for non-routable protocols (e.g. NetBIOS); see:
> 'translational bridging'. If you're trying to get these protocols
> across an intermediary
re: Cisco and IBM protocols
If you're really interested, all of this is exhaustively documented
under the umbrella of Cisco's "IBM Feature Set". There's a *lot* here
under the hood, but the last time I looked (admittedly, a while) a
number of folks had web sites that documented the correct
On 2/19/19 7:39 PM, Jim Stefanik via cctalk wrote:
> Well, it turns out my floppies are for *3274* rather than 3174. But,
> that said, if anyone needs any of them, let me know: just shipping cost.
I can use them. I ended up with one w/o media
.
---
Jim Stefanik
Dallas Vintage Computing Center
From: Jay Jaeger via cctech
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2019 15:48
To: cct...@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: IBM 3174 C 6.4 Microcode Disks?
On 2/15/2019 10:22 AM, Jay Jaeger via cctech wrote:
> On 2/14/2019 9:28
On 2/15/2019 10:22 AM, Jay Jaeger via cctech wrote:
> On 2/14/2019 9:28 PM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote:
>> Classic Computer Fans,
>>
>> I posted this to the IBM-Legacy-Hercules mailing list. I just realized it
>> probably wouldn't hurt to post it here too.
>>
>> I'm finally in possession of
Grant,
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:05:23PM -0700, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> Is that by chance a 9291? Looks like a white / bage box with a grey
> strip on the front with lights or buttons and a serial port and ""phone
> (PSTN) network jack on the back?
Checking our hardware list it
I will apologise at the top as this is slightly rambling...
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk On Behalf Of Grant Taylor via
> cctalk
> Sent: 18 February 2019 03:46
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: IBM 3174 C 6.4 Microcode Disks?
>
> On 2/17/19 2:23 AM
On 2/17/19 2:23 AM, Dave Wade wrote:
I would say the 3174 is acting more as a Terminal Server rather than
a gateway. So 3270 CO-AX terminals which are directly attached to the
3174 can connect via TN3270 to another host. Often this is Hercules where
Hercules provides a a TN3270 server which
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk On Behalf Of Al Kossow via
> cctalk
> Sent: 17 February 2019 16:29
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: IBM 3174 C 6.4 Microcode Disks?
>
>
>
> On 2/16/19 6:36 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>
> >
On 2/16/19 6:36 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>> As for using telnet on the 3174, I'm going by what I've seen posted on
>> Hercules mailing lists about how others have
>> connected real terminals to the Hercules mainframe emulator. A few pictures
>> of such terminals connected to
>
> I should look for more details. It sounds like some 3174's, with proper
> firmware, can actually function in both directions.
>
> Coax connected 3270 terminals using the 3174 as a gateway to connect to
> something across the network (Token Ring or maybe Ethernet) via telnet.
> I suspect
On 2/16/19 9:49 PM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote:
The 9121 voice server connected a T1 line to the RS/6000 for use by
DT/6000. DT/6000 was used to create interactive phone menu systems.
Is that by chance a 9291? Looks like a white / bage box with a grey
strip on the front with lights or
Grant,
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 07:36:11PM -0700, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> I'm running into collisions with IBM 9121 and mainframe components.
> Even that is vague. I'm not having nearly the luck I usually do looking
> up IBM four digit model numbers.
The 9121 voice server connected
On 2/14/19 10:03 PM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote:
I also acquired an RS/6000 7012-340, its 7208 8mm tape drive, and a
couple of 9121 voice servers. It used to run DirectTalk/6000.
I'm running into collisions with IBM 9121 and mainframe components.
Even that is vague. I'm not having
There was quite a bit of difference up until POWER6 although each
generation came closer and closer together. It wasn’t just the IOPs, the
systems had different management controllers, cases, expansion enclosures,
etc as late as POWER5 and only ran AIX in LPARs or PASE.
The early PowerPC 400s
On 2019-02-15 4:04 p.m., Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 19:27, Paul Berger via cctalk
wrote:
Knowledge Center refers to it as IBM i, but it is not the name of a
system it is just the name of another OS that runs on IBM Power systems
and can even be vitalized on a
On 02/15/2019 02:43 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk wrote:
On *some* Power Systems machines. IBM really hates it if you try running
it on Power hardware it's not licensed for, even if you can get it working
(ditto for AIX).
I think Linux will run on any contemporary IBM POWER system. You need
On 2/15/19 3:04 AM, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote:
> 2) https://www.argecy.com/2389 have microcode. Al says he got some from them
> recently. I can copy the latest version but I am short of 2.4MB disks
> (and in th uk)
They have many revs of the firmware. I bought two, the last for the hard-disk
> Knowledge Center refers to it as IBM i, but it is not the name of a
> system it is just the name of another OS that runs on IBM Power systems
> and can even be vitalized on a system with other OSes.
On *some* Power Systems machines. IBM really hates it if you try running
it on Power hardware
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 19:27, Paul Berger via cctalk
wrote:
> Knowledge Center refers to it as IBM i, but it is not the name of a
> system it is just the name of another OS that runs on IBM Power systems
> and can even be vitalized on a system with other OSes.
IBM moved the AS/400 onto POWER
On 2019-02-15 12:45 p.m., Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
On 02/15/2019 08:03 AM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote:
I know, they're not called AS/400s any more. We're on a POWER 8 box,
an 8286-41A. But until IBM comes up with a new name that's an
improvement over AS/400, we're sticking with
> I know, they're not called AS/400s any more. We're on a POWER 8 box,
> an 8286-41A. But until IBM comes up with a new name that's an improvement
> over AS/400, we're sticking with that name.
Just like approximately everyone else. I have even heard IBMers
involved with the machines stick to
On 02/15/2019 08:03 AM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote:
I know, they're not called AS/400s any more. We're on a POWER 8 box,
an 8286-41A. But until IBM comes up with a new name that's an improvement
over AS/400, we're sticking with that name. Apple was already using the
letter i, and
On 2/14/2019 9:28 PM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote:
> Classic Computer Fans,
>
> I posted this to the IBM-Legacy-Hercules mailing list. I just realized it
> probably wouldn't hurt to post it here too.
>
> I'm finally in possession of a box that hopefully is capable or can be made
> capable
Jim,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:37:34PM -0600, Jim Stefanik via cctalk wrote:
> As for my system, I've got a z800 (a 2066-0A1 to be exact).
Nice!!
> It's got ESCON, so I've got an Optica converter box of which the model
> number escapes me; but it's the replacement/alternative to the IBM
Behalf Of Kevin Monceaux
> via cctalk
> Sent: 15 February 2019 03:29
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: IBM 3174 C 6.4 Microcode Disks?
>
> Classic Computer Fans,
>
> I posted this to the IBM-Legacy-Hercules mailing list. I just realized it
2019 23:07
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: IBM 3174 C 6.4 Microcode Disks?
Jim,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:23:30PM -0600, Jim Stefanik via cctalk wrote:
> Simon Systems should be able to get you the microcode diskettes. I think
> they charged me around $
Jim,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:23:30PM -0600, Jim Stefanik via cctalk wrote:
> Simon Systems should be able to get you the microcode diskettes. I think
> they charged me around $35 USD when I bought in Nov. 2017. Send them an
> email and let them know what you need.
Thanks!! I'll check with
Grant,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 08:52:25PM -0700, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> Nice haul.
I also acquired an RS/6000 7012-340, its 7208 8mm tape drive, and a couple
of 9121 voice servers. It used to run DirectTalk/6000.
> You mentioned telnet, which largely implies TCP/IP, which in
if it can be converted to an 11L, since I'd prefer to channel attach it
to my machine instead of use ethernet.
-Jim
From: Kevin Monceaux via cctalk
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2019 21:28
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: IBM 3174 C 6.4
On 2/14/19 8:28 PM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote:
I'm finally in possession of a box that hopefully is capable or can be
made capable of connecting a real terminal to Hercules. It's a 3174 11L.
It was retired last year where I work. I finally got the okay to save
it from being sent to a
Classic Computer Fans,
I posted this to the IBM-Legacy-Hercules mailing list. I just realized it
probably wouldn't hurt to post it here too.
I'm finally in possession of a box that hopefully is capable or can be made
capable of connecting a real terminal to Hercules. It's a 3174 11L. It was
50 matches
Mail list logo
