The "RTP pipe session limit control" function and the ICN incompatibility (Was: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11)
To all following the parent thread which - one would hope - includes all who use Enterprise Extender in z/OS VTAM: Just to summarise why this matter continues to be under discussion: On IBMTCP-L I have attracted the attention of VTAM development to this matter and I hope that the remaining ends can be tidied up in that discussion. Meantime I can offer vastly - I hope - improved documentation to cover the problem as originally revealed in the parent thread. It was first suggested (20 May) that there might be a problem with compatibility between the implementation of Enterprise Extender (EE) in different levels of VTAM - which is the SNA component of Communications Server (CS) where each new level of z/OS brings a new level of CS. Thus the compatibility matter is one which relates to the level of z/OS used in the SNA partners communicating using EE. Note that z/OS VTAM is not the only platform which supports EE but that takes us into an area of mystery still not resolved. I responded that SNA is designed so that incompatibilities between levels of implementation can be resolved through protocol flow between the partners and so there should not no excuse ever to have incompatibilities which prevent interworking. Of course this assumes architects - because not just one product or products from just one vendor are involved - and developers had done their job properly. There were then two responses which - heads having been scratched - recalled that there are/may indeed be incompatibilities and that the incompatibility had been mentioned in a presentation concerning how wonderful z/OS V1R11 - which research discovered was: z/OS 1.11: Migration - And It's Good! Part 2 of 2 http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/ieduasst/stgv1r0/topic/com.ibm.iea.zo s/zos/1.11/Installation_Migration/Migrating_to_R11_Part2.pdf At this point I started digging. It turns out there is text in the Migration manuals for V1R10 and V1R11: SNA Services: Ensure compatible levels of VTAM for HPR sessions http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi- bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/E0Z2M161/7.1.15 http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi- bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/e0z2m171/7.1.15 and there is a Technote covering the matter: z/OS V1R10 VTAM compatibility requirements for HPR sessions in mixed network http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21367595 Of these only the section in the Migration manual for z/OS V1R10 can claim to have been competently written and then only because the nature of the problem caused by incompatibility had yet to be fixed; it was obliged to put egg on its face and leave it there! Both the text in the Migration manual for V1R11 and the Technote mention the APAR which allows a resolution of the problem without any appreciation that the availability of the APAR makes nonsense of the previous text. In the case of the section in the Migration manual the "game-changing" APAR is mentioned as an afterthought and it's probable that the addition of the last two paragraphs of the Technote is evidence of the same effect. In addition to what is said in the description of the HPRSESLM start option in the CS SNA Resource Definition reference manual which - highly disingenuously IMNSHO - touches on the "interchange node sessions" exception, there is also an extensive section in another document in the form of a presentation: z/OS V1R10 Communications Server Enterprise Extender (EE) and SNA enhancements: Part 2 http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/ieduasst/stgv1r0/topic/com.ibm.iea.co mmserv_v1/commserv/1.10z/ee/neweesna2.pdf What this is particularly good for is to explain just exactly what the "RTP pipe session limit control" function is all about and why limiting the number of sessions using an RTP "pipe" can have benefits. Unfortunately, in the matter of what the ICN incompatibility is about, it promises more than it delivers. The remaining mystery is precisely that, what is the protocol flow involving "interchange node sessions" which can cause the session setup failure with the 0897000A sense code. Once this is clear, we will know: 1. Are EE platforms other that z/OS VTAM affected or not? After all it is the *partner* node which is supposed to implement support for a control vector or something like that in flow to the VTAM interchange node running in z/OS from z/OS V1R10 which isn't implemented before VTAM running in z/OS from V1R8 (or some earlier releases with maintenance). 2. Does the problem potentially affect *all* session setup flows involving changing from APPN/HPR at an Interchange Node to a subarea flow or only sessions having certain characteristics such as, for example, being initiated by the LU which is destined to become the secondary LU in the eventual[1] session? Knowing 1 is obviously a practical consideration and knowing 2 might be practical if my example applies and the only sessions affected by the possible incompatibility involved initiation from
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
To all who have been following this thread Here is a post I made on the IBMTCP-L list which covers the problem identified in this thread but introduces another one stimulated, as it were, by the original thread which emphasises that the platform of the partner Enterprise Extender node is important even if the fact that SNASw was mentioned may or may not be relevant. To all with an interest in Enterprise Extender This is a "spin-off" from a sometimes acrimonious exchange of posts regarding Enterprise Extender (EE) in the IBM-MAIN list where it was initially suggested that EE might have been withdrawn from z/OS V1R11 - and it went downhill from there. However, it did highlight something I thought - fatally - could not happen because SNA has plenty of ways of dealing with possible mismatches in implementation capabilities. The fatally flawed assumption was that the VTAM developers would always take care to implement ways to avoid mismatches - wrong!!! Thus it turned out that it really is these days - shock, horror, reach for the smelling salts - although decidedly not in times gone by - reasonable to ask advice on whether two nodes implementing common SNA functions - such as EE - are actually compatible. Where is the "Network and e-business Products Reference" redbook - not published since 2001 - when you really need it?[1] It turns out that our erudite developers introduced some information flow which leads directly to session setup failure with 0897000A if both sides are not "reading from the same hymn sheet". In other words they have ignored the opportunity to prepare the ground for an enhancement by having both sides agree with, say, a previously reserved bit in a control vector, a "bog standard" technique well understood and used by their erstwhile colleagues. Insult was then added to the developers' injury by the authors responsible for a) a Technote http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21367595 - in the tradition we unfortunately are obliged to anticipate from time to time [2] - at least, perhaps at most, when z/OS Communications Server is involved - and b) in the text in the z/OS Migration manual for V1R11, GA22-7499-15, section entitled "SNA Services: Ensure compatible levels of VTAM for HPR sessions": http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi- bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/e0z2m171/7.1.15 Apparently, after the initial mistake of not ensuring agreement, you were obliged to ensure that all partner nodes could play the new game - as documented in the same section of the z/OS Migration manual for V1R10, GA22-7499-14: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi- bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/E0Z2M161/7.1.15 and this advice extended only to other z/OS Communications Server SNA component implementations so it would appear completely to ignore the impact on other IBM Communications Server products or the Microsoft and Cisco products. Then after perhaps after they had been close to the coffee machine as it was actually roasting the coffee beans it dawned on the developers that they could simply switch off the new function and return EE to the halcyon - and *compatible* - world it inhabited before they started fiddling with it. Thus a new start option has been introduced which does just that - except that, after applying the maintenance, assuming you may have "incompatible" EE partners, you are obliged to insert a new start option into your ATCSTRxx member which says explicitly you cannot tolerate the new function. The smell of coffee was just not strong enough for complete sense to prevail! Following this APAR, the authors just didn't seem to understand what the developers had done because they produced - twice, the Technote and the V1R11 Migration manual section - text comparable to those joke tests where you have to complete 10 questions where 9 are particularly difficult - if not impossible - and then the tenth says that you must ignore all nine above and do something completely different! The APAR relating to V1R10 is OA28332 "NF - ADD HPRSESLM=DISABLED TO COEXIST WITH VERY OLD RELEASES OF VTAM": http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA28332 (2009-03-18) and that relating to V1R11 is OA28727 "NF - ADD HPRSESLM=DISABLED TO COEXIST WITH VERY OLD RELEASES OF VTAM": http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA28727 (2009-04-21) What precisely the problem is that OA28332 and OA28727 solve is not at all clear. If I can summon up the energy in the face of such a tightly held kimono, I may get around to summarizing what can be deduced from manuals and APAR documentation in a separate post in an appeal to VTAM developers to come clean - for once - and not treat their users as complete simpletons! If you want to be safe, a) ensure that and V1R10 or V1R11 z/OS Communications Server SNA component has the fix corresponding to the APARs above installed ***and*** b) specify HPRSESLM=DISABLE in the start options. Once you have verified t
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Thanks to all who helped me with this issue I really appreciate it. Linda Mooney - Original Message - From: "Brian Peterson" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:01:26 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Try http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA28727 I've no idea why the difference in the uid= value with the URL you cite. Brian On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:54:43 -0500, Chris Mason wrote: >Note that IBM presents me with "Error, Document not found" when I try > >http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1OA28727 > >However the balance of evidence is that OA28727 is simply OA28332 for >V1R11 rather than V1R10. -- 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 -- 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
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Brian Thank you for finding the way to view the OA28727 APAR document. I cannot now discover how I couldn't find it before. A "search" on the IBM web site for OA28727 finds the following: The Technote: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21367595 The V1R10 APAR - because OA28727 is mentioned as a "sysrouted to": http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA28332 The second part of the V1R11 presentation, "z/OS 1.11: Migration - It's Up ...": http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/ieduasst/stgv1r0/topic/com.ibm.iea.zo s/zos/1.11/Installation_Migration/Mi grating_to_R11_Part2.pdf but not http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA28727 The obvious way - duh! - was simply to "fix up" the URL on the same pattern as for OA28332. - I checked the content of the two APAR descriptions: OA28332 and OA28727. They are identical up to where the manual changes are described - and I expect these are identical. They differ only in the "Reported Release", dates and "sysrouted" lines in the "APAR Information" section at the end - as you would expect. - Another APAR relating to VTAM is mentioned in the first part of the V1R11 presentation under "This table is for coexistence and fallback service on z/OS V1R10 for z/OS V1R11.", namely OA26490: OA26490: PREPARATION FOR NEW FUNCTIONS http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA26490 "Preparation for new function" is about all it says. Who knows what this is all about? - What is still a mystery is why there is no concern for Enterprise Extender platforms other than z/OS. Surely HIS and SNASw might suffer from the allocation of a session to an RTP pipe. I suppose IBM internal communication could ensure that *current* levels of the other IBM Communications Servers had the required capability - but what about customers with older releases? - Incidentally, I suggested before that the CP capabilities control vector may be the way that the enhanced capability for allocating session to RTP pipes. Thinking about it a little more it may be that another technique involving RTP route setup flows will be needed given that RTP pipes can span many nodes. I'm intrigued by this mysterious "new function" - which we now know can attempt to cover a multitude of evils. It may be that there is some effort in place to try to come up with a proper solution to this botched enhancement - in the spirit of FASTPASS and RAMPUP to name but two - IIRC. Chris Mason On Mon, 24 May 2010 20:01:26 -0500, Brian Peterson wrote: >Try > >http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA28727 > >I've no idea why the difference in the uid= value with the URL you cite. > >Brian > >On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:54:43 -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > >>Note that IBM presents me with "Error, Document not found" when I try >> >>http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1OA28727 >> >>However the balance of evidence is that OA28727 is simply OA28332 for >>V1R11 rather than V1R10. -- 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
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Try http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA28727 I've no idea why the difference in the uid= value with the URL you cite. Brian On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:54:43 -0500, Chris Mason wrote: >Note that IBM presents me with "Error, Document not found" when I try > >http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1OA28727 > >However the balance of evidence is that OA28727 is simply OA28332 for >V1R11 rather than V1R10. -- 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
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
I'm not sure I'm allowed to address Linda any more so I'll treat this as a post to any and sundry who may happen to be interested - including Brian Peterson in particular - I said I'd follow up on the maintenance hinted at in the Technote. > To avoid all possible V1R10 (or later) HPR compatibility issues, a new function APAR is available for V1R10 (APAR OA28332) and V1R11 (APAR OA28727) that allows you to completely disable the new V1R10 function that causes the incompatibility issue by means of a new value for the HPRSESLM start option, HPRSESLM=DISABLED. It appears that the author of the Technote has been told that there are "issues" with "compatibility". He/she has managed to translate that to the text above which includes the words "all" and "issues" - that is, he/she believed that there really were problems in the plural - although later we find a singular "issue". Well, I thought what is the "issue" other than the one "issue" we know about. Well, there are none! The "all" and plural "issues" was a "red herring". Yet another case of this massively stupid use of the plural "issues" when there is just the one solitary PROBLEM! Yet more time wasted because of incorrect use of the Queen's English! The point is that there is only one problem mentioned in the z/OS V1R10 and V1R11 Migration Guides, GA22-7499-14 and GA22-7499-15, in the section entitled "SNA Services: Ensure compatible levels of VTAM for HPR sessions" which, in case it hasn't been appreciated, means the problem affects Enterprise Extender (EE) since EE necessarily uses SNA APPN/HPR. The two APARs mentioned above, OA28332 for V1R10 and OA28727 for V1R11, fix the incompatibility between the z/OS Communications Server SNA component for V1R10 and V1R11 and the z/OS Communications Server SNA component for releases prior to V1R8 by disabling the function introduced in V1R10 for an interchange nods (ICN) where the ICN was actually supporting the interchange on a session path between subarea SNA and APPN/HPR SNA to pass over, for example, an EE logical link as the next stage in the session path. But, but, but, the somewhat careless VTAM developers did not have the foresight to make HPRSESLM=DISABLED the default so any affected VTAM need to have HPRSESLM=DISABLED specified in the start options. Note that IBM presents me with "Error, Document not found" when I try http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1OA28727 However the balance of evidence is that OA28727 is simply OA28332 for V1R11 rather than V1R10. Incidentally - I feel another rant coming on! - here is the text from the V1R11 Migration manual as it should be rather than it is. What it says is the same as in the V1R10 Migration manual with a couple of sentences added on - WHICH CHANGE EVERYTHING! I try not to blame the authors - I try but I don't always succeed - but rather the "suits" who I rationalise do not provide the authors with sufficient time to think through what they are doing. z/OS Migration Version 1 Release 11 Chapter 7. Communications Server migration actions SNA Services: Ensure compatible levels of VTAM for HPR sessions Description: In order to run z/OS Communications Server from V1R10 as an HPR-capable interchange node in a mixed subarea and APPN network where currently some HPR-capable VTAMs in your APPN network (and in attached APPN networks) are running z/OS Communications Server prior to V1R8, you must - either install APAR OA28727 in all z/OS V1R11 Communications Servers in your APPN network and install APAR OA28332 in all z/OS V1R10 Communications Servers in your APPN network in order to avoid an incompatibility with z/OS Communications Server prior to V1R8 - or ensure that all HPR-capable VTAMs in your APPN network (and in attached APPN networks) are running z/OS Communications Server from V1R8 Otherwise sessions established with or through z/OS Communications Server prior to V1R8 might fail with sense code x'0897000A'. z/OS Communications Server from V1R8 provides additional information on APPN session establishment flows to identify when sessions cross from APPN into subarea (or vice versa) through an interchange node. This additional information is used by z/OS Communications Server from V1R10 to separate interchange node sessions from APPN-only sessions by placing them on different RTP pipes. If any of the Communications Servers in your network (or in attached APPN networks) are not running z/OS from V1R8, then interchange nodes running z/OS Communications Server from V1R10 in which APAR OA28727 has not been installed might incorrectly place interchange node sessions onto the wrong RTP pipe, which could result in session setup failures. You should also be aware that this placing of interchange node sessions and APPN-only sessions on separate RTP pipes might result in interchange nodes creating more RTP pipes to adjacent APPN nodes than with prior releases. Element or fe
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
I had to look up vitriol. Bitterly scathing; caustic: vitriolic criticism. ... -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Linda Mooney Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Hi Chirs, Sadly, if your purpose was to communicate and be helpful, the "necessary commonality for harmonious communication", not having been accomplished, such attempts were so heavily obscured in vitriol, that I think we must call it a day. I appreciate that you found my inquiry of suffcient interest or merit to warrant your time in response, but this exchange cannot and will not continue. Linda - Original Message - From: "Chris Mason" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 12:54:48 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Linda You - and the other "helpful" contributions - miss the point of communication protocols. If I were to resurrect VTAM-II, the pre-program product flavour of VTAM from the mid to late '70s, and find some way of connecting it to a current implementation of VTAM or any other product running SNA protocols - assuming I could find some hardware to connect them - they would communicate with one another with complete harmony. Well, this is so in principle but in practice, communication would be impossible because - I thought about it over dinner - I couldn't find common function at the data link control and physical layers. I think if I advance to the program product VTAMs of the early '80s, I should be able to find the necessary commonality for harmonious communication with the establishment of sessions. It would be very basic but not impossible, that is, there would be no actual "showstoppers". Now the advantage of Enterprise extender is that it is, in effect, a data link control - with the IP network as a sort-of physical layer. Thus if I were to take the earliest implementation of Enterprise Extender on say a 2216 - assuming I could find one - and connect it to the latest z/OS Communication Server that would also work with complete harmony. Anyone care to take me on? I avoided pointing out in my previous post - as I was tempted - that you did not have to perform some sort of due diligence on matching the implementation of IP through to HTTP on any new PC you bought in your local "byte" shop with all the web sites to which you might want to connect. It struck me as an insult to your intelligence - but I see it has become necessary. - > I will take a good look at the APAR information. Furthermore, you have missed quite utterly and completely what I was saying about that maintenance. In one case, there appeared to be a genuine problem involving PCOMM - or maybe just reported with PCOMM - there is now no longer any trace of it other than what Google managed to retain. The other cases referred to "new function" which, in the one case upon which there was some elaboration, is a "nice to have" function - if you can get your head around how it works - and it looks like some customer with clout may have made a general complaint which the IBM developers took to heart and cobbled together and implemented some (overly) erudite concept. The other, being described as "new function", may be something similar which has not yet been announced. For example, I think I saw mention of an improved way of managing HPR flow control when running over an IP network. But the part that should interest you is that the APAR fixes are all included in V1R11 and that, whatever your partner node is, since it follows communications protocols, namely SNA *and* IP, if the two partners are expected to participate in any "new function", one will propose the function and will be able to recognise a "blank stare" in reply. That's the way this particular cookie crumbles! Now that you have made it clear you are stuck on V1R4, it's evident you will be obliged to forgo the "new functions". Calling an instrument for turning earth an instrument for turning earth >...> Your z/OS 1.4 system might NOT be able to connect to a new z/OS 1.11 system via EE. was a very silly thing to put in a public context unexamined! Now, if indeed there is some memory of maintenance being mentioned in connection with Enterprise Extender and different releases of z/OS Communications Server, it should have been presented as such and *not* assume that the word "incompatibility" applied. And, since this is supposed to be a valued response, some hint as to where the description of the maintenance could be found is in order or perhaps just encouragement to check with the formal sources which no doubt you were doing anyhow. Having had to spend some effort
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Linda Oh but it will! There have been new developments which show Brian had a point which might affect your situation and I have already pointed out what you need to do - over HPRSESLM at least. Watch this space for any more revelations. You can shoot yourself in the foot by trying to ignore them but there may be useful material for others in your situation to be uncovered. I guess I have to thank you for "moving the stone" which let the light in on some shady dealings in VTAM-land. This is the sort of stuff about which my customers pay me to know - although I don't usually need to worry about what the APAR document dismisses as "very old releases of VTAM". Chris Mason P.S. It's Chris On Mon, 24 May 2010 20:31:26 +, Linda Mooney wrote: >Hi Chirs, > > > >Sadly, if your purpose was to communicate and be helpful, the "necessary >commonality for harmonious communication", not having been accomplished, such attempts were so heavily obscured in vitriol, that I think we must call it a day. I appreciate that you found my inquiry of suffcient interest or merit to warrant your time in response, but this exchange cannot and will not continue. > > > >Linda -- 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
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Brian and Linda This is a potential "showstopper" incompatibility. So my apologies for suggesting otherwise - although I had only Tom Longfellow's hint to go one in order to try to find out to what reference might be being made, the "new function" "compatibility" fixes. Linda If your Enterprise Extender partner VTAM is *not* running as an Interchange Node (ICN), that is supporting both APPN and subarea session setup paths - or, more narrowly, none of your sessions running over Enterprise Extender passes into the subarea network in your partner's node, you can ignore this "effect" - for which the VTAM developers deserve rapped knuckles! At this point I thought I'd better follow up on all of Brian's new information. IBM is being very cagey about this matter of "compatibility" in V1R10 and V1R11. However, it appears the knuckles got sore enough for a "quick fix" - which ought to be a default but isn't.[1] In order to deal with the problem to which the "Technote" refers - assuming you cannot ignore the "effect" as mentioned above - you need to ensure that the VTAM at the V1R11 level adds the PTF for OA28332 "NF - ADD HPRSESLM=DISABLED TO COEXIST WITH VERY OLD RELEASES OF VTAM". In addition - and this is where the fingertips should be pulp! - your partner needs to add the start option - or change the start option to - and *not* using V NET,VTAMOPTS - HPRSESLM=DISABLE. Your partner may not actually care but, in principle he/she is entitled to be upset that your V1R4 VTAM has blocked the possibility to implement a performance improvement. As such - if he/she has a good lawyer - he/she could charge you for the damages! Here's an encouraging paragraph from the APAR document: A new value is provided for the HPRSESLM start option that will prevent VTAM interchange nodes (ICNs) from performing any new z/OS V1R10 HPRSESLM functions that would be incompatible with old releases of VTAM, thereby allowing z/OS V1R10 and later ICNs to coexist with very old releases of VTAM (pre-z/OS V1R8 without the necessary coexistence APAR). > "To avoid all possible V1R10 (or later) HPR compatibility issues, a new function APAR is available for V1R11 ..." I'm going to try to follow up on any more maintenance that may be indicated here - you'll note that OA28727 includes OA28332 so there may be other matters to review - and explain. However, bear in mind that it is quite likely "compatibility" covers both "showstoppers - like this HPRSESLM debacle - and "nice-to-have". Chris Mason [1] If it was default - and the start option value was available starting with V1R10 - what I have been contending all along would apply. However it seems VTAM development are getting a bit "protocol unreliable" these days. It started with introducing "new function" and changing the default to the "new function" because "who could possibly want to continue operating the old way?" where it actually really didn't matter. But "bad habits" ... On Mon, 24 May 2010 14:17:42 -0500, Brian Peterson wrote: >The incompatibility I originally mentioned in my post on 5/20/2010 is now >described by IBM as follows: > >http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21367595 > >"z/OS V1R10 VTAM compatibility requirements for HPR sessions in mixed network" > >At the time we began researching our z/OS 1.10 implementation, the >workaround described in the document did not exist. Check out the following >from the above document: "To avoid all possible V1R10 (or later) HPR >compatibility issues, a new function APAR is available for V1R10" > >Apologies to all for my lack of precision in my previous response to this >thread. > >Brian > >On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:54:09 -0500, Brian Peterson wrote: > >>I am pretty sure there was an incompatibility with EE across some number of >>z/OS releases. Your z/OS 1.4 system might NOT be able to connect to a new >>z/OS 1.11 system via EE. Last year, we almost had to delay our z/OS 1.10 >>implementation due to downlevel partnersas I recall. >> >>I would open a PMR with IBM and ask the experts. >> >>Brian > >On Sat, 22 May 2010 15:50:34 -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > >>Linda >> >>> Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? >> >>Has there been an IBM announcement that says Enterprise Extender (EE) has >>been withdrawn? I would find this enormously surprising given the massive >>investment in new functions which can be found going from z/OS >>Communications Server release to release for EE - which, after much research >>and quite a bit of frustration with the level of IBM APAR documentation these >>days, I discover is the source of the FUD being put about by Brian Peterson >>and - although appearing only in Google and not the regular archives - Tom >>Longfellow. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the arch
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Hi Chirs, Sadly, if your purpose was to communicate and be helpful, the "necessary commonality for harmonious communication", not having been accomplished, such attempts were so heavily obscured in vitriol, that I think we must call it a day. I appreciate that you found my inquiry of suffcient interest or merit to warrant your time in response, but this exchange cannot and will not continue. Linda - Original Message - From: "Chris Mason" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 12:54:48 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Linda You - and the other "helpful" contributions - miss the point of communication protocols. If I were to resurrect VTAM-II, the pre-program product flavour of VTAM from the mid to late '70s, and find some way of connecting it to a current implementation of VTAM or any other product running SNA protocols - assuming I could find some hardware to connect them - they would communicate with one another with complete harmony. Well, this is so in principle but in practice, communication would be impossible because - I thought about it over dinner - I couldn't find common function at the data link control and physical layers. I think if I advance to the program product VTAMs of the early '80s, I should be able to find the necessary commonality for harmonious communication with the establishment of sessions. It would be very basic but not impossible, that is, there would be no actual "showstoppers". Now the advantage of Enterprise extender is that it is, in effect, a data link control - with the IP network as a sort-of physical layer. Thus if I were to take the earliest implementation of Enterprise Extender on say a 2216 - assuming I could find one - and connect it to the latest z/OS Communication Server that would also work with complete harmony. Anyone care to take me on? I avoided pointing out in my previous post - as I was tempted - that you did not have to perform some sort of due diligence on matching the implementation of IP through to HTTP on any new PC you bought in your local "byte" shop with all the web sites to which you might want to connect. It struck me as an insult to your intelligence - but I see it has become necessary. - > I will take a good look at the APAR information. Furthermore, you have missed quite utterly and completely what I was saying about that maintenance. In one case, there appeared to be a genuine problem involving PCOMM - or maybe just reported with PCOMM - there is now no longer any trace of it other than what Google managed to retain. The other cases referred to "new function" which, in the one case upon which there was some elaboration, is a "nice to have" function - if you can get your head around how it works - and it looks like some customer with clout may have made a general complaint which the IBM developers took to heart and cobbled together and implemented some (overly) erudite concept. The other, being described as "new function", may be something similar which has not yet been announced. For example, I think I saw mention of an improved way of managing HPR flow control when running over an IP network. But the part that should interest you is that the APAR fixes are all included in V1R11 and that, whatever your partner node is, since it follows communications protocols, namely SNA *and* IP, if the two partners are expected to participate in any "new function", one will propose the function and will be able to recognise a "blank stare" in reply. That's the way this particular cookie crumbles! Now that you have made it clear you are stuck on V1R4, it's evident you will be obliged to forgo the "new functions". Calling an instrument for turning earth an instrument for turning earth >...> Your z/OS 1.4 system might NOT be able to connect to a new z/OS 1.11 system via EE. was a very silly thing to put in a public context unexamined! Now, if indeed there is some memory of maintenance being mentioned in connection with Enterprise Extender and different releases of z/OS Communications Server, it should have been presented as such and *not* assume that the word "incompatibility" applied. And, since this is supposed to be a valued response, some hint as to where the description of the maintenance could be found is in order or perhaps just encouragement to check with the formal sources which no doubt you were doing anyhow. Having had to spend some effort disproving there was anything to worry about, I feel entitled to "vent" some irritation and direct it to one who did not do us the courtesy of checking his sources before spreading FUD. What's more, it's entirely possible that someone in Brian Peterson's "shop&quo
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
ur partner site is at 1.9, moving to 1.11 > ... I used to teach Enterprise Extender as a topic back in 1999 with some early level of OS/390 Communications Server. I expect that - and the 2216 devices with which I communicated - would all very happily and productively communicate with z/OS Communications Server V1R4, V1R9 and V1R11. > Neither did my inquiry cast any aspersions whatsoever on your advice to your clients. There are times when I should bear in mind I may be dealing with "irony-free" zones - where the word humour lacks the second "u"! > So it is with many products. Which of those many products is known to operate according to formats and "codes of correct conduct" established externally to the products - and other products with which they "interwork"? > I am disappointed that you would take the opportunity ... to vent against others who have been kind enough to respond to my inquiry. I don't wish to discourage responses but I most certainly do wish to suggest that any contributions are not deliberately misleading and even destructive - and time-wasting! Chris Mason On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:41:37 +, Linda Mooney wrote: >Hi Chris, > > > >Let me reassure you - I am not quivering in a corner, but I do thank you for your concern. I think the meaning of my original post was clear enough. We are, and have been for some time, using Enterprise Extender. Sadly, we are still at z/OS 1.4. Our partner site is at 1.9, moving to 1.11 this summer on a z10 box, using z/OS Communications Server . > > > >No, I have not seen any withdrawal notices for Enterprise Extender either. Neither did my inquiry cast any aspersions whatsoever on your advice to your clients. That said, I do not take it for granted that Enterprise Extender will continue to function the same for us  as the 'distance' between partner (my shop and our partner site)  releases increases. So it is with many products. > > > >I am disappointed that you would take the opportunity of an otherwise useful and helpful response to my inquiry to vent against others who have been kind enough to respond to my inquiry. > > > >I will take a good look at the APAR information. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Linda > > >- Original Message - >From: "Chris Mason" >To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:50:34 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific >Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 > >Linda > >> Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? > >Has there been an IBM announcement that says Enterprise Extender (EE) has >been withdrawn? I would find this enormously surprising given the massive >investment in new functions which can be found going from z/OS >Communications Server release to release for EE - which, after much research >and quite a bit of frustration with the level of IBM APAR documentation these >days, I discover is the source of the FUD being put about by Brian Peterson >and - although appearing only in Google and not the regular archives - Tom >Longfellow. > >All this to say nothing of the ostrich egg that will be on my face for >encouraging the customer where I work from time to time to rely upon EE for a >major set of support functions within the network. > >Were you perhaps burned by the withdrawal of AnyNet SNA over IP a few >releases back and so are driven quivering into a corner by any release >movement involving SNA over IP? Recall that Enterprise Extender was the >migration path provided - even if you were likely to lose an arm and a leg in >the migration process - for AnyNet SNA over IP. It was the poor folk who saw >the - theoretical - advantages of using AnyNet IP over SNA who suffered >being cast into outer darkness with no migration support when they were cut >off at the knees. > >> Does either system require any service? > >In principle, in asking a question such as this one it's important to know which >platform is in use supporting EE in your partner "data center" so that you can >check "compatibility". It need not be z/OS Communications Server. It could be >one of a range of other IBM Communications Server products including the one >which runs on Linux for System z or whatever the favourite name is this week. >The other platforms are Windows and AIX and Linux on Intel architecture. Also >we mustn't forget the AS/400 or again whatever the favourite name is this >week. Then there are the non-IBM platform such as Microsoft's Host >Integration Server (HIS) or Cisco's SNA Switching Services (SNASw). Actually >I can't say the list is endless! > >But all of this is moot. EE i
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
The incompatibility I originally mentioned in my post on 5/20/2010 is now described by IBM as follows: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21367595 "z/OS V1R10 VTAM compatibility requirements for HPR sessions in mixed network" At the time we began researching our z/OS 1.10 implementation, the workaround described in the document did not exist. Check out the following from the above document: "To avoid all possible V1R10 (or later) HPR compatibility issues, a new function APAR is available for V1R10" Apologies to all for my lack of precision in my previous response to this thread. Brian On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:54:09 -0500, Brian Peterson wrote: >I am pretty sure there was an incompatibility with EE across some number of >z/OS releases. Your z/OS 1.4 system might NOT be able to connect to a new >z/OS 1.11 system via EE. Last year, we almost had to delay our z/OS 1.10 >implementation due to downlevel partnersas I recall. > >I would open a PMR with IBM and ask the experts. > >Brian On Sat, 22 May 2010 15:50:34 -0500, Chris Mason wrote: >Linda > >> Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? > >Has there been an IBM announcement that says Enterprise Extender (EE) has >been withdrawn? I would find this enormously surprising given the massive >investment in new functions which can be found going from z/OS >Communications Server release to release for EE - which, after much research >and quite a bit of frustration with the level of IBM APAR documentation these >days, I discover is the source of the FUD being put about by Brian Peterson >and - although appearing only in Google and not the regular archives - Tom >Longfellow. -- 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
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Hi Chris, Let me reassure you - I am not quivering in a corner, but I do thank you for your concern. I think the meaning of my original post was clear enough. We are, and have been for some time, using Enterprise Extender. Sadly, we are still at z/OS 1.4. Our partner site is at 1.9, moving to 1.11 this summer on a z10 box, using z/OS Communications Server . No, I have not seen any withdrawal notices for Enterprise Extender either. Neither did my inquiry cast any aspersions whatsoever on your advice to your clients. That said, I do not take it for granted that Enterprise Extender will continue to function the same for us as the 'distance' between partner (my shop and our partner site) releases increases. So it is with many products. I am disappointed that you would take the opportunity of an otherwise useful and helpful response to my inquiry to vent against others who have been kind enough to respond to my inquiry. I will take a good look at the APAR information. Thanks, Linda - Original Message - From: "Chris Mason" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:50:34 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Linda > Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? Has there been an IBM announcement that says Enterprise Extender (EE) has been withdrawn? I would find this enormously surprising given the massive investment in new functions which can be found going from z/OS Communications Server release to release for EE - which, after much research and quite a bit of frustration with the level of IBM APAR documentation these days, I discover is the source of the FUD being put about by Brian Peterson and - although appearing only in Google and not the regular archives - Tom Longfellow. All this to say nothing of the ostrich egg that will be on my face for encouraging the customer where I work from time to time to rely upon EE for a major set of support functions within the network. Were you perhaps burned by the withdrawal of AnyNet SNA over IP a few releases back and so are driven quivering into a corner by any release movement involving SNA over IP? Recall that Enterprise Extender was the migration path provided - even if you were likely to lose an arm and a leg in the migration process - for AnyNet SNA over IP. It was the poor folk who saw the - theoretical - advantages of using AnyNet IP over SNA who suffered being cast into outer darkness with no migration support when they were cut off at the knees. > Does either system require any service? In principle, in asking a question such as this one it's important to know which platform is in use supporting EE in your partner "data center" so that you can check "compatibility". It need not be z/OS Communications Server. It could be one of a range of other IBM Communications Server products including the one which runs on Linux for System z or whatever the favourite name is this week. The other platforms are Windows and AIX and Linux on Intel architecture. Also we mustn't forget the AS/400 or again whatever the favourite name is this week. Then there are the non-IBM platform such as Microsoft's Host Integration Server (HIS) or Cisco's SNA Switching Services (SNASw). Actually I can't say the list is endless! But all of this is moot. EE is an architecture. This means that all the platforms work towards a common implementation agreed by all. Thus you are entitled to assume - and, after "alarums and excursions" thanks to Brian Peterson and Tom Longfellow, it is shown to be a valid assumption - that any implementation of EE at any level of supporting software with function quite happily with any other implementation of EE at any level of supporting software - point final! If there were really to be any "showstoppers", your - or your partner's - regular search - due diligence - for high impact maintenance would have caught it. - So to what were Brian Peterson and Tom Longfellow referring with their FUD - less onerous in Tom's case, I'm happy to say, since he gave a clue where to go and find out what it might really have been all about. >From Brian Peterson: > I am pretty sure there was an incompatibility with EE across some number of z/OS releases. Your z/OS 1.4 system might NOT be able to connect to a new z/OS 1.11 system via EE. Last year, we almost had to delay our z/OS 1.10 implementation due to downlevel partnersas I recall. >From Tom Longfellow: > Search the IBM or Share websites for Marna Walle's excellent presentations on migration actions for z/OS 1.11. I think I remember a reference to a back- level EE connection problem. Thanks to Tom's hint to go looking into presentations "on the web", I discovered that Brian had managed to conv
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Linda > Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? Has there been an IBM announcement that says Enterprise Extender (EE) has been withdrawn? I would find this enormously surprising given the massive investment in new functions which can be found going from z/OS Communications Server release to release for EE - which, after much research and quite a bit of frustration with the level of IBM APAR documentation these days, I discover is the source of the FUD being put about by Brian Peterson and - although appearing only in Google and not the regular archives - Tom Longfellow. All this to say nothing of the ostrich egg that will be on my face for encouraging the customer where I work from time to time to rely upon EE for a major set of support functions within the network. Were you perhaps burned by the withdrawal of AnyNet SNA over IP a few releases back and so are driven quivering into a corner by any release movement involving SNA over IP? Recall that Enterprise Extender was the migration path provided - even if you were likely to lose an arm and a leg in the migration process - for AnyNet SNA over IP. It was the poor folk who saw the - theoretical - advantages of using AnyNet IP over SNA who suffered being cast into outer darkness with no migration support when they were cut off at the knees. > Does either system require any service? In principle, in asking a question such as this one it's important to know which platform is in use supporting EE in your partner "data center" so that you can check "compatibility". It need not be z/OS Communications Server. It could be one of a range of other IBM Communications Server products including the one which runs on Linux for System z or whatever the favourite name is this week. The other platforms are Windows and AIX and Linux on Intel architecture. Also we mustn't forget the AS/400 or again whatever the favourite name is this week. Then there are the non-IBM platform such as Microsoft's Host Integration Server (HIS) or Cisco's SNA Switching Services (SNASw). Actually I can't say the list is endless! But all of this is moot. EE is an architecture. This means that all the platforms work towards a common implementation agreed by all. Thus you are entitled to assume - and, after "alarums and excursions" thanks to Brian Peterson and Tom Longfellow, it is shown to be a valid assumption - that any implementation of EE at any level of supporting software with function quite happily with any other implementation of EE at any level of supporting software - point final! If there were really to be any "showstoppers", your - or your partner's - regular search - due diligence - for high impact maintenance would have caught it. - So to what were Brian Peterson and Tom Longfellow referring with their FUD - less onerous in Tom's case, I'm happy to say, since he gave a clue where to go and find out what it might really have been all about. >From Brian Peterson: > I am pretty sure there was an incompatibility with EE across some number of z/OS releases. Your z/OS 1.4 system might NOT be able to connect to a new z/OS 1.11 system via EE. Last year, we almost had to delay our z/OS 1.10 implementation due to downlevel partnersas I recall. >From Tom Longfellow: > Search the IBM or Share websites for Marna Walle's excellent presentations on migration actions for z/OS 1.11. I think I remember a reference to a back- level EE connection problem. Thanks to Tom's hint to go looking into presentations "on the web", I discovered that Brian had managed to convert the word "compatibility" in a section I found in the document, "IBM Communications Server v6.4.0 for Linux (ppc64) INSTALLATION AND RELEASE NOTES on System p 5724-I33" entitled "1.3 Product compatibility" where three APARs were listed into "incompatibility - quite missing all the subtlety in what the purpose of the APARs was. After looking into - as far as I could - the three APAR fixes it was suggested could be installed in various z/OS releases in order to improve compatibility with the functions available in the release of Communications Server on Linux I found in two cases we were talking about some optional "new function" - in other words confusion caused by IBM striving to provide enhancements to a very much alive EE architecture! I hope you noticed that the words "improve" and "enhancements" were used there. We are absolutely ***not*** talking about "showstoppers" and - please correct me if I'm wrong - you had in mind "showstoppers" rather than the somewhat obscure facility such as "Enterprise Extender connection network reachability awareness" as implemented through the UNRCHTIM start option and operand of the PORT or GROUP (preferred) statement in the XCA major node - which I dread having to try to explain to the customer folk for whom I work from time to time in an education session concerning the design I have foisted on them. The point i
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
I am pretty sure there was an incompatibility with EE across some number of z/OS releases. Your z/OS 1.4 system might NOT be able to connect to a new z/OS 1.11 system via EE. Last year, we almost had to delay our z/OS 1.10 implementation due to downlevel partnersas I recall. I would open a PMR with IBM and ask the experts. Brian On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:05:50 +, Linda Mooney wrote: >Greetings All, > >We are currently running z/OS 1.4 (yeah, I know) and use Enterprise Extender to conect with another data center. The other data center plans to cut over to z/OS 1.11 this summer. Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? > >TIA, > >Linda Mooney -- 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
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Thanks Ron! - Original Message - From: "Ron Wells" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:48:08 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 should be fine...ran 1.7 to 1.9 and 1.11 (that rel we had lots of hmc maint..no problem...outside customers was running ahead of us at time..EE..no problem..REAL STUFF.lol From: Linda Mooney To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/20/2010 02:41 PM Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Hi Ron, Does either system require any service? Thanks, Linda - Original Message - From: "Ron Wells" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:26:49 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 yep From: Linda Mooney To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/20/2010 02:05 PM Subject: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Greetings All, We are currently running z/OS 1.4 (yeah, I know) and use Enterprise Extender to conect with another data center. The other data center plans to cut over to z/OS 1.11 this summer. Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? TIA, Linda Mooney -- 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 -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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 -- 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 -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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 -- 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
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
should be fine...ran 1.7 to 1.9 and 1.11 (that rel we had lots of hmc maint..no problem...outside customers was running ahead of us at time..EE..no problem..REAL STUFF.lol From: Linda Mooney To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/20/2010 02:41 PM Subject:Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List Hi Ron, Does either system require any service? Thanks, Linda - Original Message - From: "Ron Wells" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:26:49 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 yep From: Linda Mooney To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/20/2010 02:05 PM Subject:Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List Greetings All, We are currently running z/OS 1.4 (yeah, I know) and use Enterprise Extender to conect with another data center. The other data center plans to cut over to z/OS 1.11 this summer. Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? TIA, Linda Mooney -- 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 -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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 -- 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 -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Hi Ron, Does either system require any service? Thanks, Linda - Original Message - From: "Ron Wells" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:26:49 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 yep From: Linda Mooney To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/20/2010 02:05 PM Subject: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Greetings All, We are currently running z/OS 1.4 (yeah, I know) and use Enterprise Extender to conect with another data center. The other data center plans to cut over to z/OS 1.11 this summer. Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? TIA, Linda Mooney -- 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 -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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 -- 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
Re: Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
yep From: Linda Mooney To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/20/2010 02:05 PM Subject:Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11 Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List Greetings All, We are currently running z/OS 1.4 (yeah, I know) and use Enterprise Extender to conect with another data center. The other data center plans to cut over to z/OS 1.11 this summer. Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? TIA, Linda Mooney -- 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 -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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
Enterprise Extender, z/OS 1.11
Greetings All, We are currently running z/OS 1.4 (yeah, I know) and use Enterprise Extender to conect with another data center. The other data center plans to cut over to z/OS 1.11 this summer. Does Enterprise Extender still function with 1.11? TIA, Linda Mooney -- 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
