MRC@PANDA.COM (Mark Crispin) (07/06/87)
I received my nth bug report from a Wollongong site today complaining
that mail didn't work between them and a DEC-20. This is a ritual that I
end up undergoing multiple times a week.
The problem is, of course, that the Wollongong software simply does
not work (even its original author, who is now behind a competing software
package, admits it) and that Wollongong simply does not care.
I would like to see a policy statement forbidding US government sites
from wasting any more taxpayers' money on Wollongong software, and some
note from the NIC to that effect in the TCP/IP Vendors List. Since
Wollongong presumably does care about its revenue, this might induce them
to fix the bugs...or go out of business, an equally acceptable alternative.
-- Mark --
-------weltyc@NIC.NYSER.NET (Christopher A. Welty) (07/07/87)
You might also tell DEC about it, since they sell TWG software for VMS as the official VAX?VMS TCP/IP product. --- Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc
ron@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU (Ron Natalie) (07/08/87)
Would you like to propose an alternative. The other major commercial offering (DTC/COMPION/GOULD/Whatever) ACCESS for VMS is WORSE. In addition the morons at the current company (Internet Solutions or Network Solutions, I can't remember) had little understanding of the internet at all. Their primary VMS worker kept insisting that when they got a name server implementation working it would fix their broken routing problems. I posted a rather lengthy description of the problem after that to the net and got some more calls from the management of the company but the code never got fixed. Woolengong, in addition to being blastedly expensive, falls short of being useful. In addition to having no name server support and no mail system to speak of, their low level Ethernet kills the entire system trying to ARP. This happens when it receives broadcast datagrams that it is trying to forward, or even if a host it has traffic for is down. It spurts a continuous stream of ARP's that never get answered which seem to be done at some priority that causes the VAX's to become virtually unresponive. Their inability to deal with any sort of broadcast means we have to segregate them from nets with real hosts on them. I frequently have to proxy arp for downed hosts when it is busy arping for them and they aren't capable of answering. Someday, someone will make a commercial VMS TCP offering that works worth a damn, and when they do RUTGERS will immediately put it on every single VMS machine we have (and we have a lot). -Ron
tomlin@hc.UUCP (07/09/87)
in article <8707081702.AA03732@topaz.rutgers.edu>, ron@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU (Ron Natalie) says: > > Would you like to propose an alternative. The other major > commercial offering (DTC/COMPION/GOULD/Whatever) ACCESS for > VMS is WORSE. What about Fusion TCP? It seems to work OK (they have a couple problems, such as no name server yet). And at least you can talk to reasonably intelligent technical people instead of the Wollongong marketing staff. It's also more resonably priced. -- Bob Tomlinson -- tomlin@hc.dspo.gov -- (505) 667-8495 Los Alamos National Laboratory -- MEE-10/Data Systems
haynes@ucscc.UCSC.EDU.ucsc.edu (99700000) (07/09/87)
In article <8707081702.AA03732@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU (Ron Natalie) writes: >Would you like to propose an alternative. The other major I've heard there is a new package from SRI, and there is also a package from Tektronix that is something like free for big VAXen and not free for Microvaxen.Sorry, I don't have any further info. Jim haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes
hedrick@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (07/11/87)
It appears that Wollongong's attitude may be changing. After posting my comments (which were not critical of Wollongong in any case, since as we as I know, we had never reported this problem to them) I got a call from one of their folks, with some suggestions for short-term fixes, and assurances that the newest release (which we just got, but have not yet installed) will provide more permanent solutions. He was extremely helpful and knowledgeable.
jeff@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Jeffrey Burgan) (07/13/87)
In article <12316245218.8.MRC@PANDA> MRC@PANDA.COM (Mark Crispin) writes: > > I received my nth bug report from a Wollongong site today complaining >that mail didn't work between them and a DEC-20. > > The problem is, of course, that the Wollongong software simply does >not work ... and that Wollongong simply does not care. We have been running Wollongong's software for 2 years and have never experienced any problems sending to a TOPS-20 machine. This is not to say that mail always makes it through the first time, but remember we are talking about the Internet. For a resolution to most problems, people should possibly look no further than there own systems to make sure they have configured them correctly and that nothing has "mysteriously" changed. Set-up changes do not constitute a software bug. All that you have accomplished with this article is to misrepresent the facts. If people are really reporting bugs to you, would it not be more productive (both to you and us) to report it so that if there is a bug, it can be fixed? If you call them and tell them something is not working, they will at least work with you to solve the problem. Simply, my Wollongong software DOES work. In the past 2 years, I have made my criticism of the software known to them, bugs and all. Although not perfect, their software and support have improved greatly over the last year, and they have worked with me through several bugs and/or software modifications. What would you have VMS user's use?
peter@julian.UUCP (07/14/87)
In article <8707071930.AA08177@nic.nyser.net> weltyc@NIC.NYSER.NET (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > > You might also tell DEC about it, since they sell TWG software >for VMS as the official VAX?VMS TCP/IP product. In my last conversation with Digital about this, they said that Digital had had so much support trouble with The Wollongong Group that they were now recommending the Fusion product for TCP/IP under VMS. I suppose that this might be just a Canadian phenomenon. -- Peter Marshall, CCS, U. of Western Ontario, London, Canada N6A 5B7 (519)661-2151x6032 pm@uwovax.BITNET; pm@uwovax.uwo.cdn; pm@julian.uucp; ...!watmath!julian!peter
garrett@udel.EDU (Joel Garrett) (07/14/87)
We have been running WIN/TCP v3.0 for about a week now and have had few problems beyond the initial installation. The new release supports domains and name-servers and fixes a LOT of problems with the old 2.x releases. Their documentation and installation procedures have improved drastically from their earlier releases. There are still a lot of things you can't do without their companion product, Eunice, but the documentation has changed from just copies of man pages to very detailed installation, operation, and programming notes We used to have a lot of system crashes that seemed to be related to the telnet daemon, but since we have upgraded there haven't been any crashes. Hopefully the system won't prove me wrong now, but so far, I'm pretty pleased with the installation. Joel J. Garrett Research Associate University of Delaware Center for Composite Materials arpa address: garrett@udel-ccm.arpa
WANCHO@SIMTEL20.ARPA ("Frank J. Wancho") (07/14/87)
I have a somewhat different viewpoint and solution to the ongoing
commentary concerning the Wollongong implementations of TCP/IP and
supporting software for various operating systems.
First, let me point out that I get a different set of complaints
than Mark gets. As the postmaster for this DEC-20 site, which is the
origin/relay point for several large mailing lists, I get a certain
set of complaints from the postmasters at BITNET sites who are having
problems with our headers. What has made the difference is that in
most cases, I have been able to deal directly with the authors of the
software in question to resolve the problems in interpretation of the
RFCs using our real-world (Internet) messages.
What is different with dealing with users of Wollongong software
is that they are in the position of having to report problems into a
corporate environment which has never had to interface their software
into a large heterogenous network such as ours. In house, they test
their software against other implementations of their own software,
and it's kinda hard to duplicate a problem, much less be aware that a
problem exists in that situation. Recall the early days surrounding
the rapid implementation and heterogeneous testing of various TCP/IP
implementations just a few short years ago and you'll understand my
point.
The solution is obvious: The Wollongong Group should have a host
on the Internet so that they can find and fix problems before their
customers do, among other things. This is not without precedent. Not
too long ago, when the predominant operating system on the net was
TOPS20, DEC had, and still has one or more of their own TOPS20 hosts
on the net, testing their TCP/IP implementations (as was BBN testing
their versions). I'm sure there are other examples, and I would
suppose that there were and still are other reasons for DEC to be on
the net.
In a recent analysis I made of the various operating systems
listed in the NIC HOSTS.TXT file, by far the most predominant was
Unix, in various flavors on various machines. Those hosts are mostly
running the 4.xbsd version, with Berkeley certainly represented
directly on the net. The second was VMS systems, presumeably with a
majority of them running Wollongong software.
Well, it appears such a Wollongong host does exist, according to
the NIC HOSTS.TXT file and the WHOIS database: TWG.ARPA, 26.5.0.73.
However, it appears to be non-operational or a reserved designation.
At least I have not been able to get a response from that host, yet.
I firmly believe that the sooner they get on the net as an
operational host, we will see a significant and radical improvement in
the situation. Anything that can be done to speed up their connection
would be of great benefit to all of us.
Note carefully: I'm not necessarily advocating that only by
virtue of having a TCP/IP software package should every developer have
a host on the Internet. Such developers should at least adopt a host
for in resident beta tests. I suspect that every major developer
already has such a connection, except Wollongong...
--Frankheisterb@uiucuxe.cso.uiuc.edu (07/15/87)
/* Written 1:51 pm Jul 9, 1987 by haynes@ucscc.UCSC.EDU.ucsc.edu in uiucuxe:comp.protocols.tcp-ip */ In article <8707081702.AA03732@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU (Ron Natalie) writes: >Would you like to propose an alternative. The other major I've heard there is a new package from SRI, and there is also a package from Tektronix that is something like free for big VAXen and not free for Microvaxen.Sorry, I don't have any further info. Jim haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes /* End of text from uiucuxe:comp.protocols.tcp-ip */
JERRY@STAR.STANFORD.EDU (07/16/87)
This is Dave Crocker, not Jerry Scott. I recently joined The
Wollongong Group as Vice President, Software Engineering. We will
soon be a host on MilNet, so I have not established an interim
mailbox elsewhere. Please direct any short-term mail to me via
Jerry at this address.
The recent flurry of messages about Wollongong requires a formal
response. As you are aware, The Wollongong Group has been
selling TCP/IP-based products for some years. While we have been
successful in doing so, we have been less successful in maintaining
an unblemished reputation within the Internet community. Recently,
we began taking actions to improve user perceptions. From a technical
standpoint, the most significant of these actions involves upgrades
to our VAX/VMS product called WIN/TCP, especially converting to the
use of 4.3BSD as a code base for the TCP/IP implementation. By doing
so, many long-standing problems were solved and performance has been
substantially improved.
On reviewing the messages that were sent to this distribution list,
it appears that the basis for two of the three explicitly critical
notes was a) system administration errors, and b) the use of very
old software.
At the present time, the new release (3.0) does not have any major
TCP/IP bugs known to us, nor does it crash the operating system. The
immediately previous version (2.3) has not had any bugs that crash
VAXes for a time longer that any Wollongong personnel can remember.
It is our policy to work closely with all users of our products to
satisfy their needs. Mark Crispin's July 6 email message, while it
contained no specific details, has been partially addressed in a
public reply citing cockpit error, rather than faulty software. The
message was sent by a system administrator whose contact with Mark
triggered Mark's note. The system administrator cockpit error we
identified does not involve any software bugs, but it does result in
setting the hosts's own name to a constant ("Unknown"). To eliminate
this confusion, we are changing the software to simply use the text
version of the IP address, whenever a similar administrator error is
made.
As part of a test against one of the systems running Mark's TCP, we
did encounter a client SMTP bug. WIN/TCP 3.1, which will be
released shortly, fixes it. It was only discovered because of high
delay in the Arpanet, thereby causing an extraordinary timeout.
In addition to providing technically competent software, Wollongong must
provide support for our products. This is critical. Although admittedly
flawed in the past, this, too, is being significantly improved, as the
recent TCP/IP activity cited above demonstrates. "Support" is a
separate product and has to be purchased. There have been some customers
who purchased the TCP product but did not, for whatever reason, purchase
support. They then passed on the product to the real end-users and
claimed, falsely, that we would not provide support. The cited case of
our software crashing a VAX cluster appears to be an example of this.
Although we subsequently established direct contact with a portion of
the actual end-users affected in this way, we were unfortunately unable
to find the remainder.
The suggestion about our connecting the the Internet is extremely well-
taken. Part of the reason I was asked to join Wollongong was to bring
some Internet experience in-house. The wheels were already in motion,
I discovered, to get a connection when I came on-board. We were
supposed to be on MilNet about 4 months ago, and are in the final
stages of debugging the telecom link.
Lastly, with regard to our AT&T version of TCP/IP...it should be noted
that we developed this product at the specification of AT&T and we are
not free to add features on our own (AT&T markets the product; we
do not). Hence, please ask them to suggest to us any changes that you
deem appropriate.
Davebrian@casemo.UUCP (Brian Cuthie ) (07/17/87)
In article <432@umbc3.UMD.EDU>, jeff@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Jeffrey Burgan) writes: > In article <12316245218.8.MRC@PANDA> MRC@PANDA.COM (Mark Crispin) writes: > > > > I received my nth bug report from a Wollongong site today complaining > >that mail didn't work between them and a DEC-20. > > > > The problem is, of course, that the Wollongong software simply does > >not work ... and that Wollongong simply does not care. > > We have been running Wollongong's software for 2 years and have > never experienced any problems sending to a TOPS-20 machine. ... > What would you have VMS user's use? > UNIX of course !! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brian Cuthie CASE (Rixon) Communications Columbia Md. 21046 (301) 290 - 7443 ARPA: Brian@umbc3.umd.edu UUCP: ...seismo!mimsy!aplcen!casemo!brian
tomlin@hc.DSPO.GOV (Bob Tomlinson) (07/21/87)
in article <670@julian.UWO.CDN>, peter@julian.UUCP says: > >> You might also tell DEC about it, since they sell TWG software >>for VMS as the official VAX?VMS TCP/IP product. > > In my last conversation with Digital about this, they said that Digital > had had so much support trouble with The Wollongong Group that they were now > recommending the Fusion product for TCP/IP under VMS. > I suppose that this might be just a Canadian phenomenon. I don't think it's just a Canadian phenomenon. I've heard similar things here. We're using Fusion TCP/IP for VMS here. We mainly use it to communicate with 4.3bsd VAXs and Suns. My main complaint with them now is they don't have a domain name system resolver. Does anybody else out there use Fusion TCP/IP on VMS? bob -- Bob Tomlinson -- tomlin@hc.dspo.gov -- (505) 667-8495 Los Alamos National Laboratory -- MEE-10/Data Systems
ron@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU (Ron Natalie) (07/22/87)
I hope that Dave's arrival at Wollongong will certainly help the situation there. It seems to have gotten much better already. However several assertions he made are false. 2.3 will make VAX's unusable under certain instances (they don't crash, they just don't do anything until you correct the network problem). As for the support statement, in the past I have directly called Woolongong with support problems and gotten the eternal run-around. -Ron
peter@julian.UUCP (07/23/87)
I recently posted a message saying that Digital was now not recommending TWG software for VMS machines. I got a call last night from TWG following up on my message. They wanted to find out what specific problems that we have been having with their software. (We don't have a copy, unfortunately.) It looks to me as if their new Vice-president is having some effect. They are making an effort to improve their image. It could be more than skin deep. -- Peter Marshall, Data Comm. Manager CCS, U. of Western Ontario, London, Canada N6A 5B7 (519)661-2151x6032 pm@uwovax.BITNET; pm@uwovax.uwo.cdn; peter@julian.uucp; ...!watmath!julian!peter