Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!csuchico.edu!csuchico.edu!robin
From: robin@csuchico.edu (Robin Goldstone)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: IBM MVS TCP/IP info wanted
Message-ID: <1990Sep25.191233.6543@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Date: 25 Sep 90 19:12:33 GMT
Sender: news@ecst.csuchico.edu (USENET)
Reply-To: robin@csuchico.edu (Robin Goldstone)
Organization: California State University, Chico
Lines: 23

We are investigating TCP/IP solutions for our IBM MVS 3090 environment
as well as for our VM 4381 environment.  On the VM side, we have already
procured IBM's TCP/IP offering and an 8232.  I have been following the
discussion here about IBM's TCP/IP for VM.  Right now things are getting
kind of heated in this discussion and I am having trouble distinguishing
fact from fiction.  So I think I'll skip my questions about VM TCP/IP...

I do remember reading numerous complaints about the 8232 and praises about
a product called the ELC from BTI.   We are trying to get rid of the 8232
and replace it with something else.  Should we get a BTI ELC?  I also
have literature on the Fibronic's K200 and K2000.  Can anyone compare these
products to the BTI product in terms of price/performance?

On the MVS side, Fibronics has sent literature on their KNET product.  
How does this compare to IBM's TCP/IP offering for MVS?  Are there any
other players in this market?

Maybe this discussion belongs in an IBM newsgroup... If so, which one?
Thanks for any info you can provide.

Robin Goldstone, Systems Software Specialist
California State University, Chico  Computing Services
robin@csuchico.edu