- Original Message -
From: Johnston, Robert E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: CA to IBM TCP Conversion
Chris,
Thanks for the information and document. I already had some of your
Chris,
Thanks for the information and document. I already had some of your
recommendations in place and I am still reviewing everything. There is one
thing that I would like to ask you about.
You quoted the IP Guide and said:
quote
Common INET physical file system (CINET PFS)
If you wish
addresses in the list
in turn before giving up on the connection.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: Johnston, Robert E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: CA to IBM TCP conversion
First off
]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: CA to IBM TCP Conversion
Robert,
I noticed you had posted some additional questions. I hope the following is
helpful.
Can you configure 2 tcp stacks to use the same IP address
PM
Subject: Re: CA to IBM TCP Conversion
...
For IPV4 links, there is a relationship between links, IP addresses and host
names that you will need to know if you are using DB2 or anything else that
uses the gethostid function. This may not apply to your environment, but I
mention it here because
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: CA to IBM TCP Conversion
...
In Dana Mitchell's post:
At the time there were some functions that were supported on one stack but
not the other, that caused us problems (IUCV perhaps?)
I read that IBM TCP/IP versions later than 3.2 do
-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: CA to IBM TCP Conversion
...
Speaking of port usage, here is another tip. In the TCPIP profile,
TCPCONFIG
and UDPCONFIG default to restricting usage of ports 1 through 1023. So a
port must be reserved for any
: Johnston, Robert E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: CA to IBM TCP Conversion
...
All these APIs and search orders and such make my head spin
Chris Mason wrote:
Robert
I thought I'd dig further into this IUCV point and I found a reference
in the IP Configuration Guide. It appears that IUCV, VMCF and TNF
stuff is still available, you just don't necessarily need it. It would
appear to have become an *optional* bit of preparation for
Robert,
It appears that IUCV/VMCF is still supported with current IBM Communications
Server (like I said it was many moons ago that I did this!)
There are some configuration steps required in order to get the IUCV/VMCF
subsystem started. In the CS 1.7 IP configuration guide it's in the
section:
to everyone and have a good weekend...
Robert
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dana Mitchell
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 8:59 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CA to IBM TCP Conversion
Robert,
It appears
Robert,
I do not know much about programming applications using tcpip APIs. By old
vendor software I guess you mean no longer have any vendor support and
you do not have source code. I do not have any solutions to this. Maybe
someone else will have some words of wisdom.
Speaking of port
Sheila,
Thanks again for your advice. You are correct about the print product - no
longer supported and no source. We're just going to have to bite the bullet
and replace it pretty soon before it breaks. It already exhibits some strange
behavior occasionally...
Robert
Confidentiality Notice:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 09/05/2007
at 12:30 PM, Sheila Weissborn [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
A host name should be associated with only one IP address.
Why? It's standard for large server farms to resolve a host name to
multiple addresses.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Robert,
I noticed you had posted some additional questions. I hope the following is
helpful.
Can you configure 2 tcp stacks to use the same IP address and/or OSA?
An OSA can be shared by multiple TCPIP stacks. An IP address can be
moved between TCPIP stacks, but can only be assigned to
Hello Sheila,
Thank you very much for taking the time to write. I really appreciate all the
info!
I will ask another question while I've got the floor...
In Dana Mitchell's post:
At the time there were some functions that were supported on one stack but
not the other, that caused us problems
First off let me thank the previously un-thanked Bob and Shelia for their
responses...
I have both the CA and IBM stacks running concurrently now. They use
different OSA's, different IP addresses, and different host names. I am
pausing to apply maint to the CA stack before continuing down my
It's been a long time, but in my previous place of employment the company
acquired another company running Interlink. I recall a nightmare when it came
to converting ftp because of differences in option settings for things like the
handling of trailing blanks and the truncation or wrapping of
Robert,
We also run both stacks without problems. All our tcp apps
can (after some effort) be switched between either.
The biggest problem for us is the hundreds of ftp jcl whose syntax
must be tweaked to go from TCPaccess to CS: ChangeMgmt, testing,
migration, remote disparate platform
Thanks Ted, Dana, and Jeff for the info. Seems like FTP may be more of a
problem than I thought. All of our socket apps are vendor supplied and some
of the vendors are a bit slow to respond. I'm not even sure what socket API
some things are using.
I'm going to spend a few days experimenting with
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Johnston, Robert E
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:35 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CA to IBM TCP conversion
I don't get much direction here from mgmt. My orders
Hi all...
We are early in the process of moving from CA to IBM TCP/IP (still reading IP
config guide - good manual, BTW). We've used CA since it was Interlink in the
early 90's. I have the IBM stack running with a couple of ports and that's
about all that has been done with it. I like it so far
You can run both stacks at once, right?
Yes.
And, I would convert gradually, rather than all at once.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL
Robert,
I went through this exercise in the late 90's, so memory is sketchy at best.
Here's some points that I remember:
Conversion method depends on how comfortable you are with changing and
testing the TCP apps. You may be able to switch apps from one stack to
another for testing
24 matches
Mail list logo
