From: Brian Jacklin (bmjackli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Sep 06 2000 - 13:22:35 GMT-3
Ron,
A sample config would be great!
Thanks!
Brian Jacklin
Sprint ENS
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron.Fuller@3x.com [mailto:Ron.Fuller@3x.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 6:08 AM
To: Brian Jacklin
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: DLSW versus STUN w/ Local Ack
I have configured this exact scenario for a number of my clients, and
here's my two bits. I have always leaned towards the DLSW solution.
First, as long as the AS/400 has a LAN card (ethernet or token ring) you
don't have to waste expensive serial ports on both the 400 and the router.
You also have more bandwidth to use as well. This can be an issue since we
have clients with 15 to 20 5x94 controllers remotely connected to the 400.
You use SDLC between the remote router and the controller, then encapsulate
it in IP using dlsw to transport it across the network. The only real
gotcha is to make sure that the controllers have the right PRPQ from IBM to
support PU 2.1 (I think...don't quote this as gospel). If your 400 is
running a newer version of OS/400, you'll be grooving. If you would like a
sample config, let me know.
STUN is cool and everything, but the real concern is the wasting of serial
ports. The DLSW solution will let you do the same thing with less
headaches. IMHO.
Ron Fuller, CCIE #5851, CCDP, CCNP-ATM, CCNP-Security, MCNE
3X Corporation
rfuller@3x.com
"Brian Jacklin"
<bmjackli@sprintpa To:
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
ranet.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: DLSW versus STUN
w/ Local Ack
nobody@groupstudy.
com
09/05/00 01:45 PM
Please respond to
"Brian Jacklin"
Can anyone give me a pro versus con analysis of DLSW versus STUN in the
following situation?
AS/400 ----SDLC--- RTR-------Frame Relay WAN ----- RTR----SDLC---5394
The AS 400 and 5394 controller are both connected to serial ports.
Thanks!
Brian Jacklin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:24:52 GMT-3