On 12/18/2013 5:12 PM, Clark Morris wrote:
I wish I had thought of that back in the mid 1980s. The BDT
requirement was the final straw pushing my shop from JES3 to JES2
(single CPU shop). My division was sold by a company that was
predominantly JES3 to one that was predominantly JES2.
In your
On 12/18/2013 2:13 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
On 18 December 2013 14:02, Ed Jaffe wrote:
Since JES2 comes included with the operating system for JES3 customers, I
set up a dummy JES2 node called "FSNA" (aka "Free SNA," running as a
secondary subsystem) and routed all SNA/NJE traffic through there
On 18 Dec 2013 11:02:16 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>On 12/18/2013 10:10 AM, Mark Regan wrote:
>> While it is needed to give JES3 NJE over SNA, it is not needed for NJE over
>> TCPIP. Since my site has both flavors of JES, we were able to get rid of BDT
>> by routing all of our ex
On 18 December 2013 14:02, Ed Jaffe wrote:
> Since JES2 comes included with the operating system for JES3 customers, I
> set up a dummy JES2 node called "FSNA" (aka "Free SNA," running as a
> secondary subsystem) and routed all SNA/NJE traffic through there.
I'm not quite managing to imagine how
On 12/18/2013 10:10 AM, Mark Regan wrote:
While it is needed to give JES3 NJE over SNA, it is not needed for NJE over
TCPIP. Since my site has both flavors of JES, we were able to get rid of BDT by
routing all of our external business partner SNA/NJE connections through one of
our JES2 SNA/NJE
While it is needed to give JES3 NJE over SNA, it is not needed for NJE over
TCPIP. Since my site has both flavors of JES, we were able to get rid of BDT by
routing all of our external business partner SNA/NJE connections through one of
our JES2 SNA/NJE nodes and implementing NJE/TCP on JES2
On 12/18/2013 7:39 AM, Clark Morris wrote:
Is BDT still needed for JES3 SNA NJE? Is it needed for JES3 TCP/IP if
there is such a thing?
No BDT features are used for NJE over TCP/IP. It is a common,
JES-agnostic component (IAZ prefix).
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
83
EJ's response hopefully does away vwith any need for such locutions as
'deinstall' and the more widely used (and offensive) Windows
'uninstall'. The antonyms 'enable' and 'disable' suffice here.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
---
