Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!SIMTEL20.ARPA!WANCHO
From: WANCHO@SIMTEL20.ARPA ("Frank J. Wancho")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Wollongong TCP/IP for VAX/VMS
Message-ID: 
Date: Tue, 14-Jul-87 04:00:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: SIMTEL20.WANCHO.12318234098.BABYL
Posted: Tue Jul 14 04:00:00 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jul-87 04:22:12 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 52


     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...

--Frank