V5R1 and Client Access over Twinax

I have a client that we just upgraded (actually replaced systems) from a 170 
(V4R3) to a 270 (V5R1).  We knew that Client Access would no longer be 
supported.  They have one PC (along with other twinax devices) in a spot in a 
warehouse where running twisted pair will be an expensive pain (it has to be 
run 30+ feet up in the air and well past the 100 meter limit...)  The PC is 
running Client Access for Win95/NT V3R2 using the NS Router. So we decided to 
test Client Access communicating with the new system before the conversion to 
see if it was necessary.  Everything tested okay, so last Friday we did the 
conversion.  This particular PC uses 5250 emulation, uploads, and downloads to 
the AS/400.  It worked fine over the weekend and into Monday.  But 
Monday/Tuesday they couldn't do the upload.  When it attempted to upload the 
file the got "CWBLM0020 License Manager Software Error - 0003, 0037"  But they 
didn't get this error when downloading or using the 5250 emulation.  Now it 
does not matter what you are trying to do, it will not connect.

What I observe now is that the NS Router connects just fine.  I can see the 
twinax "place holder" device go active, the communications controller and 
device go active, and QACSOTP and QZSCSRVR jobs attach to the communication 
device briefly.  It is when these jobs attach, and the Client Access portion is 
trying to connect, that the process fails with the CWBLM0020.  I have tested 
with my user profile, with the same results.  I have also changed the logging 
level for the QACSOTP and QZSCSRVR jobs and cannot find anything abnormal in 
their job logs.  Essentially it says that it connected and then the job ends 
normally (ending code 0).  IBM's KB article 23683628 essentially says that they 
told you that it might not work, so either use TCP/IP or install V4R5 (which 
they point out that they also do not recommend).

As an aside, all other PC's that are still running Client Access, but are using 
TCP/IP to connect, are working just fine.  Does anyone have any suggestions on 
how I might get this PC up and running again, or am I just going to have to 
tell them that I know it worked in the tests, but we're going to have to run 
twisted pair?

TIA (a lot!)
Chuck