              <<< LASSIE::UCXAXP$DKA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]UCX.NOTE;1 >>>
                      -< DEC TCP/IP Services for OpenVMS >-
================================================================================
Note 5458.1  Possible bug in UCX 4 NFS server with TCPWARE NFS client     1 of 2
LASSIE::CORENZWIT "stuck in postcrypt queue"         36 lines  24-APR-1997 10:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The first thing I need to say is that in general VMS-to-VMS mode NFS
    operation does not work for cross-vendor implementations.  In the case
    of UCX and TCPware, since the UCX client derives from the TCPware
    client, the possibility of cross-vendor operation exists, and we try to
    avoid doing anything to prevent it from working.  However, it is not
    officially a product feature, and it is not supported, and it is
    nobody's job to test it.
    
    With that understood, I can also say that we do wish to be helpful to
    customers who wish to use it.  
    
    From your trace, the problem appears to be that the client is not
    recognizing the UCX filehandle.  It is my understanding that TCPware
    V5.04 was the first version meant to be able to recognize the UCX
    filehandle.  I would suggest you double check that this is the TCPware
    version you have.  If it is, you may want to pursue this with Process
    Software.
    
    It also may be helpful if you post a trace here that includes the
    mount.
    
    If you want to use the two products in UNIX mode, you can do so, but it
    will be very messy trying to share files between remote users on the
    TCPware host and local users on the UCX host unless you stick to
    Stream_LF.  
    
    For other record formats, the client will try to create .$ADF$ files,
    which have names that are invalid for VMS Files-11.  The UCX server can
    create the .$ADF$ files, but only if you use a container file system or
    export with the name conversion option.  Then the only way local users
    can use the files would be to do a loopback mount.  I think the
    loopback mount would work, but this too would be a cross-vendor usage
    that we could not officially support.  And besides, it's a pretty ugly
    workaround.
    
    Julie