From: petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu (Chris Petrilli)
Subject: Re: Austin Free-Net? 
Originator: riddle@aahsa.tic.com
X-Submissions: eff-austin@tic.com
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:23:58 GMT

>> Dell is connected via T1, not 56k.  MCC also has much bandwidth.
>> Alternet has a 256k circuit that is as good as 'on the Internet'.  Lots
>> of smaller sites in town are connected at 56k or Nx56k.  (H*ll, Tony
>> Sanders (BSDI, here in town) has a 56k to his apt!)

I appologies, I've been spending so much time dealing with NEARnet in
recent times that I've forgotten who is on as what.  I believe UT has
several T1 lines, if not a bit more.  I expect THEnet will move up to
T3 soon if it hasn't already.  Best person to ask on this one would be
JSQ. 

>> UT is the major Internet site in Austin because:
>> 
>> 1) UT is a major part of at least one (THEnet) and, I think, two (SESQInet)
>> (John, correct me if I'm wrong) NSF regionals.

I believe the two are joined now, as THEnet was a Bitnet network, and
now with Bitnet2, it is beginning to be unified with NSFnet (or so I
am told by people who do Bitnet).

>> 2) UT has the greatest potential Internet user-base.  (50k students
>> + staff.)

Right, and also, because of their research at the balcones research
center and the CHPC< they have need for high performance networking.

>> 3) UT has been here longer.  :-)

Well, lord knows their attitudes haven't changed in forever :-)

>> Corporations are not inherently evil.  (Management is, however. :-)

Quite true, ever tried to getsomething through UT? *laugh*

>> UT has sufficent reason (lack of resources) to not support a
>> "FreeNet-style" resource, I suspect it will never happen.

I honestly don't know, the people I know in the Computation Center
would probably support it, but that doesn't mean anything when it
comes time to get it through the administration.  Perhaps MCC?  They
certainly could justify it under their charter, and have the resources
I suspect.  With some of their support, we might be able to PUSH the
leading edge.  Austin isn't Cleveland (thank gods for small favors
;-), and the attitudes here are MUCH more technologically oriented.  I
have some ideas, and I will try and get them written down tomorrow
morning and send them out.

>> Personally, I think the *wrong* thing to do is to provide any kind of
>> 'login' account, even if the shell is hidden behind menus.  In order to
>> properly enpower people, you need to give each individual a network
>> connection of her very own.  Only then will she be able to fully
>> exploit the resources of the network.  Give people PPP (or SLIP for the
>> protocol-limited) connections.  Erect a for-profit mail/news hub.  (Get
>> yer news via NNTP, get your mail via POP.)  (Note that this (these) 
>> "protocol hub(s)" need have nary a single dial-in line.)

I think perhaps we should look at not an either/or, but a both/and
approach as I was taught by people at the MediaLab.  Why limit people
to one approach?  Why not give people what is most appropriate for
them?

We would definately be pushing POP to it's limits, and I think we need
to consider some of the IETF WG work on remote mail access. POP is too
limited for this project I think, if we do it this way.

Also, as a member of the Pip Working Group (proposed IP7), I think
some stuff will have to wait till early next year, since that is the
earliest a definitive decision will be made on what the IP4
replacement will be. I *HOPE* Pip gets the nod, as I think it's the
technologically superior system, but we are in a crunch to do real
world work right now.

Chris Petrilli


Newsgroups: austin.eff