JNC@mit-mc.arpa (J. Noel Chiappa) (01/15/86)
I am visiting some network people at NASA Ames and they are discussing switching to using subnets for the IP installation. Apparently one of the main stumbling blocks is the fact that the Wollongoing software does not support subnets, and they are not getting much satisfaction from Wollongong on finding out if and when Wollongong will ever getting around to supporting subnets. As one of the people who originated the subnet change to the architecture, I was interested in finding out how it is doing, and in talking to manufacturers who are being slow in installing it. The experience they report (which was duplicated when I tried to contact someone at Wollongong) is that the people you get when you call up don't know anything (which you sort of expect), and, moreover, you can't get ahold of anyone who does know anything. I asked to speak to someone in engineering to ask about the subnet support issues, and got shunted to a software support person who wanted to know my license number and wouldn't talk to me because I wasn't the 'contact point' for the license number I ws prepared to give her. I gave up on her and called back and asked to speak to the VP of Engineering or some such person, and was informed that everyone was 'out to lunch'. Does anyone know if Wollongong is ever going to make any effort to keeping up with the changes in the IP spec? They certainly don't meet it now, and, from what I understand, don't seem to really care that they don't. In addition, they have one of the worst attitudes to people who call in that I have ever heard. I would recommend that people not deal with such an organization. Noel
rick@ut-ngp.arpa (Rick Watson) (01/15/86)
After MUCH telephoning to TWG, I finally talked to John Caughy (spelling?) who I think is the TCP/IP product Project Manager. (415/962-7177). He said that neither subnets or name servers will be in the March release, but that the September (86) release would be based on 4.3 BSD. I got the idea that they are not interested in doing much more development on TCP/IP and from their end, they saw little interest in subnets. They were not even interested in our doing the work for them. Disclaimer: The above is from brief notes I made during our phone conversation of a couple of months ago. Does anyone know of a GOOD TCP/IP (well supported, etc) product for VMS? Anyone interested in a public domain (or othersise) TCP/IP for VMS effort? Rick Watson University of Texas Computation Center arpa: rick@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU rick@ngp.ARPA uucp: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!rick rick@ut-ngp.UUCP bitnet: ccaw001@utadnx phone: 512/471-3241
JNC@mit-xx.arpa (J. Noel Chiappa) (01/15/86)
I just finally managed to get a hold of someone at the VP level. He was fairly helpful, but apparently nothing will come out of the pipe quickly, unless enough customers ask loudly enough. He had never even heard of the subnet spec, and I had to give him the RFC numbers. Apparently part of the problem is that there isn't a good path to get info about changes like this to companies if they aren't on the Internet. Perhaps a path exists for getting the existing RFC announcements into a UUCP group, e.g. net.rfcs? That would help these people. (Also, the subnet stuff is only marked 'recommended' rather than 'required' both on RFC950 (the subnet spec) and in the Official IP Protocols list (RFC961). This seems like a poor idea since if a single implementation at a site is missing it it can be difficult to turn on subnetting. It's harder to beat on companies to add something if it's not marked 'required', too..) Noel -------
libes@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Don Libes) (01/17/86)
> .... He had > never even heard of the subnet spec, and I had to give him the RFC > numbers. Apparently part of the problem is that there isn't a good > path to get info about changes like this to companies if they aren't > on the Internet. Perhaps a path exists for getting the existing RFC > announcements into a UUCP group, e.g. net.rfcs? That would help these > people. > > Noel No, it wouldn't help Wollongong, since they are not on Usenet either. In fact, they have not had a uucp connection for several years now. (They can't get it running!) This lack of communication is truly amazing for a company whose primary product is network software. (And if you think their support for TCP/IP is bad, let me tell you about their support for Eunice...) Don Libes {seismo,umcp-cs}!nbs-amrf!libes