I have only 2 cents to add.
1) is there an actual STC proc? Or is it a shell command starting a Unix
process?
2) there are a couple of C or Unix environment variables that can be set
that would precede SYSTCPD.
Rob Schramm
On Oct 16, 2013 1:21 PM, Jon Perryman jperr...@pacbell.net wrote:
Stop
:(775)684-4328 | F: (775) 684‐4324 | E:dschle...@admin.nv.gov
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jon Perryman
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
David
: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
I agree that he can look thru the documentation link that I provided and figure
out what file(s)/data sets are being used to control name resolution from
zUnix. Rather than beating the horse of my own opinions..
I would look at these... if it is not apparent how
David G. Schlecht wrote:
I must have missed where it is defined in the documentation that the SYSTCPD
DD in the TCP proc is ignored. Everything I've read says it's used without
restriction if it is reached in the search order.
I have watched this thread Something is missing... this is
Specifying GLOBALTCPIPDATA will use a single common TCPDATA. I'm not familiar
with it's use so I can't say whether it comes from TCPIP or from RESOLVER.
As for all other cases, the standard search order is used which does not
mention SYSTCPD in TCPIP proc. Everyone I know (before implementing
Stop thinking RESOLVER since you aren't implementing it. I can't find the name
resolution sequence but it was very similar to RESOLVER. It's been several
years since I looked at it so I can't give you all the specifics. Here is the
information you specifically want to know:
1. If zUNIX
without
a SYSTCPD DD. I'm confused why you feel using these requires the resolver.
Jon Perryman.
From: Rob Schramm rob.schr...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
Because
.
From: Rob Schramm rob.schr...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
Jon,
The problem always comes up.. someone has a name resolution problem in TSO
or they have one in OMVS. Or worse there is one
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
Jon,
The problem always comes up.. someone has a name resolution problem in TSO
or they have one in OMVS. Or worse there is one with SMTP. Each of the
environments uses different
Because that may or may not fix the issue.
Setting up RESOLVER is not super hard. With the biggest benefit of never
coding SYSTCPD in a proc ever again!!!
Rob Schramm
On Oct 7, 2013 5:24 PM, Jon Perryman jperr...@pacbell.net wrote:
Is there a reason you can't update TCPIP.TCPIP.DATA or
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
Thanks. The problem stems from the issue that SYSTCPD in the TCPPROC is
not being used by RESOLVER. In fact, SYSTCPD in TCPPROC is worthless as it is
shipped.
Seems terribly confusing to have this in the sample proc provided by IBM just
to find out
...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
Because that may or may not fix the issue.
Setting up RESOLVER is not super hard. With the biggest benefit of never
coding SYSTCPD in a proc ever again!!!
Rob Schramm
On Oct 7
on MVS vs OMVS
In bc6b7b77ef4d5e4bb95b0559a0d6d5e1051f6b7...@mx3.state.nv.us, on
10/01/2013
at 10:50 AM, David G. Schlecht dschle...@admin.nv.gov said:
Forgive me if this is obvious to everyone but me, but I’m seeing a
difference in the way name resolution (resolver) works on MVS and OMVS.
In OMVS
Is there a reason you can't update TCPIP.TCPIP.DATA or SYS1.TCPPARMS with the
change?
Jon Perryman.
From: David G. Schlecht dschle...@admin.nv.gov
We have a solution, or at least a workaround. We'll continue to add SYSTCPD to
every job that needs RESOLVER
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Staller, Allan
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 4:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
I forget the details, but when resolver is started without a proc
In bc6b7b77ef4d5e4bb95b0559a0d6d5e1051f6b7...@mx3.state.nv.us, on
10/01/2013
at 10:50 AM, David G. Schlecht dschle...@admin.nv.gov said:
Forgive me if this is obvious to everyone but me, but I$B!G(Bm
seeing a difference in the way name resolution (resolver) works on
MVS and OMVS. In OMVS, a
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Rob Schramm
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
The documented ways that name resolution work and the order of evaluation is in
the IP
I forget the details, but when resolver is started without a proc, you get a
default.
To provide the services you want, It will be necessary to provide a proc and
customize.
See:
IP Config. Guide. Chap. 14 - The Resolver
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Staller, Allan
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 4:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
I forget the details, but when resolver is started without a proc
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
Not having much luck with the SR. Might be a communications issue. Can anyone
help?
We have RESOLVER started in OMVS. There is no MVS proc for starting RESOLVER.
We specify SYSTCPD in our
to.
Rationalize them.
Ant.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David G. Schlecht
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013 3:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
Not having much luck with the SR
Forgive me if this is obvious to everyone but me, but I’m seeing a difference
in the way name resolution (resolver) works on MVS and OMVS. In OMVS, a command
line ping or dig or nslookup all correctly resolve a domain name. However,
issuing the PING or NSLOOKUP command in TSO or PING in batch
config(s) you're using in
the different environments.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David G. Schlecht
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 12:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
Forgive
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David G. Schlecht
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 12:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
Forgive me if this is obvious to everyone but me, but I’m seeing a difference
in the way name resolution (resolver) works on MVS and OMVS
RSEOLVER is your friend. Ditch all of the local files and use RESOLVER...
Check the IP Config Guide for RESOLVER setup
HTH,
snip
Forgive me if this is obvious to everyone but me, but I'm seeing a difference
in the way name resolution (resolver) works on MVS and OMVS. In OMVS, a command
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jon Perryman
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 11:26 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: NSLOOKUP on MVS vs OMVS
z/UNIX and z/OS have a different search order in locating the TCPIP.DATA that
is used. In your case, you are maintaining 2 different files. Look at the IP
26 matches
Mail list logo
