On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:56:56 -0600, McKown, John wrote: >On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Walt asked: >> On 3/17/2006 12:03 PM, McKown, John wrote: >>> This is my concern. I don't want the IP address they are used to using >>> to just "drop dead". I would like to try to warn them. This is more to >>> help the "ad hoc" users. We have the z/OS batch and distributed >>> servers covered because we know them. >> >> Why not just have the IBM TCP/IP stack respond to both addresses? I >> don't see any reason for anything to "drop dead". >> >> Walt > >The IBM stack and the TCPaccess stack are on different subnets, coming >through different interfaces. The IBM stack uses the OSA cards. The CA >TCPaccess stack uses an old Cisco 7513 with a CIP card. The Cisco is >going to go away. The CA stack is also going away (why have two stacks >from different vendors?). TCPaccess on the Cisco was the original IP >connection. The network people (not mainframers) have said that the >10.171.x.x addresses __WILL__ go away.
Do your users access the 10.171.x.x addresses by IP number or by a name that could have its DNS switched to your surviving number range instead? Couldn't you get them to use a name now (instead of the numbers) to avoid the upcoming issue? -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
