Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-07-19 Thread Staller, Allan
Looks like the big probem is an issue w/port 923. Is this port (reserved/in use) by the "other" TN3270 task? Or otherwise restricted? Check your TCPPARMs. BTW WLMCLUSTERNAME is not supported as of z/OS 1.11. HTH, Al Staller | Z Systems Programmer | KBM Group | (Tel) 972 664-3565 | allan.stal.

Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-07-19 Thread Jim McAlpine
putera. > > W dniu 2013-06-04 22:04, Gibney, Dave pisze: > > You need to use CINET instead of INET. I did it years ago w/IPL. No idea >> if it can be done dynamically, but I doubt it. >> >> Dave Gibney >> Information Technology Services >> Washington State University &

Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-06-06 Thread John McKown
True. Ours used to be on an Escon connected Cisco device. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) < shmuel+...@patriot.net> wrote: > In > , > on 06/05/2013 >at 12:49 PM, John McKown said: > > >Same here. No TCPIP means no users because they are all TN3270 and > >HTTP connect

Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-06-06 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In , on 06/05/2013 at 12:49 PM, John McKown said: >Same here. No TCPIP means no users because they are all TN3270 and >HTTP connected. That depends on where your TN3270 server is. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2 We don't ca

Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-06-05 Thread Jim McAlpine
Well, we use the Dallas RDP centre which allows access via SNA as well as TCPIP so no IPL required here. Jim McAlpine On 5 Jun 2013 18:50, "John McKown" wrote: > Same here. No TCPIP means no users because they are all TN3270 and HTTP > connected. No users == down. > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:

Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-06-05 Thread John McKown
Same here. No TCPIP means no users because they are all TN3270 and HTTP connected. No users == down. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Gibney, Dave wrote: > Ok, that is dynamic. But at least here, stoP TCPIP and fully down are > close enough to the same that I'd still rather IPL :) > > Dave Gibne

Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-06-05 Thread Gibney, Dave
to:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Jim McAlpine > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:09 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: second TCPIP stack > > Excellent, thanks Rafal. I'll try that out next week. > > Jim McAlpine > On 5 Jun 2013 12:49, "Rafal Hanzel

Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-06-05 Thread Jim McAlpine
ou need to use CINET instead of INET. I did it years ago w/IPL. No idea >> if it can be done dynamically, but I doubt it. >> >> Dave Gibney >> Information Technology Services >> Washington State University >> >> >> -Original Message- >>

Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-06-05 Thread Rafal Hanzel
vices Washington State University -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jim McAlpine Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:33 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: second TCPIP stack I want to set up a second TCPIP stack to do

Re: second TCPIP stack

2013-06-04 Thread Gibney, Dave
UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Jim McAlpine > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:33 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: second TCPIP stack > > I want to set up a second TCPIP stack to do some testing. I have the > following coded in BPXPRMxx. > > FILESYSTY

second TCPIP stack

2013-06-04 Thread Jim McAlpine
I want to set up a second TCPIP stack to do some testing. I have the following coded in BPXPRMxx. FILESYSTYPE TYPE(INET) ENTRYPOINT(EZBPFINI) SUBFILESYSTYPE NAME(TCPIP) TYPE(INET) ENTRYPOINT(EZBPFINI) NETWORK DOMAINNAME(AF_INET) DOMAINNUMBER(2) MAXSOCKETS(3