Twinax & V5R2

[Guest.Visitor]

We are facing the same issue. Unbelievably, IBM has not only stopped supporting Netsoft router SNA connections, but they won't work at all. This from the company that invented SNA and now they want to start removing functions from OS400. Unbelievable. Their must be a very young crowd invading IBM is they only want to support TCP/IP. I have about 25 SNA frame relay lines to Perle controllers. I have upgraded some of the controllers with the IP Routing feature Perle offers. Because I am using the native frame relay connections with the Controller and my 2666 Comm Card, I can run TCP/IP on the contollers that support it and SNA on the controllers that don't. I don't see any way around not converting to TCP/IP at this time unless one takes the motto, "Windows 98 forever, OS400 4.5 forever", actually, that may not be a bad idea. Maybe we can then get out of the overpriced software subscription fees too.

[Guest.Visitor]

Stan, I ditched everything but TCP/IP in the mid '90s. It's the most economical way to go. I found it the most economical way to go for all connectivity. And, I'm definitely NOT one of the younger crowd. ;-) chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Stan Friesen" <Stan_Friesen@mcpressonline.com> wrote in message news:6ae3f3b4.0@WebX.WawyahGHajS... | We are facing the same issue. Unbelievably, IBM has not only stopped supporting Netsoft router SNA connections, but they won't work at all. This from the company that invented SNA and now they want to start removing functions from OS400. Unbelievable. Their must be a very young crowd invading IBM is they only want to support TCP/IP. I have about 25 SNA frame relay lines to Perle controllers. I have upgraded some of the controllers with the IP Routing feature Perle offers. Because I am using the native frame relay connections with the Controller and my 2666 Comm Card, I can run TCP/IP on the contollers that support it and SNA on the controllers that don't. I don't see any way around not converting to TCP/IP at this time unless one takes the motto, "Windows 98 forever, OS400 4.5 forever", actually, that may not be a bad idea. Maybe we can then get out of the overpriced software subscription fees too.

[Guest.Visitor]

The cost of frame relay is the same if you use TCP/IP or SNA line descriptions. Being in the healthcare industry, security of information is critical. I never had to worry about hacking, until I started implementing TCP/IP. Now I'm getting hacked, viruses are spreading quicker, but connectivity is sure more open. What a tradeoff. Not to mention the cost of supporting an all PC environment. I much prefer keeping half my 'heads down workers' on twinax terminals. Productivity actually goes down once too many people get to play on PC's all day.

[Guest.Visitor]

Is V5.2 supports ethernet connectivity? We also wanted to upgrade our M820 from V4.5 to V5.2 before the end of this year but I just to find out if IBM support ethernet line. We currently used NS Router with 802.2 LLC link driver to communicate with our iSeries and some uses RHUMBA. This was my great concerns right now. TIA Sky

[Guest.Visitor]

That is correct, you will not be able to use NSRouter with 802.2 ethernet connectivity. I have heard several stories already of good solid companies who have been using remote controllers and twinax emulation cards in PC's who have been stung by this upgrade. With all the OS400 fees we pay, IBM is now taking out functionality that has worked for years. You will see reference to some of this in the 5.x installation reference material, but so far I've found IBM very quiet about this, and more and more companies are getting 'burned'. ( I know one company that had remote locations down for 2-3 weeks while they tried to make things TCP/IP). I guess IBM wants us to abandon all our good old working equipment and change it in for a bunch of CISCO routers and IBM PC's. While were at it, we may as well look for Unix systems as well.

[R.Daugherty]

A good old story "The cost of frame relay is the same if you use TCP/IP or SNA line descriptions. Being in the healthcare industry, security of information is critical. I never had to worry about hacking, until I started implementing TCP/IP. Now I'm getting hacked, viruses are spreading quicker, but connectivity is sure more open. What a tradeoff. Not to mention the cost of supporting an all PC environment. I much prefer keeping half my 'heads down workers' on twinax terminals. Productivity actually goes down once too many people get to play on PC's all day." Your experience and attitude is far too practical for today's IT crowd, Stan. That lack of practicality is why the industry went down the toilet. Those who disagree, don't take my word for it. Just watch sales continue to come to a halt as the rebellion spreads. rd

[Guest.Visitor]

Stan said: "Now I'm getting hacked, viruses are spreading quicker, but connectivity is sure more open." A good firewall and proxy server should solve that. We have Symmantec's email scanner and we haven't had a virus in the 2 years I've been working here. Using Cisco's routers and firewall we haven't been hacked. A proxy server keeps users from surfing where they shouldn't. Stan also said: "I much prefer keeping half my 'heads down workers' on twinax terminals. Productivity actually goes down once too many people get to play on PC's all day." People playing on computers is NOT a technology issue it's a management issue. It's like I tell my daughter's softball team, "Work hard, focus on the task and don't play around and you will be successful. If you don't want to focus on the task at hand then go play for another team." Same goes for the workplace. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[Guest.Visitor]

Why not get one of the BOS devices that allows twinax devices to connect via Ethernet and TCP/IP if you want to keep the twinax stuff? When I started working for my employer 2 years ago we had many twinax devices, remote controllers, frame relay connectivity, etc. I was tempted to get one of the BOS devices for our warehouse which had a frame relay connection. Instead I bit the bullet and made the effort to eliminate all but 2 twinax devices from the entire company (one is the console) and go TCP/IP everywhere. You know what? It saved us tens of thousands of dollars per month (replaced expensive frame relay with much cheaper DSL most places) and total support costs are about 1/10th they were 2 years ago. We eliminated aging twinax products including printers and controllers that were expensive to support since they were ancient. We hear nary a word from the remote users any more. Best of all, we moved the AS/400 connectivity support out of the AS/400 group (which didn't have much networking expertise to begin with) and into the PC Support group which knows networking like the back of their hand. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Stan Friesen" <Stan_Friesen@mcpressonline.com> wrote in message news:6ae3f3b4.4@WebX.WawyahGHajS... | That is correct, you will not be able to use NSRouter with 802.2 ethernet connectivity. I have heard several stories already of good solid companies who have been using remote controllers and twinax emulation cards in PC's who have been stung by this upgrade. With all the OS400 fees we pay, IBM is now taking out functionality that has worked for years. You will see reference to some of this in the 5.x installation reference material, but so far I've found IBM very quiet about this, and more and more companies are getting 'burned'. ( I know one company that had remote locations down for 2-3 weeks while they tried to make things TCP/IP). I guess IBM wants us to abandon all our good old working equipment and change it in for a bunch of CISCO routers and IBM PC's. While were at it, we may as well look for Unix systems as well.

[Guest.Visitor]

Anynet is not a good option as you would need it for running twinax with the BOS product over IP. The IP feature on the Perle 594 controllers lets me run SNA for twinax and IP for ethernet PC's at the same time and same line, it's basically a software router and works pretty well with native frame relay connections. I have as many PC's on my network as I do twinax terminals. My big beef is that with IBM dropping support for SNA Netsoft routing, I am forced to make all these changes on IBM's agenda and not my own. I could see them not supporting NS Router but to have it not work at all is not acceptable. I also have tried the VPN route with DSL and can't say it has been all that great. Maybe if you only have 2 or 3 users on at a time, but try 20 or 30 and have some of them downloading their e-mail attachments and you are dead in the water, baby. VPN on my DSL at home gives me about the same terminal emulation performance as a dedicated 56K dial up connection. With a 56K dedicated frame relay line and a Perle controller with ethernet card, I can run 25 twinax terminals and 25 ethernet PC's running NS Router, all with multiple sessions, and outperform any VPN connection I've made so far. Any communications costs you save with DSL will probably be thrown away on the Group of PC support personel you will need later. The fact is, I nary get a support call from a twinax user and I need a group of support people for all the PC calls we get.

[Guest.Visitor]

Stan said: "I am forced to make all these changes on IBM's agenda and not my own." Unfortunately, the NS router is pretty old technology. There are a number of "old technology" devices that have lost support over the years. For example, we're upgrading to V5 which doesn't support 3430 tape drives. We had one. I had the choice of either buying a different reel tape drive or migrating to our current cartridge media. I didn't take the easy route. We no longer have any reel media. Sometimes you just have to move along and eliminate older technology so that you can be supported by IBM. If you're having slow VPN then you might re-investigate your current solution. While VPN will have an impact, it shouldn't be as significant as you suggest. Also, look at your DSL connections. Many DSL lines have high download rates and often have an upload rate that's no faster than 56k or 128k. It's also significantly better to use VPN on a dedicated router at both sites, don't use a software solution. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[David Abramowitz]

AFAIK CA/400 V3R2 is still supported in OS/400 V5R2. I have not seen or heard of any document that says otherwise. As long as this is true, your fears are unfounded. Do you have a link to an IBM site where it announces that support for CA/400 V3R2 will expire? Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Here you go. null (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/access/connections.html)

[David Abramowitz]

Only the Win95, and the <u>enhanced</u> Win3.1 clients are not supported in OS/400 V5R1. No mention is made of other CA/400 V3R2 clients. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Here you go. null (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/access/connections.html)

[Guest.Visitor]

Our AS400 is currently on operating system version 4.5 as of 1/1/2003 IBM will no longer support V4.5. We would like to upgrade to the newest version V5.2 but we have some remote sites connected using twinax connectivity with IBM Clent Access 3.2 software, Perle controllers and modems. V5.2 does not support Client Access V3.2 and twinax connected PC's. It will only support PC's using Client Access Express and TCP/IP connectivity. Right now it appears as if our only solution is to upgrade our remote sites to TCP/IP before upgrading to V5.2. Are there any alternatives?

[sprill@rexairinc.com]

Does this mean that my IBM 5494 controller with dumb workstations and twinax printers connected to it will not work at V5R2?