| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3523.1 | version skew? | MCDOUG::MCPHERSON | Life is hard. Play short. | Mon Aug 10 1992 12:18 | 9 |
| > In the SPD for DECmcc EMS, DEC DNS is stated as mandatory. I am not
> sure about this statement. My understanding is that this product may
> now be optional for DECMcc. Can someone help confirm please ?
EMS kitting lags BMS kitting (more products, etc contained in the EMS kit).
I'm sure (actually I *hope*) the EMS SPD you're referring to is for the version
that includes DECmcc V1.1 (V1.1 *did* require DNS, V1.2 BMS does NOT).
/doug
|
| 3523.2 | Clarification | MSAM03::MIKEWARREN | Technology Consulting, Malaysia | Mon Aug 10 1992 14:05 | 18 |
| The currently available SPDs from the VTX database point to :
EMS v2.1 - requires DNS
SMS v2.1 - requires DNS
BMS v1.2 - DNS optional
So the current shipping EMS v2.1 requires DNS (since it incorporates
BMS v1.1), but chances are the next version of EMS will not require
DNS as it will incorporate BMS v1.2.
(However any version of BMS/EMS will require at least a DNS server
somewhere in the network to act as a central network repository, so
a user cannot do away totally with having a DNS server somewhere in
his/her network).
Is my understanding correct ?
Rgds, Mike
|
| 3523.3 | DECdns totally optional | TOOK::MINTZ | Erik Mintz, dtn 226-5033 | Tue Aug 11 1992 02:04 | 33 |
| > EMS v2.1 - requires DNS
> SMS v2.1 - requires DNS
Yes, because they include BMS V1.1
> BMS v1.2 - DNS optional
Correct
> So the current shipping EMS v2.1 requires DNS (since it incorporates
> BMS v1.1), but chances are the next version of EMS will not require
> DNS as it will incorporate BMS v1.2.
The next version of EMS will definitely use BMS V1.2, and will not
require DECdns.
> (However any version of BMS/EMS will require at least a DNS server
> somewhere in the network to act as a central network repository, so
> a user cannot do away totally with having a DNS server somewhere in
> his/her network).
No. DECmcc V1.2 allows you the option of storing your naming and
configuration information in a local system file rather than using
DECdns. In that case, DECmcc would not require DECdns anywhere on the network.
You may still choose to use DECdns in order to gain the full benefit
of data sharing between multiple DECmcc stations, especially if your
network is using DECdns to support DECnet/OSI.
-- Erik
|
| 3523.4 | When EMS 2.2 ? | MSAM00::MIKEWARREN | Technology Consulting, Malaysia | Tue Aug 11 1992 03:33 | 6 |
| Can someone give me an indication of when DECmcc EMS v2.2 (or whatever
the next version number will be) will come available ? (The version
that will support BMS 1.2). If not here, then maybe by mail. I have
a sales depending on this.
Thanks, Mike.
|
| 3523.5 | ems 2.2 . | BONNET::MALAISE | All you need is laugh! | Sat Sep 05 1992 04:42 | 13 |
|
> Can someone give me an indication of when DECmcc EMS v2.2 (or whatever
> the next version number will be) will come available ? (The version
> that will support BMS 1.2). If not here, then maybe by mail. I have
> a sales depending on this.
>
Going to SSB pretty soone (ie 1-2 weeks from now)
This means mid- October in the US , and mid-November in Europe .
Regards , MaRc .
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
|
| 3523.6 | What About SMS??? | SADVS1::GALVIN | | Wed Oct 14 1992 14:43 | 10 |
|
What About SMS???
The version of DECmcc my customer purchased over 6 mos. ago is SMS
V1.2. I believe the flavor of BMS is also 1.2, does that indicate (I
hope) that it supports use of a local namespace? Thanks in advance.
/Mic
|
| 3523.7 | Perhaps SMS V2.1? | TOOK::MINTZ | LKG2-2 near pole X3, cube 6072, dtn 226-5033 | Wed Oct 14 1992 17:21 | 9 |
| Note 3746.2 describes the current status of SMS customers.
There is no version of SMS containing BMS V1.2
I can't find anyone who knows about an SMS V1.2
SMS V2.1 contained BMS V1.1. If that is what your customer purchased,
then DECdns is required; the local namespace was introduced
in BMS V1.2 (which is not 6 months old yet).
|