| Author |
Message
|
| send2r |
 Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:01 pm Post subject: Queue manager interconnection between non-friendly networks |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 2
|
We have following situation.
Vendor A, 'Company' or Us, Vendor B
We have contracts between Vendor A and Vendor B and so both parties can communicate with us (company) over certain dedicated lines.
Now, vendor A wants to send an MQ message to Vendor B. No contract for network communicaiton exists between these to vendors and so they can not see the queue manager hosts/ports etc.
What I proposed is to host a queue manager server in our network so that vendor A can send message to Us, that will eventually go to vendor B through remote queues/channels
What some other group is proposing is to simply add network routing rules in our network so that MQ traffic from Vendor A to Us goes to Vendor B and MQ traffic from Vendor B to Us goes to Vendor A
Out of these two, which is the best approach? any reasons
I support MQ based approach as there is clarity as to where exactly the messages are going
Thanks in advance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:15 pm Post subject: Re: Queue manager interconnection between non-friendly netwo |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| send2r wrote: |
| What some other group is proposing is to simply add network routing rules in our network so that MQ traffic from Vendor A to Us goes to Vendor B and MQ traffic from Vendor B to Us goes to Vendor A. |
If I understand this correctly, the other group intends to program the router (switch) to examine each inbound network flows from A (A's ipaddress), and if the data look like WMQ messages, then the messages will be forwarded to B.
Do you already have WMQ? Do you already have WMQ channels to and from A and B? If so, let your qmgrs move the messages through your WMQ as a hub. Moving messages is what WMQ does for a living.
My .02 USD.
| send2r wrote: |
| I support MQ based approach as there is clarity as to where exactly the messages are going |
WMQ also provides store-and-forward, channel error-retry, and other good stuff. Moving messages is what WMQ does for a living.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: Queue manager interconnection between non-friendly netwo |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| send2r wrote: |
What I proposed is to host a queue manager server in our network so that vendor A can send message to Us, that will eventually go to vendor B through remote queues/channels
What some other group is proposing is to simply add network routing rules in our network so that MQ traffic from Vendor A to Us goes to Vendor B and MQ traffic from Vendor B to Us goes to Vendor A
|
What's the difference between these 2 methods? In both cases MQ traffic goes thru your company on its way between vendors.
Either way, you are taking on the role of traffic cop....and the responsibility of insuring one vendor doesn't impact the other negatively via MQ thru your company. Lots of ways that can happen...is your company prepared for this responsibility? The argument "I was just forwarding you what they sent me!" may not fly.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| send2r |
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 2
|
Thanks for your responses
@PeterPotkay - the difference is that in second approach we do not have an MQ server in our network
I thought having MQ server in our network will keep it clear in the sense that vendor A will always know where they are/need to send message as there is no communication contract between vendor A & B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| send2r wrote: |
Thanks for your responses
@PeterPotkay - the difference is that in second approach we do not have an MQ server in our network
I thought having MQ server in our network will keep it clear in the sense that vendor A will always know where they are/need to send message as there is no communication contract between vendor A & B. |
As Peter has alluded, either way you are assuming a big responsibility and is something your legal department should be looking at very closely as I would think the expectation of both vendor parties will be 24/7 availability of network let alone no WMQ issues.
If you go down the WMQ route I would think some considerations should be:
1. Charging - if you need initial/additional licensing;
2. Complexity - if customer expectation is 24/7, a High-Availability solution would be required, and of course DR;
3. Compartmentalisation - the routing queue manager may need ring-fencing on non-shared infrastructure;
4. Minimisation - very low XMITQ depths and no DLQ to ensure any backwash stays on the vendor infrastructure;
5. Security - OAM, SSL etc.
There are many more...
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Also, what happens if Vendor A starts talking to Vendor B using your network about stuff that has nothing to do with their relationship to you?
It's not at all clear why they want to do this, it seems a bit odd. I would expect that they would just talk to you directly , and then each other directly if they needed to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
If this connectivity is required, and it can be accomplished without MQ, I would slowly step backwards out of the room and keep a low profile. The fewer things involved inside your company as the data flows between these 2 companies the fewer ways your company can get blamed for when (not if) things go wrong.
Such a peculiar request...but then again we don't know all the details or even what line of business your company is in. Maybe providing B2Me2B connectivity is what y'all do...
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:38 am Post subject: Re: Queue manager interconnection between non-friendly netwo |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| send2r wrote: |
| Out of these two, which is the best approach? |
Either of these two approaches are satisfactory technical solutions.
The company I came from provided this type of service to A and B while we were in the merger/acquisition process. We did not provide this service to entities that were not part of the merger/acquisition.
It seems that your organization is looking to get into the 'common carrier' business. Providing this type of service to A and B will require carefully constructed contracts that identify rights and responsibilities of all parties. And, there are laws that affect 'common carriers'.
What will be the liability of your organization if a message between A/B is lost? Or duplicated? Or delayed?
Refer this request to the lawyers.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:51 am Post subject: Re: Queue manager interconnection between non-friendly netwo |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| What will be the liability of your organization if a message between A/B is lost? Or duplicated? Or delayed? |
Or what if the messages represent illegal collusion between competitors?
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Refer this request to the lawyers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramires |
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Posts: 523
Location: Portugal - Lisboa
|
It can also be a opportunity to offer a "service" for free, moving messages from A to B and vice-versa, and in a later moment start charging each byte 
MQ can do it, it uses the store and forward approach, its a standard, its reliable, its simple (can also be complex...). You need to invest money so you need to add a value to justify a qmgr in the middle: for example if vendor B is not online, messages from vendor A can wait on your xmit queue (you need space) until B came online again
_________________
Obrigado / Thanks you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
