| Mark,
Apologies for the latency, buy I have been away at (coincidentally)
Vitalink all week.
In answer to your first question (title): Yes, the Vitalink Bridge
Access Module (VBAM) *is* selling. It lists for $2700 and has been
added to Digital's Vitalink BOA as Model Number M5020-04-1.1. Please
contact Kathie Wilson @WRO (NIS Sales Programs) for more ordering
information.
Although the AM has been complete for quite some time, Vitalink (to
date) has been rather sluggish in promoting & selling the AM. This was
due primarily to a "late-breaking" bug in the AM and lack of AM support
training and escalation procedures for Vitalink's QA Dept and NOC
Staff. As of Friday, both of these problems were addressed (why I was
out there) and I believe that today Paul Schaller (Vitalink's VP &
General Manager of their Digital Program) is issuing a memo reflecting
Vitalink's VBAM availability and support from Vitalink (e.g. a "Sell
it." memo).
> The Vitalink/NCS guy at the August Net U Boston, told everyone
> they were committed to selling and supporting the AM. He
> subsequently told me they would also ensure that it run under
> DECmcc V1.2. He painted a glowing picture of it all.
>
> Since then, I have heard:
>
> (1) Vitalink will NOT do any more on VBAM and it will
> NOT run under DECmcc V1.2;
This is not true.
The VBAM will not run on **DECmcc/Ultrix** (V1.2) because of the
processor-specific nature of VAX-Pascal (in which it is written). Due
to changes in the DECmcc platform between 1.1 and 1.2 (CMA threads, ea
routines, etc) there will be some changes needed in the VBAM for it to
work under V1.2. I am currently working to define the exact work
required for tracking DECmcc V1.2 changes into the VBAM code so that it
will work with DECmcc 1.2 (VMS only). There are no plans for
*enhancements* of the VBAM.
> (2) we are gradually severing our relationship with Vitalink
> as the company moves to selling more Proteon boxes;
I have absolutely *no* knowledge of this, nor have I seen evidence of
this. Until such time, I will therefore treat this statement as rumor
and idle speculation.
I would also proceed with caution about wording these sorts of
unsubstantiated items in a "factual" form, especially in a public notes
conference such as this.
> (3) Digital have told Vitalink that it is acceptable
> to retire VBAM and only provide SNMP management
> capability.
Digital has no control over how Vitalink (or any other 3rd party)
chooses to organize their product line. If Vitalink chooses to
migrate toward SNMP (which they do) then it is their decision.
In conjunction with their new OMS network management platform ( OEMed
version of SunNet Manager), Vitalink is in the process of implementing
SNMP agents in all of their boxes. My understanding (after speaking
with their Net Mgmt Program Manager is that they will support
concurrent RBMS *and* SNMP agents on their product line. I.e. they
will fit as much SNMP capability into their _current_ boxes as they can
without scrapping the RBMS agent. This will allow the user to use
either the VBAM or SNMP AM to manage the TransLANs, whichever they
prefer. Boxes with smaller available memory will get less SNMP agent
functionality; those with more will get more.
Per my previous admonishment, let me make this disclaimer about the
above paragraph: this information represents my conversation I had just
last week with one person at Vitalink (although I have no reason to
doubt her); it is *not* official and is subject to change by Vitalink,
if needed.
> I have a real concern with point (3). I understand SNMP to
> mean that the customer has to run tcp/ip in their network.
> A lot of customers only have DECnet and LAT networks - they do NOT
> want to complicate their networks by adding tcp/ip, especially if
> its sole purpose is to manage Vitalink boxes. There is potential
> for this to develop into a real customer satisfaction issue.
> Do customers in your part of the world feel the same?
This issue is not specific to the Vitalink Bridge AM. *If* it is a
foregone conclusion that the *only* way a customer can manage a
<insert-entity-class-here> is via SNMP, then their MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
will need to have some sort of TCP-IP transport. Most networks out
there already *have* TCP-IP running on their networks anyway, so I
doubt that "...it's sole purpose would be to manage Vitalink Boxes."
It's just another director-entity protocol and if only used as such I
(personally) wouldn't expect a big hue and cry about "adding another
protocol to the wire."
regards,
/doug
|