Printable View
Just got a request to explore SNA as an option for some project. The only thing is that I'm not very familiar with it. I only understand that SNA is session based, similar to a modem session, where data flow is committed to one path or tunnel. I don't see any advantages to this over TCP/IP, except maybe over long distances. The obvious disadvantage being that it is controlled by IBM, I think. SAA is the SNA protocol? Am I completely wrong? Can someone please enlighten me.
from what i've read i don't see any advantage to it either http://protocols.com/pbook/sna.htm
SNA is used to connect to mainframes/IBM-hosts/...
Cisco routers can send SNA-traffic over TCP/IP to simulate the front-ends in far-away offices - as SNA itself is not routable and needs permanent connection/handshakes these ciscos fake this permanency and try to send requested data in the time-scale that SNA-protocol expects.
I would say NOBODY I heared from will invent new projects with new hardware to do a job via SNA... it's only use is to connect the old (still existend, and still good and needed) mainframes to newer hardware or strategic concepts...
Even though I could be wrong... so watch out for more information...
Higg
SNA is legacy stuff. Using TCP/IP even with an AS/400 is always the best option because I worked for a place that had Banyan Vines, Novell IPX/SPX, TCP/IP and SNA running at the same time. The fewer protocols the better anyway
Without knowing more details on what you are trying to use SNA for it is difficult. However suffice it to say that an SNA gateway allows neweer clients to communicate with legacy hosts still requiring the SNA protocol, however as was previously listed SNA is a protocol and will add overhead to your network, taking up all too valuable bandwidth.
Okay, thanks guys. I'm not too sure why the decision would be made in favor of SNA, but I'm just doing what I'm told. I think that we need to update an older app to tie it into a newer one that has been developed. I think I'm going to vote for write a new module. I'm not messing with that archaic junk . . . I think I would rather write it in COBOL or FORTRAN.