× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Virtual Device spontaneous combustion!
  • From: Jeffrey Stevens <jstevens@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:23:50 -0400
  • Organization: IBM Corp.

John,

I'm guessing Telnet clients are requesting these devices being used by
your APPC clients.  If you set up named devices for APPC, and then a
client Telnet comes asking for that device, it is possible the authorities
established under the SNA session might vanish.

You've probably come to expect non-QPADEVnnnn (meaning APPC) devices to be
left alone by the system.  However, TN5250E now gives you the ability to
select device names, and the system extends its "delete/recreate" support
to these objects, just like it does for QPADEVnnnn.  So, if a named device
was created for APPC, and then later a client TN5250E came in asking for
that same named device (and it was not already "in use"), it could get
deleted/recreated to satisfy the terminal-type request for client
Telnet.

It's perfectly acceptable to use Telnet User Exits to force Telnet clients
to use QPADEVnnnn (or any other root name) named devices.  By forcing
Telnet clients to a class of names, you can avoid conflicts with legacy
APPC support and allow both SNA and TCP to co-exist.

> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:57:58 -0700
> From: John Earl <johnearl@toolnet.com>
> Subject: Re: Virtual Device spontaneous combustion!
> 
> Jeffrey,
> 
> Actually, no.  My problem stems from the fact that I have authorities (and an
> authority list) set on the device, and when the device gets deleted and 
>recreated,
> all my authorities go away.   This makes for the interesting situation where 
>someone
> can connect to the /400, delete an existing device description and then 
>create a new
> device that they are not authorized to use because the authority list is no 
>longer
> attached to the object.
> 
> I'm not crazy about having Telnet delete and recreate device descriptions, 
>but if
> other considerations make that necessary could the authority lists be 
>preserved?
> When a program  is re-compiled all of the old program's authorities are kept 
>in
> place...  couldn't device descriptions behave the same way?
> 
> - --
> John Earl   johnearl@toolnet.com
> 
> PowerTech Toolworks  206-575-0711
> PowerLock Network Security www.toolnet.com
> The 400 School   www.400school.com

-- 
J.S. (Jeffrey) Stevens  AS/400 TCP/IP (Telnet/WSG/LPD)
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.