Munif Having expended a lot of time and energy in providing a response to your previous post "3270 and EE" last month and not having had a response in which my questions were answered enabling us all to continue with your problem situation, I wondered whether or not you were one of those posters who lob poorly constructed grenades of questions into the list and then don't bother with any requests to provide clarifications as if it was hard enough to frame the original question so that having actually to deal with requests for clarification is outside the realm of the possible.
Surveying your past record - with the help of Google Groups - I see that the accusation in the previous paragraph is only partially applicable - and there have even been some "thank you"s! Of the 8 threads initiated by you prior to this one - since October 2007, the record is as follows: 1. Left dangling so that all the effort providing guidance was apparently wasted: 4 2. Same, but in a follow-up after the first question had been dealt with (possibly): 2 3. Question asked and definitive answer given: 1 4. Question asked and answer given to just read the manuals: 1 Thus, since - I have a strong idea what misunderstanding/misconception could have led to these messages, - In order to be able to make any progress, I will need to have a response, including actually posting the following: -- the output from a DISPLAY NET,TOPO,LIST=ADJ -- the offending switched major node definition I find it quite amazing that the need for this information wasn't obvious! What I usually conjure up in order to provide an excuse for this sort of omission is that the poor poster has pondered over the problem for so long he or she can no longer see the wood for the trees! However I see no point in expending any further energy and time unless you commit actually to seeing your query through to a conclusion and provide some responses to questions posed to you. This is especially so since, when you asked some questions back in December 2009, "VTAM - CICS definitions", you gave the impression that you had successfully created an APPN Border Node configuration which *should* indicate a relatively advanced understanding of the topic of APPN - but what you are now reporting what I think is a trivial misunderstanding incompatible with a relatively advanced understanding of the topic. Incidentally, I suspect you are obscuring the names you use. Note that the only name that you need obscure in order to protect your SNA network - obviously I am *not* referring to the hacker's paradise, the Internet, here! - is the network identifier as set, for example, in VTAM by the NETID start option. There is no reason further to confuse your questions by changing your LU names, PU names, SSCP names or CP names (actually just an LU name which takes on special responsibilities when used in sessions with specific mode names) and, because of some misconception, getting your obscuring efforts wrong and, as would almost certainly apply in a problem such as this one, to manage, in the process of applying this unnecessary obscuring, to obscure the underlying problem! Chris Mason On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:55:55 -0500, Munif Sadek <munif.sa...@gmail.com> wrote: >Dear Listers > >I am trying to activate a switched node and its failing with >-V NET,ID=XXXXX,ACT > IST097I VARY ACCEPTED > IST489I VARY ACT FOR ID = XXXXXX CONTINUES - CANNOT DEFINE NODE: XXXXXXPU > IST1700I CPNAME CONFLICTS WITH ADJACENT CP YYYYYY > IST093I XXXXX ACTIVE > >I have checked my cross domain and there is no refrence of CP YYYYYY. > >How can i delete it.. > >regards MUNIF ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
