Subject: PU names in the NAU MIB

From: "Derek W. Bolton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 95 15:14:04 EST

In reply to Jim Cobban's note of 22Nov (which I can't copy here for
reasons too tedious to mention).
------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim,

>From what I saw of the NAU MIB discussion, it seemed that the idea
was to use the PU name as index into the MIB.  While this is much
better than inventing arbitrary indexes it does impose a uniqueness
requirement.

If the MIB owner manages PUs in different subareas (as DLUR would)
then the Hosts' names for these PUs are not unique.  The proposal
therefore depends upon the names being locally administered.

A possible compromise would be for the NAU MIB to be able to provide
the Host's name for a PU, as well, where known.  Similarly for LUs.
Maybe that's what you had in mind.

Regards,
  Derek

---

From: "Jim Fletcher ((919) 254-5929)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 07:11:05 EST

Ref:  Your note of Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:43:24 -0500

Just to clarify, PU names are "locally" significant to a given VTAM. I can
have the same PU name defined in every VTAM, representing a totally
different PU. So in order to uniquely qualify the PU name, one must qualify
it with its current owning VTAM. LU names are global, so they must be
unique when network qualified within the universe.

Remember also that AIW has looked at having the DLUR provide VTAM with
the PU name. When this occurs, the PU name now becomes unique within a DLUR
and will be required to be unique within a DLUS as well.

---

From: "jim (j.) cobban" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 12:30:00 -0500

>unique when network qualified within the universe.

This appears to be a significant hole in the architecture. They may be
incidentally of a more global significance, for example if an NCP is shared
between multiple VTAMs.  But you are certainly correct that there is no
enforcement of uniqueness for PU names.

However I must point out that the PUCP in a PU 2.0 is a Network Accessible
Unit.  It is therefore a little bizarre that, unlike all other NAUs, this
one does not have a globally unique name.  Further if the name is not
unique, how would anyone perform network management using NetView?