Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!bbn.com!orc!inews!iwarp.intel.com!psueea!eecs!dmatlock
From: dmatlock@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Delbert Matlock)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re:  Two TCP/IP stacks on one PC
Message-ID: <2935@psueea.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 90 02:16:12 GMT
References: <9005300317.AA12582@alw.nih.gov>
Sender: news@psueea.UUCP
Reply-To: dmatlock@eecs.UUCP (Delbert Matlock)
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR
Lines: 18

In article <9005300317.AA12582@alw.nih.gov> RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fajman) writes:
>However, 3+Open TCP is functionally deficient.  We would
>rather use PC/TCP.  As long as 3+Open uses XNS all should be

For God sake, would somebody please say what's wrong with 3+Open TCP.  Numerous
people have made comments about it being deficient, but nobody has  
elaborated as to what's wrong.

Sometime this summer, I have to bring a 120 node 3+Open network upto ULANA
compliance.  (For those non-goverment people, ULANA is a goverment network
specification mandating TCP/IP)  I would hat to make the $40,000 dollar 
mistake. :-)


=============================================================================
Delbert Matlock                         Internet:  dmatlock@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
MicroNet Northwest                      UUCP:      dmatlock@eecs.UUCP
Voice:  (503)228-3071