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

[Dirk Munk]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Den 2016-10-03 kl. 09:12, skrev Dirk Munk:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> According to the DECnet-Plus SPD, only the HP IP stack is supported. It
>> does not explicitly say that no other IP stack works of course.
>>
>> DECnet-Plus relies on the PWIP driver, it must be loaded.
>>
>> DECnet-plus at present uses RFC1006 and RFC1859. For DECnet-Plus to use
>> IPv6, RFC2126 should also be implemented.
>
> It would surprice me a lot to see any such new development.
>
>
Suppose a company has software (RdB for instance) that heavily relies on 
DECnet. It went from Phase IV to Phase V without changing the software. 
It went from Phase V with CLNS transport to Phase V over IPv4, no change 
in the application. And now that company wants to move from IPv4 to IPv6.

And now you're telling that company to stay with IPv4, or to completely 
redesign their software around plain IP, or to forget their application 
(and VMS?)

Or a company is using OSI functionality over IPv4,they can forget about 
OSI if the network changes from IPv4 to IPv6?

And all of that because a 20 year old RFC should not be implemented 
according to you?

A very customer friendly approach.