evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (02/03/90)
[Note: this is being cross-posted to ont.uucp and can.usrgroup. I would like to take this discussion to a mailing list of interested people sooner or later. For now, please leave the cross-posting, because it has interest to people not involved with Uniforum Canada or Unix Unanimous, and also to people on the UU mailing list who don't get news. Thanks.] Some interesting side discussions at the recent Unix Unanimous meeting in North York, coupled with the coming departure of the site nebulus, have revived interest in this matter. There has been widespread mumbling for the past year or so about the feasability of having a central Ontario site that would function similarly to uunet in the U.S. That is, a stable, well-connected site which charges fees for feeds. It would carry every newsgroup and mailing list available, allowing subscriber sites to make up their own minds on what's appropriate to take. The idea in concept appears to have the support of many of the board members of Uniforum Canada, possibly even a majority at this time. The backing of that body for a non-profit organization running this site could involve direct funding, getting cheap hardware from the group's corporate sponsors, or other means. The consensus among those I have spoken to points to a small (maybe 1.5) number of paid staff positions and a core of volunteers to assist. One issue that may become sticky is that of Internet access. As I understand it, present Onet policy concerning commercial sites hooking up is unclear. Perhaps this site could be a lightening rod, taking care of the commercial hookups and relieving other Onet members of that "problem". I believe this can result in a working agreement that benefits both sides. I myself would like to see the site offer, besides Usenet and mail feeds, some kind of ftp access for subscribers. Maybe modem SLIP links, or perhaps we could implement an ftp server which would allow subscribers to request uploads - requests would be queued up, and the files would be set for UUCP transmission to the requesting site upon arrival. Archives? Of course. Lots of disk, to allow for a full repository of the GNU tapes, the newest Xwindows, TeX, the entire contents of comp.sources, whatever. I can see that in the early going, some of the stuff could be kept offline on Exabyte tapes, available for downloading on N hours notice. I believe such a site would be of great interest to UUCP sites in Ontario and Quebec. I don't think there'll be much interest in the Maritimes and West, because with our stupid phone rates it's likely cheaper to call Virginia from Vancouver than to call Toronto. Comments? -- The Northwest Territories: | Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Where men are men, women | Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario are scarce, and caribou are | evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan very careful how they walk. | (416) 452-0504
eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) (02/03/90)
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >One issue that may become sticky is that of Internet access. As I >understand it, present Onet policy concerning commercial sites hooking >up is unclear. Perhaps this site could be a lightening rod, taking care >of the commercial hookups and relieving other Onet members of that >"problem". I believe this can result in a working agreement that >benefits both sides. To join Onet, the organization must have a `common purpose' (if you will) between all submembers. There would still be the restriction the `no commercial traffic' (e.g. invoices, paid software). I've spoken with one of the Onet people and they are open to suggestions, but there are many grey areas which could be argued about. The price of Onet is also high. >I myself would like to see the site offer, besides Usenet and mail >feeds, some kind of ftp access for subscribers. Maybe modem SLIP links, Essentially what the commercial end of UUNET is offering. The only real barrier in doing this is the cost of phone lines in Canada. A line from Toronto to the border would, likely, cost twice that of the line from the border to Boston. Fortunately, Bell is planning to decrease rates on 56kbps and T-1 lines by around 50%. I'll believe it when I see it. There are other cheaper, in the long term, solutions which could be considered (e.g. satellite). >I believe such a site would be of great interest to UUCP sites in >Ontario and Quebec. I don't think there'll be much interest in the >Maritimes and West, because with our stupid phone rates it's likely >cheaper to call Virginia from Vancouver than to call Toronto. That's because your call only has to travel Vancouver-NearestUSborder on Canadian lines and then the cheap US services take over. Want to build a national commercial backbone? Lease lines to the nearest US border points (Buffalo, Seattle) and a T-1 line from MCI between Buffalo and Seattle. Not too proper, but technically feasible. Sigh. If a uunet-north site was established, it could also provide 1-800 dialin for out of town sites. Price from Bell that covers most of Ontario (except by Manitoba, 807?) is around $0.37/minute. Please add me to any mailing list pertaining to this topic. Thanks. -- Doug Eastick -- eastick@me.utoronto.ca
lamy@cs.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy) (02/04/90)
If what you have in mind is a central node with dial-in access, you would in effect be re-inventing CSNet (using SL/IP instead of IP/X.25). I think your estimate of 1.5 full-time staff is on the low side for such a set-up, and that you are under-estimating the costs of a leased line to the US (after all, all of ONET is only able to afford a 32Kbs link to the US, and that makes me wonder where you'd find the money) Note as well that there are already sites on ONET that charge for access (UTCS being one), I don't see how a uunet north would be different in that sense. The only tricky point about all this would be whether SL/IP connection to that uunetnorth (wow, a freudian sl/ip :-) would be able to climb on the ONET/NSFNET link. If your aim is to provide SL/IP access for mail and ftp to uunetnorth, then I don't see any problem at all, and the 16K$ per year charge would likely be quite competitive with your actual communication tab (avoiding headaches running the link too). If you want to allow full IP connectivity through ONET, then you should simply raise the matter with the ONET board. To my knowledge, the technical comittee has discussed the matter, and the links certainly are technically feasible (there are some already in-place within some member institutions), what has not been raised is the issue of handling "third party" traffic, and that is a policy issue. Finally, the idea of dropping lines to the US and running T1 there is actually illegal, as I understand things. Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@cs.utoronto.ca, uunet!cs.utoronto.ca!lamy Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) (02/04/90)
lamy@cs.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes: >[...] and the 16K$ per year >charge would likely be quite competitive with your actual communication tab >(avoiding headaches running the link too). Currently $18k/year and I suspect it will rise. I thought UTCS's link to the NSFnet was 56k? not 32k. >Finally, the idea of dropping lines to the US and running T1 there is actually >illegal, as I understand things. It was a joke. -- Doug Eastick -- eastick@me.utoronto.ca
lamy@cs.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy) (02/04/90)
eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) writes: [ Concerning ONET connection costs, which are only worth discussing only if uunetnorth wants to provide Internet connections to the outside, or if they want to set-up an Internet connection for themselves ] >Currently $18k/year and I suspect it will rise. There is the very real question of "where do you go to get an Internet connection". The ONET fee compares very favourably to how much it would cost you to tap in directly to NYSERNET, or another American regional net. CSRI used to spend 60000$ per annum to get Internet access from CSNET/X25Net, as a quick reminder (now you know who was paying for ...!{utcsri,utai}!foo.bar.edu all those years). NSFNET won't even talk to you (soon they won't even talk to ONET, their policy being to talk only to their counterpart national backbones -- CAnet in Canada -- which is still in nascent state). Networking is *not* a trivial task, and even in the presence of better subsidies and cheaper communication costs the US networks are still forced to charge a bundle to provide the required infrastructure. One reason the ONET fee will go up is that it will more or less be forced into CAnet -- see discussion about NSFnet above -- and CAnet, thanks to Canadian politics, will be providing service to all 10 provinces, with predictable cost/revenue discrepencies) For the ONET you get the leased line and an ethernet port in your building. The router is actually amortized over a small positive number of years. The current "proper" way of building networks involves using homogeneous, dedicated equipment with a clear delineation between what the network provides (packet routing) and what the customer gets (a place to plug in a wire). Cobbling up something where say the packets for UWO go through a general-purpose machine at Waterloo would introduce both logistical problems because of the heterogeneity, and sharply diminish predictability when non-dedicated machines get loaded up. I'm afraid the only real way to build regional networks circa 1990 is to do it the ONET way. >I thought UTCS's link to the NSFnet was 56k? not 32k. Nope, sad as it may be. The remaining bandwidth is paid for and used by Netnorth. Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@cs.utoronto.ca, uunet!cs.utoronto.ca!lamy Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
root@nebulus.UUCP (Dennis S. Breckenridge) (02/04/90)
In the interest of keeping the west alive as well, I would be
very interested in adding to the network. I know the lyndon at
atha would want some input as well.
Nebulus requires more disk (it's currently at 630 megs) but
ports, modems and ether are already here. I am sure that if we
all discuss this with earnest we can pull it off. I heard, also
at that famous UU meeting that UUNET is in the process of setting
up a statewide network of machines as well. I do not see the
point of UUNET-north if we are going to compete with that. I
would like to see Canadian money stay here not drift across the
border in NNTP packets.
This is a poll of all that are reading, what would you like to
see in a UUNET-north. I don't think a free for all ftp - uucp
gateway would be a good idea. If we pooled out expertise I
believe we could pull this off.
Telly, do you want to take the lead, nebulus will disappear for
while! sigh!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME: Dennis S. Breckenridge UUCP: dennis@nebulus
EMACS: Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------moraes@csri.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) (02/06/90)
I asked Rick Adams at uunet for comments -- his reply is an interesting proposal for a leased line to uunet and a terminal server at this end. > Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 11:44:14 -0500 > From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams) > Message-Id: <9002051644.AA11491@uunet.uu.net> > To: moraes@csri.toronto.edu > Subject: Re: I'd appreciate your comments on this > > If Uniforum/Canada is serious, I'd be happy to make a proposal. > > The cheapest/best way is to offer "real" uunet access with a local > Ontario phone number. This is how we are doing a "UUNET Silicon > Valley". Its MUCH cheaper and simpler to maintain. > > You basically need 1 site with a good computer room and staff > to donate (or rent cheap) enough space for 1 equipment rack. > > Other than that, I'd guess $40,000 to get started and $10,000 > per month to keep it going. $10,000 is $100 per month > if you have 100 sites. > > I cant afford to fund that, but is someone else is, I'd be happy to > discuss details. > > > --rick
moraes@csri.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) (02/06/90)
| or perhaps we could implement an ftp server which would allow subscribers | to request uploads - requests would be queued up, and the files would be | set for UUCP transmission to the requesting site upon arrival. Also, cache all requests locally, to save several people getting the same stuff across the Internet link. This is especially important with things like X11 or the GNU software. (We at cs.toronto.edu have some automated ftp shadowing tools in place already) | I can see that in the early going, some of the stuff could be | kept offline on Exabyte tapes, available for downloading on N hours notice. Exabyte tapes can store lots of stuff, but they aren't very fast (compared to magtape or even cartridge tape), and they involve a human to load appropriate tapes. (Well, most of the archives can probably fit on one Exabyte tape that could be kept in the drive all the time. This will probably not be true after the next release of X :-) A uunet-north would probably need: + lots of disk. (start in the gigabyte range) + lots of serial ports. + a powerful CPU. (handling a full feed of news can cripple anything under a Sun3/180 without much effort right now) The system had better be expandable or expendable. (news traffic and mail volume has this tendency to grow rapidly...)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/07/90)
In article <90Feb5.222929est.827@church.csri.toronto.edu> moraes@csri.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) writes: >+ a powerful CPU. (handling a full feed of news can cripple >anything under a Sun3/180 without much effort right now) When people say things like this, I can't help remembering that our poor old pdp11/44, running C News, was still functioning quite well -- passing a full feed to half a dozen other sites -- when we set it aside in favor of a 3/180 a year and a half ago. Volume has grown since then, yes, but it still looks to me like disk bandwidth and good serial i/o are much more important than CPU crunch. The apparent importance of CPU speed is mostly, I think, because small CPUs tend to come with slow disks and cruddy serial ports. (The old utzoo had Eagles on a very good controller, probably better than the one on our Sun. It also had Emulex DHs for terminal multiplexors, and those make Sun's ALMs look like the crap they are. I'm still disgusted that a 3/180 can't run a 2400-baud uucp line at full speed -- the 44 could.) Forget the CPU; it's the peripherals that matter for this application. -- SVR4: every feature you ever | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology wanted, and plenty you didn't.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/07/90)
Dream on if you think you can offer Rick 100 customers at 100 per month. A few months ago UUNET reported about $50K/month in revenues. Do you think Canada could account for 20% of that? Not likely. Face it folks, we are a lot less unix-saturated that the USA, particularly the area of the USA that uunet is in. They built their business partly on the fact that they can sell you uucp time for less than you can pay in phone bills to call somebody LD who gives it to you for free. They did this by buying wads of 800 number time in bulk, and getting a fat discount. That just isn't nearly as possible here in Canada. If Datapac got their act together it might be, but unless you are 100% efficient, and don't use the datapac dial net, datapac is more expensive than a telebit call. And we live in a country where it's cheaper to call California from Toronto than Winnipeg. Something is possible, but I don't know about Rick's proposal. One idea would be to have ONet hand over operation to a private firm, the same way that Nysernet and CAPnet did. ONet "owns" very little, as I understand it, perhaps some software and a router or two. Most of ONet's "assets" are actually things rented from Bell etc. I understand most of the routers are member owned, too. (Correct me if I am wrong) Same was true of NYSERNET. Such a private firm could then do, at little incremental cost, what PSI (which managaes NYSERNET) is doing -- set up uunet like services. Actually, they're setting up more than that. They're running white pages and database services, and putting terminal servers in various cities. ie. if you have an account on a NYSERNET machine, and you're in another city with a node on that net, you can dial a local number and telnet to your machine. Like datapac, but part of the fixed price deal. I don't have the time now to offer something like this on my own. What I'm doing now consumes plenty of my time. But if some people want to get together, I would be interested in joining. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/07/90)
Henry is right. A Xenix/286 machine can do a decent news feed for a few sites, if it has nothing else to do, even with B news. With C it is probably even more capable. But since you can now buy a 386/20 mhz machine for under $1K in the USA (ok, with no disk, so 2K gets you a disk and ethernet card) -- and this machine could probably feed 20 sites if it had nothing else to do -- it's no big deal. For local feeds you can be quite a bit more efficient. If a Toronto site were to insist on calling all its customers (local call) instead of being called by them, you can get away with lots less hardware. In fact, I would guess that 1 telebit and one phone line could do it. The reason is that you keep the load level. One outgoing call at any given time, but it is *always* going. You just go in a loop calling and updating (unless a delay is desired) For example a full USENET feed, around 7 megs, is less than one hour of Telebit time, when compressed. Thus a single line and modem can feed at least 20 local sites in this manner. (Mail is extra) This is extreme -- you would want more than one line in case of hardware failure, and more than one machine, but you get the point. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473