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

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf
> Of Jan-Erik Soderholm via Info-vax
> Sent: 18-Sep-16 11:40 AM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] What would you miss if DECnet got the
> chop? Was: "bad select 38" (OpenSSL on VMS)
> 
> Den 2016-09-18 kl. 17:14, skrev Scott Dorsey:
> > Jan-Erik Soderholm  <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think we have to accept that the rest of the world
selected
> TCPIP
> >> for networking.
> >
> > And, that being the case, we need to have the same features
> that
> > people have liked with DECNET (such as the remote save sets)
> available with IP.
> >
> 
> Who are "we"? The (remaining) VMS user community? Do we
> think that we can decide what should be used on networks or the
> internet in general?
> 
> My guess is that we simply have to learn to live without remote
> save sets.
> 
> The best service we can do for VMS is to "play well" with
> whatever is expected on todays networks. Right, there is
DECnet-
> over-IP, but it seems as most user/sites simply decided to use
> TCPIP tools directly.
> 
> > In the Unix world, I use the SFTP filesystem for a lot of
things
> that
> > I would have done more easily with DECNET transfers in the
> VMS world.
> > In the Windows world they have SMB fileshares integrated in
> much the
> > way DECNET is integrated into VMS.
> 
> I would guess there are a few more Windows nodes out there,
> then there are VMS nodes. I guess volume does have *some*
> impact here.
> 

Those that hang on to IPV4 are in the same boat as those that
hang on to DECnet Ph IV.

Reference:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/faq.html

Unfortunately for both camps, the replacements for IPV4 (IPV6)
and DECnet Ph IV (Ph V) are not without their own issues and
challenges. However, this does not mean one should ignore the
coming realities. 

The reality is that there will need to be much longer periods of
coexistence than the originators of both IPV6 and DECnet Ph V had
ever envisioned.

The reality is that the future IoT world is not going to happen
on IPV4, so start planning your coexistence strategy now.

Btw, if you think other countries are not getting the jump on
things for the future, check this link out:

http://bit.ly/2d490EA
China's first IPv6 network enters operation - Network links 25
universities in 20 cities at speeds up to 10Gbps

The above article was from 2004.

A bit more current - June 2012:
http://bit.ly/2d49g6E
China racing towards IPV6


Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com