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

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Den 2016-10-03 kl. 12:30, skrev 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...

And that is the real point here.  One can make up just about
any scenario, but the questsions is still how relevant that is.

I guess that VSI will not "suppose" anything, but actually asks
those that will pay for their future existance.

> software (RdB for instance) that heavily relies on DECnet.

Rdb (as such) doesn't rely on DECnet. Yes, there are remote DECnet
interfaces but there are also remote TCPIP interfaces.


> 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?

I did not say that it "should not", I said that I'd be surprised to see
any such new development on DECnet. I'd be happy to be surprised... :-)

But then again, I'm sure that VSI will make its decisions based on
what their (future) paying customers asks for.



>
> A very customer friendly approach.
>