Archive-Date: XXX, 2 Mar 1994 23:02:23 GMT Subject: TCPware w. UCX "servers" - great! Message-ID: <1994Mar2.230223.2691@decus> From: k_schumacher@decus.ch (HIS Software AG +41 1 4612111) Date: 2 Mar 94 23:02:23 GMT Bernie and TCPware netters We have just installed TCPware V4.0-5 (including the UCX "server" functionality over BG, to drive DECnotes over IP as client and server) and tested succesfully. Think PSC is the first provider of this funtionality, excluding DEC ;-) . Thanks. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Kurt Schumacher E-Mail: k_schumacher@decus.ch | | PSI-Mail: PSI%(228)47931402::KS | | HIS Software AG Voice: ++41 (0) 1 461 21 11 | | Binzstrasse 7 FAX: ++41 (0) 1 461 21 50 | | CH-8045 Zürich | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: XXX, 9 Mar 1994 02:37:16 GMT Subject: Re: TCPware w. UCX "servers" - great! Message-ID: <2ljcos$k3j@pulitzer.eng.sematech.org> From: COLER@MAIL.ENG.SEMATECH.ORG (REGINALD COLE) Date: 9 Mar 1994 02:37:16 GMT References: <1994Mar2.230223.2691@decus> In-Reply-To: k_schumacher@decus.ch's message of 2 Mar 94 23:02:23 GMT In <1994Mar2.230223.2691@decus> k_schumacher@decus.ch writes: > Bernie and TCPware netters > > We have just installed TCPware V4.0-5 (including the UCX "server" > functionality over BG, to drive DECnotes over IP as client and server) > and tested succesfully. > > Think PSC is the first provider of this funtionality, excluding DEC ;-) . > > Thanks. > -- > +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Kurt Schumacher E-Mail: k_schumacher@decus.ch | > | PSI-Mail: PSI%(228)47931402::KS | > | HIS Software AG Voice: ++41 (0) 1 461 21 11 | > | Binzstrasse 7 FAX: ++41 (0) 1 461 21 50 | > | CH-8045 Zürich | > +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Ditto Version 4.0-5 solved our BASIS desktop problem. I would like to know if anyone out there is evaluating this product from IDI using TCPWare. Drop me a line or post your experiences. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: XXX, 18 Mar 1994 16:46:15 -0600 Subject: TCPware and DEC pathworks 5.0 Message-ID: <1994Mar18.164615.121@vaxl1.danavictor.com> From: wsmith@vaxl1.danavictor.com Date: 18 Mar 94 16:46:15 -0600 Does anyone have any experience with TCPware and pathworks version 5.0 running with dos 6.0 We are getting ready to start testing but we want to be sure that the tcp/ip transport is going to work with this combination. Pathworks LANMAN is actually lanman 2.2 with all the lanman 2.2 features so we are going to use the VAX as our primary domain controller, timeserver alterter server, etc. Comments are welcome... Thanks Warren Smith Victor Products Lisle, Il. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: XXX, 20 Mar 1994 01:54:21 -0400 From: volz@process.com (Bernie Volz) Subject: Re: TCPware and DEC pathworks 5.0 Message-ID: <1994Mar20.015421.395@process.com> Date: 20 Mar 94 01:54:21 -0400 References: <1994Mar18.164615.121@vaxl1.danavictor.com> In article <1994Mar18.164615.121@vaxl1.danavictor.com>, wsmith@vaxl1.danavictor.com writes: > Does anyone have any experience with TCPware and pathworks version 5.0 > running with dos 6.0 > Support for Pathworks V5 for TCP/IP is not yet out (DEC does not support TCP/IP in Pathworks V5 at present). We are working with Digital so that the vastly modified TCP/IP support in Pathworks V5 will work with TCPware. I'm not certain of DEC's planned release date for this (it is "soon"). The next release of TCPware (V4.1) will include the support. And, should DEC release a version of Pathworks V5 that supports TCP/IP earlier than our expected release date for V4.1, we'll make a special kit to provide that support available via anonymous FTP (contact me or support@process.com). - Bernie Volz Process Software Corporation ================================================================================ Archive-Date: XXX, 31 Mar 1994 10:51:05 -0500 Subject: Problems with SLIP or PPP? Message-ID: <2nerh9$4h@navaho.cc.bellcore.com> From: kenton@navaho.cc.bellcore.com (gidewall,kenton c) Date: 31 Mar 1994 10:51:05 -0500 We are getting ready to put TCP/IP with PPP on our VMS machines and are looking at the various vendors' products. Can anyone verify the following info? - UCX doesn't support SLIP or PPP in their implementation. WIN-TCP and Multinet do. - Wollongong's has had some problems with their SLIP/PPP implementations (currently or in the past?), but Multinet is pretty solid. - What about Process Software's TCPWARE? I've heard the name, but that's all. Does the package support SLIP and PPP? Is it any good? Any advice or recommendations as to which we should use? I really don't want to start a religious war over this. I am looking for objective opinions (and as many facts as possible). :-) Kenton Gidewall ================================================================================ Archive-Date: XXX, 31 Mar 1994 17:17:07 GMT Subject: Re: Problems with SLIP or PPP? Message-ID: <2nf0ij$jcs@auggie.CCIT.Arizona.EDU> From: leonard@telcom.arizona.edu (Aaron Leonard) Date: 31 Mar 1994 17:17:07 GMT Reply-To: Leonard@Arizona.EDU Sender: leonard@RENA.TELCOM.ARIZONA.EDU (Aaron Leonard) References: <2nerh9$4h@navaho.cc.bellcore.com> In article <2nerh9$4h@navaho.cc.bellcore.com>, kenton@navaho.cc.bellcore.com (gidewall,kenton c) writes: |We are getting ready to put TCP/IP with PPP on our VMS machines and are |looking at the various vendors' products. NO ONE, to the best of my knowledge, sells a PPP implementation for VMS. I believe that TGV is working on an implementation, but I haven't heard of any estimated release date. MultiNet's SLIP implementation is quite solid; we've used it heavily here. I believe that both Wollongong and Process have working SLIPs as well. Aaron Aaron Leonard (AL104), University of Arizona Network Operations, Tucson AZ 85721 \ Don't lock yourself into open systems. / ================================================================================ Archive-Date: XXX, 31 Mar 1994 19:18:07 -0400 From: volz@process.com (Bernie Volz) Subject: Re: Problems with SLIP or PPP? Message-ID: <1994Mar31.191807.415@process.com> Date: 31 Mar 94 19:18:07 -0400 References: <2nerh9$4h@navaho.cc.bellcore.com> In article <2nerh9$4h@navaho.cc.bellcore.com>, kenton@navaho.cc.bellcore.com (gidewall,kenton c) writes: > We are getting ready to put TCP/IP with PPP on our VMS machines and are > looking at the various vendors' products. Can anyone verify the following > info? > > - UCX doesn't support SLIP or PPP in their implementation. WIN-TCP and > Multinet do. > > - Wollongong's has had some problems with their SLIP/PPP implementations > (currently or in the past?), but Multinet is pretty solid. > > - What about Process Software's TCPWARE? I've heard the name, but that's > all. Does the package support SLIP and PPP? Is it any good? > > Any advice or recommendations as to which we should use? I really don't > want to start a religious war over this. I am looking for objective > opinions (and as many facts as possible). :-) > > Kenton Gidewall TCPware currently supports SLIP (both standard and CSLIP; CSLIP compresses the TCP/IP headers). We do have lots of people using it (and use it ourselves with a variety of products, including PC based SLIP implementations). Other than some pretty standard configuration related issues (mostly related to modems), it is easy to set up and use. - Bernie Volz Process Software Corporation