home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!JHUVM.BITNET!JIMJ
- Message-ID: <NODMGT-L%93012113425588@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:27:39 EST
- Reply-To: FUTURE-L@UGA.BITNET
- Sender: Node Management <NODMGT-L@UGA.BITNET>
- From: Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET>
- Subject: Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
- Comments: cc: future-l@uga.BITNET
- In-Reply-To: Message of Thu,
- 21 Jan 1993 09:51:49 -0500 from <imhw400@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU>
- Lines: 164
-
- Before I even get started, let me say that I've CC'd a copy of this
- note to FUTURE-L@UGA, and directed replies to that list. If you want
- your responses to appear on NODMGT-L, you'll probably have to manually
- twiddle the destination.
-
- On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:51:49 -0500 <imhw400@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU> said:
- >In article <NODMGT-L%93012013571987@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>, Jim Jones
- ><JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET> writes:
-
- My argument is essentially that connectivity issues are not the only
- important measure of a "computer network". And that if Bitnet does
- deliver useful services it can survive even if it does rely heavily
- on some other network for transport services.
-
- In that context, I'll respond to your observations.
-
- >1. There is no such person as "BITNET", hence he cannot provide services.
- > There are quite a number of independent entities that provide services
- > over the NJE catenet and, in many cases, the Internet as well.
- > BITNET is the subset of those entities that (a) operate a cooperative
- > NJE network which (b) they have hired CREN to administer and
- > coordinate.
-
- I do use the term "Bitnet" somewhat ambiguously. Sometimes I mean CREN,
- and sometimes I mean the cooperative efforts of Bitnet members. Both
- provide valuable services. Eric has mentioned LISTSERV, which is the
- most visible example of a service offered by the later group. Many
- sites contribute resources (machine and human) to maintaining a working
- LISTSERV structure that delivers first rate services. And while users
- on the Internet can participate, it's by definition a Bitnet service.
- The INTERBIT services provided by the members of Bitnet is another
- example. CREN also provides services, like a coordinated respository
- of information about the members. That is also a valuable service.
-
- >2. Some people confuse the terms BITNET and CREN. CREN does provide
- > services. Those services today are almost entirely concerned with the
- > operation of the NJE network.
-
- Both CREN and the Bitnet members themselves offer Bitnet-based services.
- My point is that people that feel it's useful to preserve Bitnet are
- charged with defining the services that make them feel that way, and
- ensuring that those services are sufficient to sustain the network.
- Which brings me back to my original point. If Bitnet doesn't survive,
- it will be because CREN and the Bitnet members that would like Bitnet
- to continue weren't able to deliver a suite of services convincingly.
- Connectivity is not the primary issue as was suggested in the original
- posting that started this thread. Does it mean the CREN/"Bitnet folks"
- have to offer new services and expand existing ones? Yes I think it
- does. But the idea that Bitnet becomes completely irrelevant the moment
- the last PC is connected to the Internet is a gross oversimplification.
-
- >3. The NJE network provides two facilities that the Internet traditionally
- > has not: Nodal Message Records and unsolicited file transfer. There
- > are at least two NMR-over-IP schemes in some stage of development.
- > Unsolicited file transfer is more difficult, but not impossible, and
- > I'd be surprised to find that nobody was working on it. (I'll probably
- > tackle it eventually if nobody else does.)
-
- The Internet Message Send Protocol as I've seen it defined isn't a
- true alternative to NJE "messages". There are authenticity problems
- in many TCP/IP based services, including MSP. That is, while on an
- NJE network you can pretty much be sure that an interactive message
- you receive from someone was actually sent by the user/node that
- it claims to be from. Unless MSP is extended, it's no more reliable
- then SMTP based mail in that regard. Yes, it's a minor point, but
- I think it's worth mentioning. And in anticipation, yes, since many
- Bitnet links are TCP/IP based now, it would be possible to spoof NJE
- messages on one of those links. But the logistics of doing so seem
- nightmarish in comparison to spoofing an MSP message. And it's ironic
- to note that it's precisely because the transport isn't over an
- "old fashioned" NJE line that the potential security exposure exists.
-
- The real point is, will Bitnet be desirable when MSP and SIFT are
- available to Internet users? Like I said before, people that think
- so, probably have a few years to do something about it. MSP and
- SIFT aren't going to be widely available on the Internet before then.
-
- >4. When these last two facilities are widely available in the Internet,
- > there is no more need for the NJE network. The bother and expense of
- > tearing it down will prevent its removal for some amount of time,
- > but not forever.
-
- You're assuming that nobody is interested in offering new services or
- expanding the currently existing ones. If you're right, then you're
- right. But given that assumption, the question is rather trivial.
- It's like saying, "Since the patient has stopped breathing, he won't
- remain in this hospital bed much longer. Only the bother of carting
- him to the morgue will delay his removal, but not forever.". The
- patient still seems healthy to me.
-
- >5. When the NJE network is gone, BITNET will be the set of Internet users
- > who remember what BITNET used to be.
-
- Again, your conclusion is just a rewording of your assumption.
-
- > ... CREN will be out of the transport business and into
- > application-layer stuff like mailing-list software and other
- > education/research end-user tools.
- (text deleted...)
- >But *should* we continue to run such a network-within-a-network? What does it
- >buy us?
-
- Now here's a good question... I've heard some people say that Bitnet's
- commercial restrictions make it a valuable organization. That is, since
- Bitnet members are largely academic institutions, whatever services were
- envisioned and provided (by CREN or the members themselves) are more
- likely to have the their interests in mind. If that's true (having no
- experience in a non-academic environment, I can't say), then Bitnet as
- a network-within-a-network could be useful. CREN could expand it's
- role as a coordinator of centralized information, and by definition
- become a source of information about academic institutions. If CREN
- can be used a research tool, or just a way to find information, then
- site may very well want to continue their membership. The question is
- do Bitnet members as a subset of the Internet community have common
- needs that can be effectively address by some organization? Or is it
- every university for itself along with every tom.burgerking.com,
- dick.nestle.com and harry.chrylser.com on the Internet? :)
-
- (text deleted...)
- >I thought that the argument was, that the consumers all seem to be buying one
- >of the choices anyway, and eventually will wonder why they need both.
-
- I hear the argument that "everyone should run U*NIX only and be on the
- Internet only just because things would be easier" all the time. I
- don't agree with that argument for the reasons I stated. My point was
- that as long as diversity is feasible, it's likely to be beneficial.
- As for the point you've raised. I hope people decide whether or not
- to retain a Bitnet membership by considering the costs and resulting
- benefits, and not because the latest "hot trend in MIS circles" is
- to get rid of that nasty NJE network.
-
- >> Currently Bitnet offers services not available on the Internet and
- >> I don't see that changing in the new year or so.
- ^^^ "next", not "new" as typo'd
-
- I still maintain that the statement above is accurate, and that only
- sites that are truely bankrupt will be acting in their users best
- interest by dropping out of Bitnet.
-
- >At that point BITNET will not be a technical network at all anymore; it will be
- >a social network, and that in the process of being absorbed by a larger one.
- >It will be a fading memory, something that old-timers talk about when they
- >congregate.
-
- The NJE network isn't going away in the foreseeable future. Bitnet is
- not going to turn into an eccentric bunch of drooling systems programers
- babbling about core memory and wire wrapped 3704 field updates. :)
-
- >Okay, what are the advantages of the BITNET alternative, aside from unsolicited
- >file transfer?
-
- I've listed some real, and some possible Bitnet-specific services in
- this (overly long) note already. What I'm wondering about is whether
- or not CREN and Bitnet members at large are interested in making Bitnet
- into a viable alternative/addition to other networks. If there is a
- commitment to do so, I think it will happen. There's certainly enough
- talented people out there.
-
- >--
- >Mark H. Wood, Lead Analyst/Programmer +1 317 274 0749 [@disclaimer@]
- >Internet: IMHW400@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU BITNET: IMHW400@INDYVAX
- >Celebrate freedom: read a banned newsgroup.
-
- -jj
-