Tony, thanks for clearing it up. I was indeed confusing the two issues. . . 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 robin...@sce.com
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Tony Harminc Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 3:13 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: CTC (FCTC) usage On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 13:46, Jesse 1 Robinson <jesse1.robin...@sce.com> wrote: > 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. > BSC was not the line-level protocol used by JES2 over (old style) CTCs. It was *similar*, but BSC CCWs and the overall protocol are not the same as for CTCs. BSC ran on synchronous lines via a communications controller like a 37x5. It is perhaps a bit like SNA for 3270s. There are/were local (channel-attached) 3270 control units of two types - non-SNA and SNA. VTAM supported both; things like MVS consoles supported only non-SNA. There were also remote 3270 control units using BSC or using SNA. Regardless of the low level transport the 3270 data stream was used. For NJE the multileaving protocol is used regardless of the underlying transport. In passing, I have no idea why JES2 would no longer support CTCs. Are FICON CTCs completely incompatible with Bus&Tag (and 3088) and ESCON ones? Where are the FICON ones documented? Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
