[Info-vax] What would you miss if DECnet got the chop? Was: "bad select 38" (OpenSSL on VMS)

[Michael Moroney]

David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:

>Dirk Munk wrote:

>> The DEC/HP way of DECnet over IP is not only offering DECnet over IP, 
>> but also OSI over IP (you can look at DECnet as just another OSI 
>> application). It is covered by three RFC's, RFC1006, RFC1859, and 
>> RFC2126, the latter is for IPv6.
>> 
>> Both versions of DECnet over IP are incompatible.
>> 
>> Now my simple question is, what should VSI offer, two incompatible 
>> versions of DECnet over IP?

>If you look up thread at Michael Moroney's post, you'll see the reality.  He got 
>DECnet built, but that's all the time VSI is going to put into DECnet.

>What you see today is all that you're ever going to see, with the understanding 
>of "never say never".  Your question(s) are already answered.  Not that you're 
>going to like the answer(s).

Without looking into it, I would assume OSI over IP is just another user
of IP and it "should work" with Multinet/the VSI IP.  But perhaps the
DECnet V people conspired with the DEC TCPIP people to use an undocumented
interface.  But we should already know the answer.  Does DECnet-Plus over
IP work at all with the current Multinet implementation?

The Multinet DECnet IV over IP is a Multinet-specific creation.  They must
have written a driver that creates a pseudodevice that looks (to DECnet)
like a network interface but really interfaces with Multinet's IP stuff.

As to DECnet-Plus, I doubt I will be tasked with any further work there,
other than, perhaps, getting it working on x86 once x86 VMS exists, and
if a demand is seen for it.  But a customer waving money and shouting "We
want DECnet!" could change that -- if such a customer even exists.
I am a little surprised at the interest in DECnet here.