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

[Dirk Munk]

Michael Moroney wrote:
> Dirk Munk <munk at home.nl> writes:
>
>>>> 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.
>
> In an ideal world you are correct.
>
> VSI, however, is a small company. It has to follow the money.  VSI
> does this pretty well at this time.  I doubt there is much money
> in DECnet.
>
> I could easily be wrong.  As I alluded to before, if a big customer
> waved money around and said "We want DECnet over IPv6!!" then my
> boss will walk into my office with a message "Guess what..."
> Will that ever happen?
>
> (aside: Likely me. Nobody here came from the DECnet group or knows
> much about the internals. But I was the one who got the DECnet
> Plus build working so that makes me the "expert", I guess)
>

Well, in that case have a look at RFC2126, and tell us what you think. 
Perhaps it's not that difficult to implement.

In another contribution Stephen Hoffman is suggesting to build a full 
pure IP replacement for for instance FAL.

It seems such an RFC already has been drawn up in the past, perhaps the 
text can still be found?