home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
- Path: sparky!uunet!news.univie.ac.at!cc.univie.ac.at!ej
- From: ej@cc.univie.ac.at (Ewald Jenisch)
- Subject: Re: anyone using STUN to connect FEPs?
- Message-ID: <ej.713789827@cc.univie.ac.at>
- Sender: news@newssrv.edvz.univie.ac.at (News System - Vienna University)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: aurora.cc.univie.ac.at
- Organization: Vienna University
- References: <ssw.713566474@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <ej.713727684@cc.univie.ac.at> <Bsy7B7.AnF@unx.sas.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:57:07 GMT
- Lines: 44
-
- djc@scimitar.unx.sas.com (David J. Cherveny) writes:
-
-
- >So, how did you get around the 2k limit? Tweek some VTAM parameters?
-
-
- Sorry to say, but we couldn't get around the 2K limit :-(
-
- We didn't tweak VTAM. In fact in our case it's a CICS application that
- wants to send blocks as large as 5000 bytes with the 'dont fragment'
- bit set. (Sorry if that isn't the exact term in SNA-lingo, but I'm
- not a SNA-guru anyway)
-
- In fact we finally stopped our tests, thinking of multiplexing the
- line or even use a separate line for connecting FEPs that transfer
- frames that large. (Bye, bye multiprotocol WAN for now; at least for
- 'large-frame-SNA' :-( )
-
-
- What would be very interesting: Does anybody out there know, whether
- some cisco-box (IGS?) CAN correctly handle frames that large? We've
- done our tests on a CGS, AGS and AGS+ -- these boxes can't do the
- trick due to the hardware limitation I mentioned in my previous
- posting.
-
- -ewald
-
-
- --
- Ewald Jenisch | E-mail: ewald.jenisch@cc.univie.ac.at
- Vienna University Computer Center | z00ejr01@awiuni11.bitnet
- Universitaetsstrasse 7 | Tel: +43 (222) 43-61-11 x251 Fax x170
- A-1010 Vienna, Austria | NIC-Handle: EJ63
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-