From: petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu (Chris Petrilli)
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
Subject: Re: Let's do it NOW
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:07:46 GMT
Reply-To: petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu
Distribution: austin

Steve Blair writes:
> 1) As the person responsible for DELL's internet connection, contrary
> to others' postings, I have *NEVER* said we will take this on at DELL.

My statement was that Dell has a relatively nice connection to Internet, and  
that experiences with Dell (and yourself specifically) in the past would  
indicate that they would be someone who might be interested.  A statement was  
made last Saturday by Mike Cheselka that an offer was made "within 3 seconds"  
to host Cactus, both physically and as a internet link.  I don't know the  
reality of the situation.
 
> 2) As one of the people responsible for a large # of Modem serivices
> here at DELL, I have *NEVER* committed Modem &/or phone lines.

Again, a statement on behalf of Cactus.  It would be nice for someone such as  
Dell (or anyone else that uses trunks rather than individual lines) to  
provide the facilities so that we wouldn't have to deal with the intricacies  
of handling individual lines from SWBT.

> 1) I'm not sure the NSF AUP(Acceptable Use Policy) would allow
> DELL, or any *other* comercial Austin Internet site the option
> to host such a system. I am checking with various parties, including
> our legal folks(as soon as I can get them) whether anyone can do so.

Well, I looked over the NSFnet and NearNet policies, and I don't see whereas  
our proposal contradicts the AUP.  The Cleveland Freenets fit in without any  
problem.  I do think that SLIP and PPP links would require a rethink of our  
requirements and also of AUP.  Definately there would have to be binding  
legal papers between the organization and the inidivual requesting hte link.

> 2) I've only committed to investigate interally to DELL as folks
> here might be interested. No more, no less. Towards that end, I've
> spoken with but a few of the folks internal to here that would quite a
> bit of say so. No decision is anywhere near "in site".

That is all anyone can ask of you or anyone else who is not directly in  
charge of donations/advertisement/accounting (etc.).

> 3) I'm not 100% convinced that anyone supporting this FreeNet project
> save jsq, and a few others(myself too) are aware of the amount of 
> startup work, ongoing work, or "daily care and feeding" that an Internet
> connection requires. Several other site admins have stated that by
> the end of their day at work, the last(!!) thing they wish to
> do is to run yet another Internet site. That directly implies that
> it may take untrained, or "new to Internet site maintenance" folks to
> get such a project "on the net".

Or masochists?  :-)  As someone who has been running machines around Internet  
for a while, I think I have at least a grasp of the difficulties.  The  
problems last week (due in major part to the source routing failure of the  
current IP protocols) are not a good example of problems facing most sys  
admins a majority of the time.  However, I do think there are a large number  
of people who don't have much experience with anything beyond UUCP/USenet,  
and don't realise the difficulties that face a system when you basically open  
it up totally to half the face of the planet.  Security becomes a VERY major  
concern, and in this case ,the common solution of firewalling the network  
isn't possible.

> Now then, in all honesty, this is still(as I've stated to several folks 
> verbally) as far as I'm currently concerned, a very infant project. The
> amount of work, time, and maintenance, as well as bills, may well
> stop this from happening. May not also.

Agreed, and while I would like to see SOMETHING by the end of the year, I  
don't think that it is feasable or logical to expect everything to happen at  
the start, hencce the reason we proposed a staged implementation.  There   
wasn't a time scale given.

> In no way do I wish the project ill; IMHO it's quite an interesting
> project to undertake, I just wish everyone knew what we go through
> running sites. UUCP == running an Internet site.

UUCP != Internet you mean? :-)

Perhaps UUCP^100 == Internet? ;-)

Chris
--
| Chris Petrilli
| petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu, petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu
| All opinions are my own, if they even belong to anyone.