I hope I don't sound too stupid here, but I am trying to define an AS400 to
the mainframe (a z/os system). Previously this AS400 was defined using a
SWNET definition which pointed to a TIC off a 3745. Now the AS400 has been
replaced and only has an IP address to identify it. Someone been this route
er make it a joint exercise with the relevant mainframer.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Thursday, 20 April, 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP address to the mai
Perhaps I need to explain further. To put your fears at rest, our 3745 is
alive and well. We have several other AS400's defined and still functioning
through the 3745. They are all defined as SWNET type applications. Even the
AS400 which is being replaced is still defined there, however it is/has
b
aving been assigned an IP address.
You need to find out what this PC person really wants to do and take it from
there.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Thursday, 20 April, 200
Are you trying to configure the AS/400 with an IP host address that can
talk to a z/OS IP stack? What do want to do? FTP?
Disclaimer: The information contained in this communication is confidential and
only for the use of the intended addressee(s). If you have received this
communication in er
But, again, I am just guessing as to what you are trying to accomplish.
HTH
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thomas Lawrence
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Need Help defining an AS400
I think everyone so far is overlooking a possibility: that this new
AS/400 is configured to support Enterprise Extender. In that case, the IP
address is sufficient to connect to it, as long as you have EE running in
your Communication Server. You will also need to make sure that UDP ports
12
Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Hare
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP address to the
mainframe
I think everyone so far is overlooking a possibility: that this new
AS/400 is configured to
gt;
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Thursday, 20 April, 2006 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP address to the mainframe
> I think everyone so far is overlooking a possibility: that this new
> AS/400 is configured to support Enterprise Extender. In that c
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/20/2006
at 10:10 AM, Thomas Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I hope I don't sound too stupid here, but I am trying to define an
>AS400 to the mainframe (a z/os system).
Define as what?
>Previously this AS400 was defined using a
>SWNET definition which pointed
So many responses, so little I know. I believe the project (as my boss is
wont to call it) to connect the 'new' as400 to the mainframe, is probably
(but I'm not completely sure of this) going to be running the same programs
the older one did. They did mostly inhouse apps of a database nature, and
s
l the skills have been forgotten.
Just reading your 3 posts together one more time, be sure that an IP address
never replaces a CP name, they are "chalk and cheese".
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.lists
ly a situation where using the CP LU, as I described above, might be
found less work.
I think the RESSCB=1 does not more than make sure you can start the two
SNASVCMG, CNOS, sessions which may not be what you intended.
Since you have only this one SSCP-independent LU definition, the
SSCPFM=USSSCS
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/22/2006
at 07:02 PM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>[5] A PU is always type 2. There is no qualification possible for the
>"2". There are masses of misleading instances of the horrible term PU
>2.1 - it hurts my fingers to type it - out there, some of it
>s
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/21/2006
at 06:20 PM, Thomas Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Does this help?
It still leaves a few questions un answered.
Are all of the sessions on the AS/400 either 3270 or 5250? If not,
what other types of session do you run?
How will the *new* AS/400 be c
as built internally as, for example, with the
NTO "add-on" product.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 April, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Need Help defining
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/24/2006
at 02:26 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I think the text you found logically, if not chronologically,
>precedes the introduction of the type 2.1 node and the introduction
>of the "control point" as the entity managing the node rather than
>alway
USSTAB - fine - but why only some of the LUs?
To reply to that question only, you don't need USSTAB's for printers.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the mess
Some of these questions I am asking the originator of the project and have
not gotten an answer yet.
Some I can answer: Yes, all of the sessions are 5250/3270, some are
printers, but they are still considered 'of that type'.
The other 3 questions will remain unanswered for now.
Sorry.
On Sun
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:09:30 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/24/2006
> at 02:26 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>I think the text you found logically, if not chronologically,
>>precedes the introduction of the type 2.1 node
10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP address to the mainframe
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:09:30 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/24/2006
> at 02:26 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:37:11 +0200, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>I'm copying what came into my reader. Did you hit the wrong button
>somewhere. I can't see anything new.
>...
I use the web interface to IBM-Main. This has recently been restructured,
and has the "Quote Original M
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:09:30 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
This is my 4th attempt to reply to this posting. Please forgive me if one
or more of the previous copies show up.
>...
>>I think the text you found logically, if not chronologically,
>>precedes the introduction of the type 2.1
PM
Subject: Re: Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP address to the mainframe
...
>
> This is my 4th attempt to reply to this posting. Please forgive me if one
> or more of the previous copies show up.
>
...
>
> If you have a copy of that I'd strongly recommend you hold o
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/26/2006
at 10:34 AM, "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>A search of the web shows an -02 version of
>SNA FORMAT AND PROTOCOL REFERENCE: ARCHITECTURAL LOGIC (SC30-3112).
That's the edition I have.
>If you have a copy of that I'd strongly recommend you ho
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:35:32 +0200, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Incidentally what is this web interface with which you are having so much
>trouble?
>...
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Pat O'Keefe
--
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/27/2006
at 03:35 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Oh horror! In checking this last item I found the following in the
>description of the ACTPU request in the "SNA Formats" manual: "PU
>T2.0|2.1" in the text alongside the X'0E' control vector. The
>gangren
;s clear; it doesn't need documentation, only logic.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 April, 2006 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP a
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:42:18 +0200, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>... Thus making the description of the node depend upon
>the type of the PU it contains, as is implied by "... it is the PU that
has
>a type designation and that 'type i node' is an alias for 'PU_Ti node'"
>obviousl
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:35:32 +0200, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The test over whether a parameter/operand really relates to the PU entity
>rather than the adjacent link station or to the boundary function or to some
>function with VTAM is whether it affects a byte or a bit in the
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/27/2006
at 02:57 PM, "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has
>always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program
In such boxen there was no node type or PU type independent of the
software.
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:34:17 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>
>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/27/2006
>> at 02:57 PM, "Patrick O'Keefe" said:
>>
>>Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has
>>always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program
>
>In such boxen th
s: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Friday, 28 April, 2006 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP address to the mainframe
> >On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:34:17 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
> >
> >>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/27/2006
>
hich implement a Type 1 node. The only
implementation is in special programming in the NCP ... .
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 April, 2006 9:57 PM
Subject: R
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Friday, 28 April, 2006 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP address to the mainframe
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:35:32 +0
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:34:17 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>...
>>Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has
>>always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program
>
>In such boxen there was no node type or PU type independent of the
>software.
>...
I think you m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick O'Keefe) writes:
> Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has
> always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program (as described
> in a FAP and probably originally desiged using FAPL). The PU never
> had to match the node type (although each non
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/28/2006
at 03:09 PM, "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I think you misunderstood my point.
No, you just didn't think it through. The Devil is in the details.
>The Finite State Machines in your FAP describe what programs have to
>do - programs written
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:35:18 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>...
>No, you just didn't think it through. The Devil is in the details.
>...
>The entire node is a chunk of code. There is no node type for the
>hardware itself.
>...
Well, you're the one with the FAP; I can only argue from wha
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/01/2006
at 02:36 PM, "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Well, you're the one with the FAP; I can only argue from what I
>remember, and that memory is over 15 years old. My recolection is
>that node type wasn't code at all; that it was a description of
40 matches
Mail list logo
