I see my first attempt didn't make it into the archive so I'll try again. I'm going to remove the "quoted message" in case some sort of combination involving the quoted message got in the way. I think I'll also try posting from the archive - for the first time - to see if that's going to be any more successful.
Mark, I'm afraid I know very little of these PC platforms emulating the S/360 and its descendents so if I seem ignorant of and stand amazed at the hoops through which you are jumping, please accept my apologies. Does the system run VM on top of which sit MVS and VSE? - or does the system mimic 3 LPARs so that each operating system runs it a separate partition? Normally a CTC runs over a channel. I know that a CTC can be emulated using VM and I have often used that "trick". I can imagine that a CTC could be emulated by the PC platform emulating the hardware - much as VM does I suppose. I am amazed that the token ring card is involved but maybe that's how the "trick" works in the PC platform. I have just been assisting privately with a Hercules configuration where I have discovered that one half of a z/OS CS IP CTC link can talk to the Windows Loopback Adapter emulating the other half. Note that I do not encourage the use of private conversations started in the list/group so please keep your replies here. If you want to use "flex"-defined CTCs, the answer is surely in the "flex" documentation and probably the answer will also be in a "flex"-oriented list/group if only because all preconceptions are destroyed when attention is diverted to these "wonderful" and "tricky" platforms. What I can't quite understand here is why you need advice about the VTAM definitions when you are not - as you have described it - changing the logical configuration as far as VTAM is concerned. Thus the definitions should be exactly the same. The only part which may well change is the "smoke and mirrors" required by the PC platform. The CDRM definitions are even more removed from the link definitions so there is even less reason to change these than the link definitions - which should, as I said, not need changing at all. After all that it's becoming clear that something in the original request isn't perhaps as clear as it might have been. :-( Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU> Sent: Thursday, 06 July, 2006 3:01 PM Subject: CTC's & VTAM <snip - in an attempt to get round whatever effect kept my first attempt from appearing> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
