[Info-vax] The continued ham-stringing of IPsec/VMS - Cui Bono? - TUDs - Bobby Ewing

[Arne Vajhøj]

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Bob Koehler wrote:
>> In article <hc05rh$c4f$1 at news-01.bur.connect.com.au>, "Richard Maher" 
>> <maher_rj at hotspamnotmail.com> writes:
>>> So while it's great to see IPsec doing a Bobby Ewing and getting to live
>>> another day, I just cannot understand how it could possibly take 
>>> another 12
>>> months to certify code that is already there, and will already have 
>>> shipped
>>> in H1 2010 with TCP/IP 5.7.
>>>
>>> Can someone please explain to me what obstacles are preventing IPsec 
>>> from
>>> being supported in H1 2010 with VMS 8.4?
>>
>>    I don't work for HP, but testing and certification of reliable code
>>    across a great many hardware platforms takes time.  I would not like
>>    to see VMS Engineering start cutting corners on testing.
> 
> Which "great many" hardware platforms are we talking about?  I count 
> three: VAX, Alpha, and Itanic.  And I'd be willing to dispense with 
> Itanic!  If you have to test with every processor speed, every memory 
> size, every combination of I/O devices. . . .

3 architectures
different NIC's
different number of NIC's
single CPU and multi CPU systems

Arne