Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!beta!hc!tomlin
From: tomlin@hc.DSPO.GOV (Bob Tomlinson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Wollongong TCP/IP for VAX/VMS  (Really NRC's Fusion TCP/IP)
Message-ID: <6482@hc.DSPO.GOV>
Date: Mon, 20-Jul-87 20:23:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: hc.6482
Posted: Mon Jul 20 20:23:50 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jul-87 01:57:09 EDT
References: <670@julian.UWO.CDN>
Distribution: world
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 20

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