ypinn@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (04/06/91)
Apologies, but there appears to be a bug in our Pnews command so that
the From: address for my previous message - and probably this one - is
marked as ypinn@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca. It should read either
craystn@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca {which is the machine the note was sent from},
or you can reach me at ypinn@gauss.clsc.utoronto.ca
Thanks
bruce pinnkevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (04/08/91)
IBM can do this. We were interested because we have an existing SNA network, and needed to let two TCP/IP machines communicate over the existing network. Trouble is that you have to have a 370 to wrap the IP packets AND a 370 to unwrap. We had a 370 on one end of the link, and would have had to put a 370 on the other end -- too expensive! :-) -- Kevin Kleinfelter @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc (404) 239-2347 ...gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin Warning: There seem to be multiple 'msa3b' nodes on Usenet, and it is nanoVX, not nanovAx.
raj@hpindwa.cup.hp.com (Rick Jones) (04/11/91)
I believe that there are several solutions for TCP/IP over/under/in SNA. At the last Interop, I seem to recall hearing something about cisco's being able to tunnel IP thru SNA (or perhaps real soon then...;-) Also, the HP MPE/XL systems offer a link type for their TCP/IP that puts TCP/IP over an SNA backbone. It might be able to do what you are looking for. I'm sure that your local HP and/or cisco rep people could go on and on about these things ;-) rick jones ___ _ ___ |__) /_\ | Richard Anders Jones | HP-UX Networking Performance | \_/ \_/ Hewlett-Packard Co. | "It's so fast, that _______" ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Being an employee of a Standards Company, all Standard Disclaimers Apply