My internal network doesn't need encryption, and i should be able use
hypersockets between LPARs. it would be better if you insist on having
ctcs that the ctc are connected to tcpip as another interface. you
simplify our options, tcpip will always be there, less complexity for
those of us that like simple, and probably less money for those that care.
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Thursday, 09/30/2010 at 02:00 EDT, Barton Robinson
<bar...@vm1.velocity-software.com> wrote:
Isn't it absolutely unbelievably amazing that in the current environment
with "everything internet enabled", that z/vm is still stuck with 30
year old technology (CTC) to perform simple network functions? With no
change anywhere in the future? *&$# unbelievable....
No change anywhere in the future? Who said that? And, btw, IBM has
actually given some thought to the problem.
If you want to go over ethernets, then you're going to be dealing with IP
connectivity *and encryption*, and all that entails. I don't think the VM
IP stack is up to the challenge of pushing that data, so alternatives are
needed. Personally, I think I'd rather have FICON for now.
Ethernet was invented in the early 70s, so the 30-year-old tech argument
applies to both.
Alan Altmark
z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant
IBM System Lab Services and Training
ibm.com/systems/services/labservices
office: 607.429.3323
alan_altm...@us.ibm.com
IBM Endicott
