RE: V4R5, Twinax & SNA & TCPIP

Pat,

My point exactly on the LU6.2.  It would take a lot of work to remove the
support.  But, my sales staff is getting nervous.  We are going to take the
easy route:  Just try it.  I am in the process of tracking down a V4R5
machine in the Indianapolis area right now.  My bet is that it will work.

Re my preference for Ethernet/TCPIP for attachment of PC's, it is just that.
My preference.  We have done a lot of twinax attachment at a lot of
customers over the years.  And I can say without reservation that attaching
our servers via Ethernet/TCPIP is much easier and more stable than
Twinax/APPC.

You are correct that TCPIP attached printers generate a lot of questions on
this forum.  Part of that is because many of these printers could never be
direct attached via twinax so they wouldn't generate a question.  But I will
agree that if given a choice between Twinax attaching a printer and TCPIP
the exact same model, the twinax will probably be easier.  But then how does
your LAN access it?  The nice thing about TCPIP attached printers is that
virtually any OS can talk to it all at the same time.  Again, just my
opinion.  And you are entitled to yours.  That is why we still have a twinax
attached product!

Regards,
Bob Crothers

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com [mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On
Behalf Of Pat Barber
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:26 AM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: V4R5, Twinax & SNA


Bob Crothers wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I am hearing rumors that in V4R5, IBM is dropping support for LU6.2 over
> twinax.  This means the DOS routers and Windows SNA routers that work over
> twinax.

Not very likely..... A few of their own products use this support as
well
as a number of other vendors... The question I would ask, is "why" would
they do that ??? LU6.2 is a basic communication function used by a lot
more than twinax support.

> I have a hard time believing this.  But then, I had a hard time believing
> the e(logo)Server fiasco.


> And yes, I agree that TCP/IP over Ethernet is a much better way to
connect.
> But, I am not in the habit of arguing with my customers.  If they want to
> twinax attach our products, then so be it.

I don't agree with you on that....TCP/IP continues to cause more
problems
than it solves. I have noticed a trend in a LOT of the threads
concerning
TCP/IP and the many mysteries it creates. I know it's getting better,
but
twinax/twisted pair continues to be the most solid connection. I have
put in plenty of both and I prefer for my terminals and printers to at
least recognize when the conmnection is broken. I'm sure a lot of other
folks feel differently. Problem determination for TCP/IP  almost doesn't
exist. This seems to be the daily thread on this group and even the news
groups..."I can't get my printer attached by TCP/IP to work".
+---



+---
| 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
+---