Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ucbvax!info-vax
From: info-vax@ucbvax.ARPA
Newsgroups: fa.info-vax
Subject: Re:  TCP/IP on VMS
Message-ID: <5623@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 21:58:10 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.5623
Posted: Tue Mar 19 21:58:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 06:01:56 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 29

From: rad@Mitre-Bedford


> DEC is initially planning to support
>just DECNET on the board. When queried about possible TCP/IP support DEC
>responded by saying that they weren't sure what they were doing.

>When I read between the lines here, I get the impression that DEC
>doesn't want to do TCP/IP, but hasn't really made a decision not to do
>it. I suggest that everyone who thinks that DEC should do this should
>call their salesman.

     Hmmm, our DEC salesman drug The Wollongong Group through the door
to talk to us about TWG's TCP/IP driver for VMS.  The stance that they
seemed to be taking was that DEC recommends the TWG TCP/IP system.  (By
the way, TWG's code gives you a shared DEUNA driver; you can have both
DECNET and TCP/IP on the same Ethernet, on the same DEUNA.)  

     I think that if you want to spend the time calling your DEC
salesman, try to pin him/her down on DEC's relationship with TWG and
whether it's a full-blown recommendation or just a stop-gap measure to
quiet the howls of protest from system administrators whose VMS
systems can't talk to their Unix systems when they share identical
(DEC) hardware.

Dick Dramstad
rad@mitre-bedford.arpa
(617) 271-2376
(Usual disclaimers here.)