Conference azur::mcc

Installing the V1.2 bridge AM clobbers the V1.3 alarms FM,
and so is not recommended.  The T1.3 bridge AM is note yet available.
Perhaps Bob or someone with more information will elaborate.

-- Erik

    We have a real issue here, which doesn't have a good answer yet.  The
    ELM option for BMS (NM200) which contains the ELM AM, and the EMS (NM400) 
    package which contains ELM AM & FM does not work with V1.3.  Some of the 
    work is done towards getting ELM fixed for V1.3, but there could be a 3 
    month delay between the readiness of the NM V1.3 and ELM.  So, what do we 
    do?  Delay NM 200 & 400 till ELM is ready, or ship NM 200 when it's
    ready, and retrofit ELM to replace the AM?  Do we delay NM 400 until
    ELM is ready - or eat the cost of sending out a late ELM to all
    customers.  Customers who are using ELM will not be able to upgrade to
    NM V1.3 and keep ELM functionality.  The right answer of course is to
    shift some SW engineering resources to the ELM engineering group (part of
    NAC) and get it done before the NM kits ship.  What would your customer
    like to see happen.
    
    bill

I believe that you cannot allow a 3 month slip between shipping V1.3 and ELM,
because any customers using ELM today, just will not upgrade to V1.3, in which
case there isn't any point in shipping a kit that no one will use. I'm assuming
that a large percentage of MCC customers are currently using ELM.

I had planned to stop using RBMS and use ELMs on V1.3 very shortly, I shall now
delay this, as my only other option is to go back to MCC 1.2, which I do not
particularly want to do.

Therefore my vote is to put more resources into ELM engineering.

Ian Pratt
Reading Engineering

    1 more vote for more ELM resources.  Most all of the people that I am 
    aware of using DECmcc are using ELM also.  I believe there would be
    many people who would not upgrade until ELM is available.  
    
    Bill

	In Sweden 99.9% of the customers are using ELM. I feel that none of
	those will upgrade until the ELM become available.

	/Stefan

ELM is considered part of DECmcc and customers don't care about
which engineering group is doing what. In their view we ship
incomplete software, period. The same applies to TSAM, btw.

Quite a few customers bought MCC to manage their bridges and
terminal servers. Remember that the BRIDGE AM is the only way to 
manage a DB6xx. On the other hand those customers have problems 
with the 1.2 framework and they were told that these problems 
are fixed in next release (meaning 1.3).

And now we are going to tell them: "Hey, we got a new framework
release for you that fixes the bugs you reported. Ahh, btw, you
won't be able to manage your bridges for a few month..."

I might sound sarcastic once in a while, but try to see it 
through our customers' glasses.

*Robert

	Another vote for more resources for ELM. You can't seroiusly 
consider shipping a new version of a MCC without support for bridges
and concentrators. We're still waiting for a Vitalink AM for 1.2!

 

    Another vote for getting ELM AM 1.3 out with NM 200.  BMS 1.2 is a network 
    management product and most customers have ELM AM layered on top.  
                          
    Its really hard to believe that no one in either of the two groups saw 
    this coming?  I know its easier said than done but come on!  
                            

    Like many people I've been hoping that 1.3 will be out soon and fix
    some of the problems my customers have got.
    
    One customer, Renault, is evaluating DECmcc and HPs OpenView side by side.
    They are testing their ability to manage their network of bridges, terminal
    servers and hubs.  They  expected me to deliver 1.3 in February.  It
    now looks like I'll be lucky to deliver it before April.  If I can keep
    them waiting that long they are certainly going to laugh at our
    offering if they can no longer manage their network of bridges etc.
    (VITALINK included)
    
    I'm sure we are only 1 step away from losing this account already so I
    can only add another vote for a shift in engineering effort.
    

Not having ELM access ready is a real show-stopper. I have been wanting to
run T1.3 for quite a while since it fixes a serious SNMP bug (false alarms
on ColdStart traps) and brings some nice features. Now, I find I have to
wait because of no ELMS?!?!?!

Lee

Now that MCC 1.3 is about to come out of SSB, is there any update 
on an ELM AM that works with it.

regards,
	Ian

    Yes,  I am working on a maintanence release of ELM that will run
    on MCC V1.3.   It should be ready within a week.
    
    Bob