Thank you, that was my point about non-CTC links. When I started here in the 90s, BSC links were still in use. First for NJE to VM/XA because our implementation did not include VTAM, and for some JES2 connections because of a perception that BSC was faster than SNA. A little testing dispelled the latter myth, and we converted all JES2 links in short order. By the time FCTC emerged, we were 100% SNA.
As to the simplicity of TCP/IP for NJE, I have to take exception. We are heavily dependent on several JES2 exits, some of which require different exits--different versions--for IP. We contemplated the effort required for conversion to IP and decided that we could not justify the project. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 3:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: CTC (FCTC) usage NJE over BSC was obsolete 20 years ago. However IMHO it's easier to use NJE over TCPIP than over CTC/VTAM. NJE over TCPIP is also not new, probably 10+ years. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland W dniu 2019-05-29 o 03:30, Tony Thigpen pisze: > I am talking about JES2 controlled CTCs for NJE, not VTAM controlled > CTCs, which I expect you are thinking about and using. That is really > NJE over VTAM, just like using NJE over TCP/IP, both of which use a > third-party (VTAM or TCP/IP) as the actual traffic carrier. That > third-party carrier may allow multiple types of paths (one of which > *may* be a CTC), but JES2 does not know or care about the path selected. > > Specifically, JES2 can no longer talk directly to a CTC. > > > Tony Thigpen > > Jesse 1 Robinson wrote on 5/28/19 7:00 PM: >> I'm not sure what Tony T. means. We have only FICON CTC throughout >> the enterprise. All of our JES2 NJE connections use them. There was >> no configuration change when we moved from ESCON to FICON. >> >> Maybe BSC? We abandoned that protocol decades ago. >> >> . >> . >> J.O.Skip Robinson >> Southern California Edison Company >> Electric Dragon Team Paddler >> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager >> 323-715-0595 Mobile >> 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW >> [email protected] >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On >> Behalf Of Tony Thigpen >> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:17 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: (External):Re: CTC (FCTC) usage >> >> FYI, JES2/NJE does not support FICON CTC connections. They only >> support ESCON/BASIC CTC connections, which you don't have on a z14. >> >> Tony Thigpen >> >> Munif Sadek wrote on 5/28/19 10:40 AM: >>> we are getting new z14 and time to revisit our CTC configuration. >>> >>> Is there a complete documentation on FICON CTC implementation and >>> its potential usage / configuration for various subsystems e.g. >>> VTAM, TCP/IP, GRS, NJE, XCF etc . we are single CPC SYSPLEX >>> environment and just exploring where all CTCs can be used. >>> >>> Currently we us it only for VTAM (TRL) and IP. >>> >>> regards >>> Munif ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
