IBM’s peer-to-peer strategy is, it seems, rubbing users up the wrong way. IBM insists on holding onto its proprietary policy although Advanced Peer-to-Peer Networking is now available for OS/2, and the world of Systems Application Architecture is indeed within the grasp of local PS/2 networks, at it stands the proprietary protocol is supported only by the AS/400 and System/36. In addition to the support for OS/2, however, IBM claims that the new APPN features – probably available in the autumn – will also be implemented on the 3174 establishment controller, so that the 3174 can function as a low-end router under SNA, connecting local area networks as well as APPN workstations without the need to go through a host. But APPN support doesn’t bring any advantages to the controller as far as 3270 applications are concerned – only users with systems that run the LU6.2 protocol will benefit. The Advanced Program-to-Program Communications Protocol, LU6.2 is the only de facto standard supported by APPN at the moment. This means that local area networks that run under any other protocols become forbidden fruit to APPN users. Through the proprietary nature of APPN, IBM is forcing other manufacturers – and also the users to comply with SNA. Although APPN was touted as an opening up of SNA, it supports alien machines only as low end end nodes acceptable to Apple Computer Inc, the only personal computer manufacturer committed to implementation of the protocol, but not of much interest to users with a wide spread of kit from different manufacturers, although Siemens-Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG also made a commitment to it. The West German weekly Computerwoche comments that IBM appears to have made its calculations without any reference to the user. Forrester Research and Ernst & Young analysts have found that many local network users are turning their backs on SNA backbones, installing instead routers from manufacturers like Cisco Systems Inc or Wellfleet Communications Inc. The market researchers reckon that the annual increase in SNA traffic over wide area networks is only 10%, whereas installation of multi-protocol routers which doubles each year. In the favour of routers is better price-performance compared with IBM front-ends. The APPN problem stems from the fact that IBM’s peer-to-peer strategy centres on two pieces of software that have not set the world on fire – the OS/2 operating system and the LU6.2 protocol. The attitude of network managers to the introduction of OS/2 personal computers into local nets, and to LU6.2 has in most cases been far from positive. And why? Because the SNA protocol is notoriously difficult to integrate in applications and, characteristically, it takes up a great deal of storage space. According to estimations from Ernst & Young and Forrester Research, LU6.2 represents less than 5% of SNA traffic. Although users do have some positive things to say about the routing and directory services in APPN, most companies are opting for NetBIOS or Novell Inc NetWare and prefer a dumb terminal as the SNA gateway to mainframes. Very few companies, the German weekly reckons, intend to migrate to IBM peer-to-peer protocols because it would involve the re-writing of all 3270 applications. Those in charge at IBM are obviously aware of the problems. As one representative said, the company is working on a version of LU6.2 for Windows, which would also require less storage in MS-DOS. In addition IBM is considering developing LU6.2 for 3270 applications.
