HEDGPETH.S@RWMVS.RAY.COM (Steve Hedgpeth) (12/29/88)
We are looking at some Ethernet, TCP/IP based options for providing
a terminal emulation and file transfer gateway to an existing IBM 3090
under MVS, (no VM). We have an existing TCP/IP network with Apollos,
VMS VAXes, UNIX VAXes, Suns, C/V's, HP's, PC's, etc.
Does anyone know anything about the following Vendors/Products in
terms of Reliability, Support, Installations, History, etc ?
1. Mitek. They have a box (M2030) that connects Ethernet to the IBM
and IBM software for TELNET and FTP. Headquarters in Texas.
Local rep is Penny Neill (New York).
2. Advanced Computer Communications. They have the same thing as Mitek
but the box is an ACS9315 and the software is called "Access MVS".
They also have SMTP hooks.
Headquarters in California. Local distributor is Bomara Associates
(Bob Ravenstein) and the local ACC rep is Mike Kirby (Pa).
3. IBM has a TCP option for the IBM/MVS operating system but it is
not available until 3Q89. Their box, the 8232, is available now.
Thanx,
Steve Hedgpeth
<hedgpeth.s@rwmvs.ray.com>
{decuac,gatech,necntc,sun,uiucdcs,ukma}!rayssd!rwmvs!hedgpeth.sron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (12/30/88)
There are essentially three classes of TCP/IP products for MVS (actually
IBM systems in general). The first is to put actual TCP on the MVS
machine and use some sort of channel attached Ethernet interface. The
second, which works mostly for terminal (TELNET) traffic, is to build
an Ethernet protocol converter that plugs emulates an Cluster Controller
to the IBM system. The converter accepts telnet connections and generates
a emulates a 3270 for the user. The third is a box that sits on the
Ethernet that does most of the protocol work but requires special hooks
on the MVS side to interface it.
Emulators:
MITEK: This is probably the nicest protocol converter I've seen for an
IBM system (Ethernet or otherwise). It has a hot key that gives you
a nicely formatted screen telling you where all the funny 3270 keys
are bound. We didn't get around to trying any of the esoteric FTP
or printer modes. The method to configure the box could be a little
nicer though. User can add new terminal types easily (they are infact
termcap entries from UNIX).
ACC: You list a product similar to the MITEK that I have little experience
with.
BRIDGE: We got one of the bridge products CS1/SNA relatively soon after
they were announced. We had some difficulty getting it to work (probably
mostly due to the preliminary version of the manual that we were using).
We mostly panned it because it didn't support the most popular terminal
we have on campus and the user could not add additional terminal
descriptions). This was all based on a test we made of it about a year
and a half ago.
SUN: Sun makes a board and software to go with it that plugs into one
of their workstations to do the emulation. The major problem with the
channel attached version we have is that it crashes the MVS system it
was plugged into. Sun offered to buy it back, but has so far not bothered
to make good on the offer.
REAL TCP/IP:
The folks at UCLA did an actual MVS TCP/IP port. This product usually is
referred to as "UCLA TCP" but is sold under the commercial names of
ACCESS/MVS etc.. Just about every TCP implemnation for MVS with the
exception of IBM's is based on this.
IBM TCP/IP for MVS. This is a port of the VM product ("FAL") to MVS.
It was done by creating enough special glue to wedge the VM stuff to
MVS. They even wrote VMCF for MVS to do this project. It looks fairly
good.
REAL ETHERNET Interfaces:
ACC: This was what the UCLA code was originally written for. The ACC
9310 is a box that plugs into an Ethernet on one side but emulates an
IMP to the IBM host. We had serial number 1 for a long time. I think
we have got number 17 now. Ever since we got rid of box #1 it has been
reliable.
BTI: (Bustek) makes perhaps the best performance box for an IBM host.
It is regarded highly by the community.
IBM 8232: This box is an overgrown IBM PC/AT with a channel attachment
card and an Ungermann/Trout PC/NIC Ethernet card. It's major problem
is that it is slow. It's even worse with IBM's token ring interface.
It is even slower than the performance of normal PC's running DOS
doing TCP with the same hardware. The thing comes rack mounted in
a white cabinet mostly so that it looks mainframish and so that the
thing doesn't fall over when some CE comes yanking on the channel cables
to see where they go.
PROTOOCOL BOXES:
Fibronics: AKA Spartacus. This box does most of the TCP/IP protocol
work and connects to sofware running on the host. I have little experience
with this, but I would expect that in this day and age it is going to
be a little obsolete. The problems are likely going to be old versions
of box firmware not supporting the protocols properly.
RECOMMENDATION: Buy a BTI box and wait for the IBM TCP/IP software
to come out, if you want full functionality. If you only want terminals,
buy the MITEK.
-Rongould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould) (12/30/88)
In article <R00001@rwmvs.RAY.COM>, HEDGPETH.S@RWMVS.RAY.COM (Steve Hedgpeth) writes: > We are looking at some Ethernet, TCP/IP based options for providing > a terminal emulation and file transfer gateway to an existing IBM 3090 > under MVS, (no VM). We have an existing TCP/IP network with Apollos, > VMS VAXes, UNIX VAXes, Suns, C/V's, HP's, PC's, etc. > ...<stuff deleted>... > > 3. IBM has a TCP option for the IBM/MVS operating system but it is > not available until 3Q89. Their box, the 8232, is available now. > There are a number of products out there that can connect to IBM 370-series channels and something else (ethernet, pronet, token ring)... And there are a few TCP/IP packages out there. With whatever solution you pick, be sure that when full IP socket support is in MVS, the hardware you've selected will work. Get guarantees from the vendor in writing. You should probably avoid anything that does IP or (worse) TCP processing onboard. Someday, you'll want to do more than terminal emulation and file transfer. --> Any disclaimers, made by me or by anyone on my behalf, may or may not accurately represent my representation of myself or others. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Brian Jay Gould :: INTERNET gould@jvnca.csc.org BITNET gould@jvncc - - UUCP rutgers!njin!gould Telephone (201) 329-9616 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------s
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (01/03/89)
In article <R00001@rwmvs.RAY.COM> HEDGPETH.S@RWMVS.RAY.COM (Steve Hedgpeth) writes: >Does anyone know anything about the following Vendors/Products in >terms of Reliability, Support, Installations, History, etc ? >... >3. IBM has a TCP option for the IBM/MVS operating system but it is > not available until 3Q89. (a) Why is that a "has" and an "is not", in the present tense? If a product won't be available for another six to nine months, say "will have" and "will not be". (b) It sounds like this particular vendor's IP software, at least for this particular hardware and operating system, has no track record in terms of reliability, support, installation, etc. Your question is unanswerable in this case. Why is it that some vendors can get away with trying to {im,de}press the market with extreme-advance announcements, and others can't? The answer "They've been around long enough to be reliable" doesn't wash. IBM, in particular, has a history of phantom product announcements. Grrr... everyone should play by the same rules, not just the little guys.
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (01/04/89)
I'm not sure why you think IBM is not playing by the rules more than the "little guys." Companies announce products before they're available all the time. Sometimes even before they've been developped. Well, IBM's a little more conservative. They announce them and when they'll be ready to go. IBM's TCP/IP for MVS exists, they just won't sell it to you yet. I've seen it demo'd and I've talked to the people who wrote it. One of the odd things about IBM's TCP development (as opposed to other things in IBM, as well as vendors in general) is that you find the actual people who did the work at the shows who can answer questions as to what was done. You can report bugs and get responses directly from them. IBM gets a lot of pot-shots taken at it, many of them probably well deserved, but this is one area where it is unwarranted. -Ron