Why uise multinet ?

[Wim Van den Wyngaert]

I wonder why certain clients buy multinet tcpip ? History ?

Wim

[Ian Miller.]

historically it worked better and had more features than UCX.

[Garry Fruth]

I remember reading somewhere that Multinet has a friendlier hobbyist program... but I cannot recall where. Perhaps this has influenced a few.

[Lawrence Czlapinski]

Wim: 1. It is used by local applications.
2. We also use it because it allows our customer's users to do automatic login without a password from a PC by checking the TCPIP addresses. We can't do that with HP TCPIP because HP also puts port info in the string that is authenticated by ALF.
Lawrence

[Galen Tackett]

I haven't used MultiNet in a very long while, but one of the reasons we used to like it was that you could restart the MultNet server without losing connections.

Though I don't recall details, back in the old days (early 90's?) it offered some functionality that wasn't readily available in UCX. I suspect that this is much less the case today.

It was also a HUGE improvement over Network Research's Fusion TCP/IP, which was what we'd started out with.

[Doug Phillips]

UCX did not always come bundled with VMS, and when that was the case, Multinet (and TCPware) offered the better deal (more features, cost competitive). And, trying to buy *anything* from DEC was difficult and time consuming, to say the least. You were holding the software in your hand but the PAK could take weeks to get to you (and you hoped it was the right PAK). TGV (then Cisco, then Process), however, would get everything you needed to you in a couple of days. Once you had the software media, and only needed another license, they would FAX that to you with a simple phone call.

Early UCX was also very primitive compared to Multinet or TCPware. Once UCX started coming bundled, though, the only reason to go to something else was if UCX was missing a feature you needed.

[Craig A Berry · Accepted solution]

TCP/IP Services has improved a lot technically in recent years, and of course now having it bundled with the OS makes it very attractive price-wise. However, new features tend to arrive years earlier and in a more complete form in Multinet than in TCP/IP Services. A current comparison is here:

http://www.process.com/tcpip/multicompare.html

So, for example, IPSEC is available now in Multinet, but as I understand it still some ways off in TCP/IP Services. Also, a lot of people like the Multinet management interface better.

Having said all this, TCP/IP Services is certainly adequate for many purposes and is getting better all the time.

[comarow]

Now tcpip is vastly improved. 5.4 as an eco 5. One major reason is you have one company to deal with. This always makes provlems solving easier.

Now obviously TCPIP has evolved as the
standard, so you can be sure it is a focus of VMS engineering and elevations.

At one time Digital focused on DECNET. I miss it. However, even the collection of tcpip products is evolving because of security concerns. TCPIP is right with the transition.


I'm sure other companies make fine products.

Bob

[Thomas J. Klotzbach]

Good thread. We have used Multinet on our Oracle dataservers since 1993 and have been very pleased. The recent issue that we have noted is that Oracle is starting to become resistant to Multinet, especially in regards to support issues reagarding SQL*Net. At least for us, Oracle is telling folks to move to TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS if they experience TNS listener problems.

[Art Wiens]

I think Doug's point is probably most valid, UCX wasn't free (either monetarily or of bugs ;-) ... the competition had a better product. Besides, how could you go wrong with "Two Guys and a Vax" !

We used Multinet at a previous job, it had all the "bells and whistles" at the time and worked very well.

We currently use TCPware here ... IMHO it's as good as Multinet but personally I find it easier to manage, and I still think it's better than TCPIP Services YMMV.

Cheers,
Art

[James Viswasam]

Our healthcare application from Cerner Corp runs on Multinet TCPIP for VMS. Or atleast was available only on Multinet when we installed our systems. To migrate to HP TCPIP is a big pain. So, for now we are using it. We might move to HP TCPIP in future.
James

[Steve Reece_3]

Multinet did, I think, do DECnet over TCP/IP without needing to do tunnels or upgrade to DECnet Plus. It was also cheaper than UCX/HP TCP/IP Services.

Those that say that UCX is "free" are wrong. It's not free. It merely happens that the latest incarnation of what was NAS happens to be included in the price of your hardware. Sell the hardware to someone else, the license doesn't get transferred. The software license is merely included in the price for your convenience.

A niggly but important differentiation!

[comarow]

Frankly, at one time Multinet was more robust. Now tcpip is fully featured and part of the OS. And, it avoids any fingerpointing.

[Lawrence Czlapinski]

Steve: You're right Multinet does DECNET Phase IV over TCPIP which HP TCPIP doesn't. We started using that feature last week. We lost backup link network bridging of DECNET and LAT between 2 sites. In October, we will be losing primary bridging of DECNET, LAT and MOP between 2 sites. So we plan to expand our use of Multinet.
Lawrence

[Robert Jacobs]

I have used all this IP Stacks and even The Wollongong Groups

How's that for going back a few years!

R.J.

[Martin Vorlaender]

>>>
Multinet does DECNET Phase IV over TCPIP
<<<

It should be noted, however, that you need a DECnet Routing license (DVNETRTG), instead of your ordinary DVNETEND to use that feature.

(To be taken with a grain of salt - I'm not in the office right now).

cu,
Martin

[Art Wiens]

Martin, you're correct. The same holds for TCPware, need to have a Decnet routing license on one node in each area you want to build tunnels between.

Art