AON/MVS Modernization Guide

AON/MVS was used to automate network operations based on predefined rules and events. It could automatically execute commands based on time, status, or error messages.

AON/MVS required NetView as a prerequisite. It extended NetView's capabilities to provide automated network management.

AON/MVS could automate SNA, X.25, and TCP/IP networks. This allowed for centralized automation across different network types.

AON/MVS allowed users to define rules based on time, network status, and specific error messages. These rules triggered automated actions.

While specific command syntax is not available, AON/MVS likely used NetView command syntax extended with AON-specific parameters. Configuration files would have defined automation rules and network parameters.

Details on specific APIs are unavailable, but AON/MVS likely integrated with NetView through its existing API or command interface. Communication protocols would have included SNA and TCP/IP.

The main components likely included a rule engine, event processor, and communication modules for interacting with different network types. These components would communicate through internal APIs or message queues.

Administrative interfaces likely included a command-line interface (CLI) and potentially a GUI integrated within NetView. User management would have been handled through NetView's security mechanisms.

AON/MVS provided business value by automating routine network operations, reducing manual intervention, and improving overall network availability. This led to cost savings and increased efficiency.

By automating responses to network events, AON/MVS helped to minimize downtime and ensure consistent service levels. This proactive approach improved the overall user experience.

AON/MVS enabled centralized control over diverse network environments, simplifying management and reducing the complexity of network operations. This centralized approach improved visibility and control.

AON/MVS likely integrated with NetView's security features, leveraging authentication methods such as RACF or ACF2. Access control would have been managed through NetView's user profiles and permissions.

AON/MVS would have used NetView's auditing and logging capabilities to track user activity and system events. This provided a record of actions taken and helped to identify potential security issues.

Data transmitted between AON/MVS components and managed devices would have been secured using SNA or TCP/IP security protocols. Specific encryption methods would have depended on the underlying network protocols.

AON/MVS operations involved defining automation rules, monitoring network events, and responding to alerts. This required configuring the system and training operators on its use.

Monitoring capabilities included real-time displays of network status, event logs, and performance metrics. These tools helped operators to identify and resolve network issues quickly.

AON/MVS provided logging capabilities to track system events, user activity, and automation actions. These logs were essential for troubleshooting and auditing purposes.