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