| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1906.1 | | TOOK::R_SPENCE | Nets don't fail me now... | Tue Dec 10 1991 12:36 | 21 |
| Are these X.25 circuits? If so, this won't work as X.25 isn't supported
by the NODE4 AM.
This would cause the rule to fail with an exception and will generate
(in your case) 3 batch jobs per minute.
If the jobs take more than 20 seconds to complete, then things are
going to start backing up in the queue (depending on how your queue is
set up).
Look in the batch job log file and you should see the reason for the
error. Also, look for some files of the form
MCC_ALARMS_DATA_10024324.DAT;1
and type it out. Look at the line labled EVIDENCE: to see what
happened.
I do not know why VMS is stopping the queue. Perhaps you ran out of
disk space?
s/rob
|
| 1906.2 | Again why is X.25 not supported ? | CLARID::PATEL | We'll get it right on the night | Tue Dec 10 1991 13:57 | 12 |
| May be not the place or time for it ... ar what the heck
*Flame on*
If I have a Phase 4 node I know it supports X.25 er go
If I have a Phase 4 mcc AM I know it supports X.25 OR DO I
*Flame off*
Similar discussions took place during PhV to not support X.25, you have
to take code out.
I know this has been discused befor but why is X.25 not supported, X.25
is a growing market -- comments form PM please
|
| 1906.3 | There is some X.25 support | TOOK::R_SPENCE | Nets don't fail me now... | Tue Dec 10 1991 14:06 | 8 |
| Maybe I was not completely correct... Sorry.
According to the DECmcc DECnet Phase IV AM Use manual, page 2-7,
the syntax for an X.25 circuit says it's name starts with "X25-".
Maybe this will help you.
s/rob
|
| 1906.4 | circuit alarms | BRSTR1::MERTENS | yves | Tue Dec 10 1991 14:32 | 18 |
| Already thanks for the info.
My customer is using an X25ROUTER with ddcmp links and also x25 links.
So, the reason he receives the phanthom exceptions is caused by the rule
which is checking the x25 circuit.
Is it true that with the class node4 am we can't manage PSI v4.3 (ncp
driven)?
Is it true that with the class node am we can manage PSI v5.0 (ncl
driven)?
Can somebody clarify this ?
If we can manage the x25 circuit this is only valable for DLM and
PVC,correct?
I need more explanation on this
Yves7
|
| 1906.5 | Regrettably confirmed | TOOK::MATTHEWS | | Tue Dec 10 1991 17:16 | 22 |
| I am sorry to confirm what you already know. DNA4 AM does not support
the x.25 module entity. DNA4 AM only supports DLM (data link mapping).
DNA5 AM fully supports X.25.
Regrettably, no one has ever seen fit to fund the DNA4 AM to support
the x.25 module but we were given funding for it on x.25. I put a note
in the notes file over 6 months ago asking for someone who thought
this was important enough to fund to come forward. NO ONE answered.
The decision was made at the V1.0 timeframe, remade for V1.1, and
for V1.2.
The DECnet group in theory is supposed to pick up the DNA4 AM after
the completion of V1.2. In actuality, they are also short on funding
and aren't likely to do much with it.
wally the development manager for dna4 am
Flaming will not resolve this issue. If it is critical for your
customers then I suggest making your case to product management
and see if someone in DEC will fund the development.
|
| 1906.6 | clarification of previous typo | TOOK::MATTHEWS | | Tue Dec 10 1991 17:17 | 2 |
| oops! on the last message, It should say that we were funded on
DNA5 AM side only.
|
| 1906.7 | circuit alarm /x25 | BRSTR1::MERTENS | yves | Wed Dec 11 1991 04:38 | 7 |
| To come back on my first entry .If my customer has setup a DLM circuit,
and this isn't a circuit starting with X25- it will provide exceptions.
Is this true or are the exceptions caused by x25router...?
Has somebody an other method than my customer has to check the state of
the circuit?
Yves
|