tommyk@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug30.091435.1982@ircam.ircam.fr mf@ircam.ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) writes: }While trying to find whether we (in France, Europe) could reach a site }in Germany (Europe), I got the following route from traceroute:... Does this imply that you CAN actually telnet out to U.S. sites? Is the UK the only place which is isolated from the rest of the world? tk
lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee McLoughlin) (09/03/90)
Lee's time to flame ->>
In article <6190@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> tommyk@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
From: tommyk@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: eunet.followup,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Date: 31 Aug 90 07:26:56 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Does this imply that you CAN actually telnet out to U.S. sites?
Is the UK the only place which is isolated from the rest of the world?
Yes the UK is really the only Europaen country where not only do we
lack tcp/ip services to the internet but you *CANNOT GET* tcp/ip
services to the internet. Oh sure if you have ooodles of money and
can afford your own satelite link or pss connection to a friendly site
somewhere on the internet (some of the bigger companies with UK
branches do this) or if you are one of the priviledged UK universities
who have a link such as ULCC, UCL or UKC then fine, you're laughing.
The rest of us? Forget it. There is noone out there offering a
service that most UKNET users can afford.
Even something as simple as running tcp/ip over JANET so we can have
some degree of sane networking here in the UK seems to be out. The
JANET powers that be do not want anything as useful as tcp/ip sullying
there network! God forbid you should be able to use the networking
software that comes on your machine!! Far better to have to shell out
for coloured book software! Don't give me any of that rubbish about
tcp/ip not being available on all the machines on Janet, any machine
that sells in the US has tcp/ip available for it. Normally from
several competing vendors. Over here you are lucky if the coloured
books are available at all for any new box.
The thing that really amazes me about all this is that there is not a
bigger fuss about it all! I regularly pull back new releases of
software/documentation from US/Europaen academics from internet, don't
academics here in the UK want to make there work available in the same
way? Many comerical companies are on the US Internet and release
patches, demo release and the like by making them available for
anonymous ftp. Don't companies over here want to do the same thing?
If I thought it would succeed I'd say we should all lobby for either
UKNET or Janet to make internet available to us, but a lot of us tried
to get that stupid Janet decision about email addresses being the
wrong way around reversed and failed. If I was a gambling man I'd bet
any attempt to get us tcp/ip from the Janet authorities would be met
by innane statements about ISO.
My parting question is directed the those that run UKNET: when is
tcp/ip going to be available to UKNET members in the same way as it is
to Eunet members?
--
--
Lee McLoughlin phone: 071 589 5111 X 5037 fax: 071 581 8024
Department of Computing, Imperial College, 180 Queens Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK
Janet: lmjm@uk.ac.ic.doc Uucp: lmjm@icdoc.UUCP (or ..!ukc!icdoc!lmjm)
DARPA: lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (or lmjm%uk.ac.ic.doc@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk)pte900@jatz.aarnet.edu.au (Peter Elford) (09/04/90)
In article <1990Sep04.045954.25664@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andy Linton) writes: |> I have much better access to my colleagues in the US, Australia and the |> rest of Europe than I ever did while in the UK and I would be very loath |> to go back to the inferior *international* networking available in the UK. And this from a user in country connected to the Internet via an extremely wet piece of string - a 14.4 kb voice grade modem link! Peter Elford, e-mail: P.Elford@aarnet.edu.au Network Co-ordinator, phone: +61 6 249 3542 Australian Academic Research Network, fax: +61 6 247 3425 c/o, Computer Services Centre, post: PO Box 4 Australian National University Canberra 2601 Canberra, AUSTRALIA
expc66@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ulf Dahlen) (09/04/90)
In article <LMJM.90Sep3171440@oriona.doc.ic.ac.uk> lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee McLoughlin) writes: >Yes the UK is really the only Europaen country where not only do we >lack tcp/ip services to the internet but you *CANNOT GET* tcp/ip >services to the internet. I was a bit surprised then I came here that I couldn't ftp or telnet to Sweden. All universities in Sweden run tcp/ip and there's no problem ftp-ing or telnet-ing to any site, in Sweden or USA or whatever (but probably not UK then). --Ulf Dahlen Linkoping University, Sweden and Edinburgh University, Scotland Internet: uda@ida.liu.se
Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andy Linton) (09/04/90)
Just a few words of support for Lee from one who used to have JANET style access to the Internet i.e. poor to non-existent when I was at Newcastle. I have much better access to my colleagues in the US, Australia and the rest of Europe than I ever did while in the UK and I would be very loath to go back to the inferior *international* networking available in the UK. Lee's point about the JANET authorities seeing the solution in terms of OSI protocols is unfortunately true. It will be wonderful when (or is it if) it happens but the real world is voting for TCP/IP now to be replaced by some as yet undefined set of protocols which will leap frog over the OSI stack. So do us all a favour and open the door into and out of the UK.
dfk@eu.net (Daniel Karrenberg) (09/04/90)
lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee McLoughlin) writes: >My parting question is directed the those that run UKNET: when is >tcp/ip going to be available to UKNET members in the same way as it is >to Eunet members? My understanding of the situation is that those that *run* UKNET would very much like to offer that service. The problem is that the organisation where the backbone site is housed fears political pressures from ISOrmites both inside and outside of that organisation. So far not quite enough paying customers have surfaced to set up a separate organisation offering IP services in the UK. Something else: At the last RIPE meeting there were (weak) signals to be heared from the JNT that IP over JANET is not as indiscussable as it used to be. That was -again- for some privileged sites that spoke up. Maybe those who want it should make up a case and go ask again. I won't hold my breath but on the other hand you change nothing by sitting and waiting (and complaining to the rest of the world). Got to the JNT and ask them about services like X-windows, NFS etc. *now*. Daniel -- Daniel Karrenberg Future Net: <dfk@cwi.nl> CWI, Amsterdam Oldie Net: mcsun!dfk The Netherlands Because It's There Net: DFK@MCVAX
chris@vision.UUCP (Chris Davies) (09/04/90)
In article <LMJM.90Sep3171440@oriona.doc.ic.ac.uk> lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee McLoughlin) writes: ... >Even something as simple as running tcp/ip over JANET so we can have >some degree of sane networking here in the UK seems to be out. The >JANET powers that be do not want anything as useful as tcp/ip sullying >there network! God forbid you should be able to use the networking Not only can't you use tcp/ip over JANET, but commercial sites (in my experience) can't even use JANET as it stands - not even for real money. So no NIFTP, etc. >My parting question is directed the those that run UKNET: when is >tcp/ip going to be available to UKNET members in the same way as it is >to Eunet members? What a wonderful thought. Perhaps commercial sites would be allowed to use it too (at less that 10k p.a. for the privilege)? Chris -- VISIONWARE LTD | UK: chris@vision.uucp JANET: chris%vision.uucp@ukc 57 Cardigan Lane | US: chris@vware.mn.org OTHER: chris@vision.co.uk LEEDS LS4 2LE | BANGNET: ...{backbone}!ukc!vision!chris England | VOICE: +44 532 788858 FAX: +44 532 304676 -------------- "VisionWare: The home of DOS/UNIX/X integration" --------------
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (09/05/90)
In article <1213@vision.UUCP> chris@vision.UUCP (Chris Davies) writes:
Not only can't you use tcp/ip over JANET, but commercial sites (in my
experience) can't even use JANET as it stands - not even for real money.
So no NIFTP, etc.
This is untrue. Commercial sites may use JANET provided they have good
reasons for doing so, essentially collaboration with an academic site
on a research project. JANET cannot be used for purely commercial
traffic (shunting data between a company's offices - or two distinct
commercial sites - in Exeter and Aberdeen say). The rules are roughly
similar to those for use of NSFnet: "free" government funded networks
must not subsidise commercial traffic.
It's more or less OK for a company to connect via PSS through a
PSS/JANET gateway to an academic site and exchange data. In fact, this
is how some of the big commercial sites get their news.
Jimchris@tcom.stc.co.uk (Chris Milton) (09/05/90)
yep. yep. yepyepyepyepyep. yep. that's wholehearted agreement there. one problemo though... a. can you see academic sites wanting to shell out money they aint got to modify up to internet ? b. can you see companies which aren't even on janet because it provides security problems wanting to go onto internet? pity you cant telnet using bitftp ... oh well, back to trying to find the gateway out of this organization into the real world *sigh*. oops, sorry, i mean back to doing that really interesting pascal prog :-) bye de bye chris chris@jura.tcom.stc.co.uk
sb380@cs.city.ac.uk (Andy Holt) (09/05/90)
Not only is the present Janet policy (coloured books instead of TCP/IP) isolating us from the rest of the world, but it looks like the ISO transition will do the same again: The JNT in its infinite wisdom (???) has mandated that the ISO profile used in the UK use TC0 (connection oriented transport service) while NBS in the USA is encouraging the use of TC4 (connectionless transport service). Here we go again ..... Andy
ajudge@maths.tcd.ie (Alan Judge) (09/05/90)
In <LMJM.90Sep3171440@oriona.doc.ic.ac.uk> lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee McLoughlin) writes: >Yes the UK is really the only Europaen country where not only do we >lack tcp/ip services to the internet but you *CANNOT GET* tcp/ip >services to the internet. Not quite :-( Ireland is still not IP connected. -- Alan Judge ajudge@maths.tcd.ie a.k.a. amjudge@cs.tcd.ie +353-1-772941 x1782 Fortunately the computer virus did no harm to our records. It was immediately devoured by all the bugs in our own programming.
jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk (Jonathan Knight) (09/05/90)
From article <1990Sep4.164546@jatz.aarnet.edu.au>, by pte900@jatz.aarnet.edu.au (Peter Elford): > And this from a user in country connected to the Internet via an > extremely wet piece > of string - a 14.4 kb voice grade modem link! At least he is connected to the Internet by something. Our political gateway (ukc) from the UK to Europe used to be a 9600 baud UUCP link. According to the maps at mcsun this is now a 9600 baud TCP/IP link. The rest of the UK uses something called coloured book software which works great as long as all you want to do is transfer files of data in the UK. It looks like the management want to go ISO, so at least we stand a chance of making contact with the rest of the world. It does seem foolish that with most of the world talking TCP/IP there are no plans in the UK for any TCP/IP service over JANET. Fortunately for us, the UKnet gateway isn't the only one. UCL have a 56Kb link to the USA and offer a guest FTP service which allows us to transfer files to and from internet connected sites. They also transfer our mail, and make no charge. This is unlike UKC which charge for news, and mail, and they also advertise themselves as a valid route for uk mail. This is a pain as they are trying to fit a full news feed and email down their 9600 baud line, when there is a no charge route for email down a 56kb line. There's also the problem that UKC advertise themselves as a forwarder for the ac.uk domain, when in fact they only forward mail to uknet members and drop everything else on the floor. UCL forward all ac.uk mail regardless of what they are members of. So you see that the UK has poor connectivity with the outside world and is politically restricted in its development. Hopefully somebody somewhere will learn how to utilise the resources we have to provide the service that we want, within my lifetime...... Then again, I'm not going to hold my breath. -- ______ JANET :jonathan@uk.ac.keele.cs Jonathan Knight, / BITNET:jonathan%cs.kl.ac.uk@ukacrl Department of Computer Science / _ __ other :jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk University of Keele, Keele, (_/ (_) / / UUCP :...!ukc!kl-cs!jonathan Staffordshire. ST5 5BG. U.K.
chris@vision.UUCP (Chris Davies) (09/05/90)
In article <1213@vision.UUCP> I wrote, > Not only can't you use tcp/ip over JANET, but commercial sites (in my > experience) can't even use JANET as it stands - not even for real money. > So no NIFTP, etc. In article <JIM.90Sep4195515@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) replied: >This is untrue. Commercial sites may use JANET provided they have good >reasons for doing so, essentially collaboration with an academic site >on a research project. JANET cannot be used for purely commercial >traffic (shunting data between a company's offices - or two distinct >commercial sites - in Exeter and Aberdeen say). Sorry, I should have stated my point more clearly. I was aware of this. But I think I'm correct in stating that a direct connection to JANET (as such) by a commerical site is not permissible (and so all traffic must go through a gateway - thus mail only, in effect). >The rules are roughly >similar to those for use of NSFnet: "free" government funded networks >must not subsidise commercial traffic. But if the commercial site(s) were to pay for their use of the government funded networks, then I don't see why this shouldn't be acceptable. With the current situation, I would agree that commercial sites should not exploit JANET for commercial gain. Chris -- VISIONWARE LTD | UK: chris@vision.uucp JANET: chris%vision.uucp@ukc 57 Cardigan Lane | US: chris@vware.mn.org OTHER: chris@vision.co.uk LEEDS LS4 2LE | BANGNET: ...{backbone}!ukc!vision!chris England | VOICE: +44 532 788858 FAX: +44 532 304676 -------------- "VisionWare: The home of DOS/UNIX/X integration" --------------
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (09/06/90)
In article <1216@vision.UUCP> chris@vision.UUCP (Chris Davies) writes:
Sorry, I should have stated my point more clearly. I was aware of
this. But I think I'm correct in stating that a direct connection
to JANET (as such) by a commerical site is not permissible (and so
all traffic must go through a gateway - thus mail only, in effect).
Yes and no.
A commercial site cannot get a direct connection, meaning an X.25 line
straight from a JANET switch. If the site already has PSS, they can use
Coloured Book protocols to make connections to JANET sites via one of
many JANET/PSS gateways*. These connections may be TS29 or X.29 for
terminal traffic or NIFTP for mail and news transfer or JTMP for
remote job entry.
[* Calling the box with a JANET and a PSS connection a gateway is a
bit misleading. It doesn't really perform protocol conversion (save
for minimal TS29/X.29 translation), so strictly speaking it's not a
gateway. It's more of a router, simply routing X.25 packets between
the two networks. However, Internet people call routers "gateways", so
if JANET was part of the Internet, the name would be correct!]
Jimdylan@ibmpcug.co.uk (Matthew Farwell) (09/06/90)
In article <1940@jura.tcom.stc.co.uk> chris@htc2.UUCP (Chris Milton) writes: >a. can you see academic sites wanting to shell out money they aint got > to modify up to internet ? Sure they haven't got the money, but the JNT have a policy of sticking to coloured books. >b. can you see companies which aren't even on janet because it provides > security problems wanting to go onto internet? It depends. Companies who are terminally afraid of security problems will never connect to a network like janet. On the other hand, if connecting up to a network directly, (esp. the internet for international companies) reduces their costs substantially in terms of mail, news etc., then they might be persuaded to do so. I know this particular company would love to be connected directly to janet, and I suspect I know of a few others too. Dylan. -- Matthew J Farwell | Email: dylan@ibmpcug.co.uk The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360,| dylan%ibmpcug.CO.UK@ukc Harrow HA1 4LQ England | ...!uunet!ukc!ibmpcug.co.uk!dylan Phone: +44 81-863-1191 | Winner 1989 Frank Zappa lookalike contest
grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) (09/06/90)
From article <1216@vision.UUCP>, by chris@vision.UUCP (Chris Davies): > > But if the commercial site(s) were to pay for their use of the government > funded networks, then I don't see why this shouldn't be acceptable. With the > current situation, I would agree that commercial sites should not exploit > JANET for commercial gain. > > Chris Now might be a good time to start lobbying, because the way JANET is organised is probably going to change. JNT head Bob Cooper wants to set up something like a 'networking association' which would have both academic and commercial membership. There's a steering group just been set up to work out the ground rules. Details, with a list of steering group members, are available in the latest issue of Network News. If you want a copy, mail JNT-Secretary@uk.ac.jnt (or @jnt.ac.uk, depending on where you live.) I have a feeling the TCP/IP question might get raised at the next round of JANET user group meetings. The next national user group meeting is in the middle of October. Most regional meetings take place a week or two earlier. It may be worthwhile finding out who your user rep is and getting her/him to raise the topic at the next meeting. Graham -- Graham Thomas, SPRU, Mantell Building, U of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RF, UK JANET: grahamt@uk.ac.sussex.syma BITNET: grahamt%syma.sussex.ac.uk@UKACRL INTERNET: grahamt%syma.sussex.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: grahamt%syma.sussex@ukc.uucp PHONE: +44 273 686758 FAX: [..] 685865
anarchy@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk (Alan Cox) (09/07/90)
Firstly remember that when Janet was first setup properly they were dealing
with a wacky array of bizzare processors, and also that then tcp/ip was abit
fof an experiment. Unfortunately they haven't woken up since. Also they have
a reasonable argument at the moment about relative efficiency of coloured
book and tcp/ip.
As to running tcp/ip over janet, any reason you couldn't run slip over a
coloured book terminal session ?
Alan Cox
================================================================================
This space intentionall left blank except for the words 'this space
intentionally left blank except for the words ' this space....
====================================================<anarchy@uk.ac.ed.cs.tardis>
^
|
Yep even janet mail addresses are
backwards (sigh)
tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (09/07/90)
In article <1990Sep6.142623.4559@ibmpcug.co.uk> dylan@ibmpcug.CO.UK (Matthew Farwell) writes: >Sure they haven't got the money, but the JNT have a policy of sticking >to coloured books. This raises the rather interesting question of who exactly the JNT answer to. Every time I hear a discussion on this subject the cries from the punters on the ground who actually use and run computers day-in day-out is for TCP/IP. The JNT says Coloured Books and OSI. Seems to be a bad case of the tail wagging the dog. Still can't complain. Coloured books have been good to me :-) Tony -- Tony Cunningham, Edinburgh University Computing Service. tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk If a man among you has no sin upon his hand Let him throw a stone at me for playing in the band.
dfk@eu.net (Daniel Karrenberg) (09/07/90)
jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk (Jonathan Knight) writes: >From article <1990Sep4.164546@jatz.aarnet.edu.au>, by pte900@jatz.aarnet.edu.au (Peter Elford): High time to put some of the *facts* right: >Fortunately for us, the UKnet gateway isn't the only one. UCL have >a 56Kb link to the USA and offer a guest FTP service which allows us >to transfer files to and from internet connected sites. They also >transfer our mail, and make no charge. This is unlike UKC which >charge for news, and mail, and they also advertise themselves as >a valid route for uk mail. But if you are entitled to use the UCL gateway you can also register with UKC free of charge to you. The JNT pays then. So go ahead and register. Also remember tanstafl, links are never free, the taxpayer pays. >This is a pain as they are trying to fit >a full news feed and email down their 9600 baud line, when there >is a no charge route for email down a 56kb line. There is no capacity problem on that line (yet) and an upgrade to 64kbit/s has been ordered. I know because I manage the "continental" end of it. Also have you ever thought about mail to/from Europe rather than the US? Doesn't it seem unfair to you that European sites must ship their mail to you via the US on intercontinental links *they have to pay for* so that you can use your *free* link. That is what I call selfishness! Incidentally the UCL link to the US is down as I write this. Ever heared about redundancy? It would be nice to set things up with multiple links so that things are redundant.... > There's also the >problem that UKC advertise themselves as a forwarder for the ac.uk >domain, when in fact they only forward mail to uknet members and drop >everything else on the floor. Towards the Internet at large UKC does *not* advertise itself as a mail forwarder for ac.uk apart from one single subdomain (a commercial university as far as I know) which is not entitled to use the UCL gateway. > UCL forward all ac.uk mail regardless of what they are members of. Not true, see above. -- Daniel Karrenberg Future Net: <dfk@cwi.nl> CWI, Amsterdam Oldie Net: mcsun!dfk The Netherlands Because It's There Net: DFK@MCVAX
mdb@anduin.cs.liverpool.ac.uk (09/07/90)
In article <1990Sep6.142623.4559@ibmpcug.co.uk>, dylan@ibmpcug.co.uk (Matthew Farwell) writes: > >>b. can you see companies which aren't even on janet because it provides >> security problems wanting to go onto internet? > > It depends. Companies who are terminally afraid of security problems > will never connect to a network like janet. On the other hand, if > connecting up to a network directly, (esp. the internet for > international companies) reduces their costs substantially in terms of > mail, news etc., then they might be persuaded to do so. I know this > particular company would love to be connected directly to janet, and I > suspect I know of a few others too. > There is of course no reason why "sensitive" computers should be connected to the network at all. Most Universities have computers which contain information that they do not wish to become public, and hold it on computers that are not Janet registered (or only for mail), and only allow data transfer when it is controlled from the secure end. I believe this is also how the military deal with their security problems. Calling random addresses does not help, as it is relatively easy for the secure machine to ignore all network calls that it is not expecting. All this does not do a lot for the free interchange of information, which is why the academic networks have proved so successful. One of the major fears of increased commercial involvement in Janet (apart from the obvious "political" ones already discussed) is that companies' paranoia over University hackers will force unwarrented general levels of security on all sites, which will have an adverse effect on th whole ademic community. It really is the responsibility of the host site management to ensure that the internal and external security of its computers is adequate for the purposes for which they are used. Martin Beer, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Liverpool.
piet@cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) (09/07/90)
>The JNT in its infinite wisdom (???) has mandated that the ISO >profile used in the UK use TC0 (connection oriented transport >service) while NBS in the USA is encouraging the use of TC4 >(connectionless transport service). >Here we go again ..... That too is the same on most "national research networks" in Europe. I expect the same scenario though as with IP: a natural shift from the current IP to ISO CLNS, perhaps with the exception of X.400 over CONS. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@cwi.nl)
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (09/07/90)
In article <4847@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk> anarchy@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk (Alan Cox) writes:
Firstly remember that when Janet was first setup properly they were dealing
with a wacky array of bizzare processors, and also that then tcp/ip was abit
fof an experiment. Unfortunately they haven't woken up since. Also they have
a reasonable argument at the moment about relative efficiency of coloured
book and tcp/ip.
Discussions on the relative efficiency of network protocols tend to
have an air of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'
unreality. The Coloured Books may be "more efficient" over JANET when
compared with Internet protocols, but how can anyone sensibly compare
the two? It's like comparing apples and oranges.
First consider the network architectures. CB works on top of X.25
which more or less guarantees a reliable end to end connection.
Internet protocols were developed for networks which may drop packets
or deliver them out of sequence. [Let's also note that CB only offers
connection-oriented services. The Internet world can also provide
datagram and multicast.] Thus there's far more to the Internet's
transport service (TCP) than JANET's (which is practically
non-existant). TCP makes no assumptions about the underlying network
whereas JANET leaves nearly everything for X.25 to sort out.
Now consider the network interface to the operating system. In most
cases, the network protocol processing is not the major part of the
system's overheads. Other factors like getting data to/from the
network interface, context switching and data copying are more
important. I would suggest that TCP/IP offers much less overhead than
X.25 here mainly because vendors will have invested much more effort
in improving TCP/IP since its usage is likely to be far more
widespread than X.25. [You cannot imagine Sun (say) expending the same
sort of development effort on CB as they have on TCP/IP.] In some
cases, this will happen automatically: almost all UNIX TCP/IP
implementations derive from the 4.3 BSD code which is highly tuned.
In terms of CPU cycles burned for a connection, X.25 probably needs
less than TCP, but X.25 will have a less well tuned interface to the
rest of the OS. The end result is that both require pretty much the
same amount of system resources.
Then, there's the relative merits of the higher-level protocols. In
terms of overheads, there's not much difference between NIFTP and FTP.
Both have strengths and weaknesses which tend to equalise things. FTP
loses out if network ports are a critical resource (they shouldn't be)
because it needs two connections; one for data transfer and one for
the interactive session. Likewise the number of CPU cycles needed for
an X.29/TS29 session won't be significantly different from those
needed by a telnet server. Don't forget that telnet is functionally
superior to X.29: it offers more for roughly the same overheads.
In short, determining the "more efficient" protocol depends on where
you measure it. Of course, you then have to weigh up the benefits (or
not) of efficiency with the functionality that the protocol offers.
Deciding that question is a matter of religion.
As to running tcp/ip over janet, any reason you couldn't run slip over a
coloured book terminal session ?
Yes. The JNT wouldn't like it. What you're proposing is not very
efficient: a better (and easier) option is to put IP datagrams inside
X.25 frames. That too would upset the JNT since you'd be running
something other than CB on JANET.
Jimrichard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) (09/07/90)
In article <4847@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk> anarchy@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk (Alan Cox) writes: >Firstly remember that when Janet was first setup properly they were dealing >with a wacky array of bizzare processors, and also that then tcp/ip was abit >fof an experiment. Perhaps. But it was an experiment that succeeded, unlike Janet. >Also they have a reasonable argument at the moment about relative >efficiency of coloured book and tcp/ip. In terms of bits per second, Janet (and ISO) might win over TCP. But in terms of who's been able to use interactive ftp, I think it's clear which has been more efficient over the last ten years. The supporters of this "efficiency" view have wasted hundreds of hours of my time. I have been told that at least some of the Janet implementers were unable to believe that interactive ftp was useful. Their view was that ftp was the canonical non-interactive task. Anyone accustomed to use of the Internet will realise how misguided this is, and how seriously it has limited software-sharing in the UK. Incidentally, as far as I can tell it's only the lack of a list-directory primitive that makes it impossible to implement interactive ftp using NIFTP. And I believe the York code added such a thing for the "hhtree" command. So it could even have been done without TCP. It might even have been possible to provide a reasonable NIFTP-FTP gateway to the US... -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
ercm20@castle.ed.ac.uk (Sam Wilson) (09/07/90)
In the absence of any response from any of my more competent colleagues, here goes! The JNT has set up an Advisory Group (known as the DOD Advisory Group - not exactly accurate but can anyone provide a better generic term for the entirely of the IP-related protocol set?). We have met once and are due to meet again on Sept 24. Our (largely self imposed) remit is to produce a paper recommending how the JNT might provide a fully supported IP service in the UK. Note that that does not say 'over JANET' or even 'over X.25', though in all probablility it would end up that way. The fact that we recommend anything to the JNT, or that they recommend anything to whoever their masters might be by the time it gets that far, of course provides no guarantee that anything will come of it, but the JNT is aware and doing something. On a historical note: someone mentioned the bizarre hardware that used to be (and in many cases still is) attached to JANET - the JNT's stance on Coloured Book software ensured (very) good connectivity then and still does. The fact that TCP/IP may now have overtaken the Coloured Book stuff shouldn't obscure that fact. On a futuristic note: one of the reasons why the JNT is plugging connection oriented OSI network services (CONS) vs connectionless (CLNS, does the tendency of its proponents to call it 'ISO IP' say anything about *their* prejudices?) is that in the UK we already have a very highly developed X.25 network. Why waste what you've got? Europe is still divided (after all, they effectively invented X.25) and I believe the Japanese are now going for CONS. The outlook is still not clear cut. Sam Wilson Network Services, Edinburgh University Computing Service Disclaimer: the usual - not an official pronouncement!
richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) (09/07/90)
In article <JIM.90Sep6112404@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes: >[* Calling the box with a JANET and a PSS connection a gateway is a >bit misleading. It doesn't really perform protocol conversion (save >for minimal TS29/X.29 translation), so strictly speaking it's not a >gateway. It's more of a router, simply routing X.25 packets between >the two networks. Does this mean that it should be possible for a Janet site to connect to an international PSS site using FTAM through one of these gateways? If so, how can I do this with ISODE? -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
poole@chx400.switch.ch (Simon Poole) (09/08/90)
In article <3384@skye.ed.ac.uk> richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) writes: .... >In terms of bits per second, Janet (and ISO) might win over TCP. But Do you have any hard data that supports this? I have to yet see any real (== measured) data from an operational network, that would allow this conclusion. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simon Poole poole@verw.switch.ch / poole@chx400.switch.ch / mcsun!chx400!poole ------------------------------------------------------------------------
keith@anduin.cs.liverpool.ac.uk (Keith Halewood) (09/08/90)
In article <JIM.90Sep7132657@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk>, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes: > > Yes. The JNT wouldn't like it. What you're proposing is not very > efficient: a better (and easier) option is to put IP datagrams inside > X.25 frames. That too would upset the JNT since you'd be running > something other than CB on JANET. The JNT appears to like the positively HUGE DECnet that exists over Janet and probably beyond. Unless there is a double standard brewing, the JNT wouldn't be in much of a 'moral' position to stop an IP over X25 service to the Internet for any University or company willing to provide one. Keith
dylan@ibmpcug.co.uk (Matthew Farwell) (09/09/90)
In article <3407@syma.sussex.ac.uk> grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) writes: >Now might be a good time to start lobbying, because the way JANET is >organised is probably going to change. JNT head Bob Cooper wants to >set up something like a 'networking association' which would have both >academic and commercial membership. There's a steering group just been >set up to work out the ground rules. Details, with a list of steering >group members, are available in the latest issue of Network News. If >you want a copy, mail JNT-Secretary@uk.ac.jnt (or @jnt.ac.uk, depending >on where you live.) I've done this. Could this be the start of something new + terrific + exciting in the uk? Not if the JNT have anything to do with it. >I have a feeling the TCP/IP question might get raised at the next round >of JANET user group meetings. The next national user group meeting is >in the middle of October. Most regional meetings take place a week or >two earlier. It may be worthwhile finding out who your user rep is and >getting her/him to raise the topic at the next meeting. How do find out this? Is it in the newsletter? Dylan. -- Matthew J Farwell | Email: dylan@ibmpcug.co.uk The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360,| dylan%ibmpcug.CO.UK@ukc Harrow HA1 4LQ England | ...!uunet!ukc!ibmpcug.co.uk!dylan Phone: +44 81-863-1191 | Sun? Don't they make coffee machines?
sb380@cs.city.ac.uk (Andy Holt) (09/10/90)
Sorry, in my previous posting I incorrectly used the notation TC0 and TC4 when I should have used TP0 (CONS) and TP4 (CLNS) Further, this system - not my normal "home" - gave an incorrect "reply-to" line. Andy
richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) (09/10/90)
>>In terms of bits per second, Janet (and ISO) might win over TCP. But >Do you have any hard data that supports this? Certainly not. I have no idea whether it's true. The point I was trying to make was that *even if* it's true, I'd be better off with TCP. -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
pb@cl.cam.ac.uk (Piete Brooks) (09/10/90)
[ % = dfk@eu.net, > = pte900@jatz.aarnet.edu.au, * = pb@cl.cam.ac.uk ] % High time to put some of the *facts* right: > Fortunately for us, the UKnet gateway isn't the only one. UCL have > a 56Kb link to the USA and offer a guest FTP service which allows us > to transfer files to and from internet connected sites. They also > transfer our mail, and make no charge. This is unlike UKC which > charge for news, and mail, and they also advertise themselves as > a valid route for uk mail. % But if you are entitled to use the UCL gateway you can also register with % UKC free of charge to you. The JNT pays then. So go ahead and register. % Also remember tanstafl, links are never free, the taxpayer pays. * If you are keen on getting facts right, note that the above is not true. * The gateway is NOT at UCL (University College London) but at ULCC * (University of London Computer Centre) * UK AC sites are split in two: Some are "CB" and others are not. * The Computer Board will only pay the UKC charges of SOME sites. * The best rule I have got for the horses mouths are that if the machine was * bought by the CB, they'll pay the UKNET charges. * This means that if two machines within our department (about 10 meters apart) * both take news (as they may soon do) we will have to pay UKC twice -- one * from the pockets of the department and once from the pocket of the CB. * Smart people at ukc :-) ! * Note that links may not be free, but traffic may be ! % Also have you ever thought about mail to/from Europe rather than the US? * What do we have IXI for ?? [ :-( ] % Doesn't it seem unfair to you that European sites must ship their mail to % you via the US on intercontinental links *they have to pay for* so that you % can use your *free* link. That is what I call selfishness! * No problem -- get European sites to call the UK [ :-) ] While I'm here, I shall point out that I get a lot higher bandwidth fetching a file from the states or europe directly to my workstation (using FTAM over JANET to a (free to me) FTAM/ftp gateway) than I do from UCL (using NIFTP).
cudep@warwick.ac.uk (Ian Dickinson) (09/11/90)
In article <6190@castle.ed.ac.uk> tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: > This raises the rather interesting question of who exactly the >JNT answer to. Every time I hear a discussion on this subject the cries >from the punters on the ground who actually use and run computers day-in >day-out is for TCP/IP. The JNT says Coloured Books and OSI. Seems to be >a bad case of the tail wagging the dog. Still can't complain. Coloured >books have been good to me :-) The JNT don't answer to the users - they're civil servants. I don't really give a toss what we run, so long as it works reliably and lets us interconnect. OSI may do this eventually. Maybe not. But it's a hell of a lot better than DECNet. Ciao, -- \/ato. Ian Dickinson. GNU's not got BSE. Cut Cerebus some slack! vato@cu.warwick.ac.uk Plinth. vato@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk Sabeq. gdd046@cck.cov.ac.uk "Nuke me tender, nuke me good!"
cudep@warwick.ac.uk (Ian Dickinson) (09/11/90)
In article <3384@skye.ed.ac.uk> richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) writes: >In terms of bits per second, Janet (and ISO) might win over TCP. But >in terms of who's been able to use interactive ftp, I think it's clear >which has been more efficient over the last ten years. The supporters >of this "efficiency" view have wasted hundreds of hours of my time. There's an interactive ftam with isode, including ftam-ftp converters for both directions (internet ftp btw.) Just because CB doesn't have it, doesn't mean that OSI won't. All we need now is a fast implementation or a good excuse to just use IP. 1/2 :-) Cheers, -- \/ato. Ian Dickinson. GNU's not got BSE. Cut Cerebus some slack! vato@cu.warwick.ac.uk Plinth. vato@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk Sabeq. gdd046@cck.cov.ac.uk "Nuke me tender, nuke me good!"
anarchy@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk (Alan Cox) (09/12/90)
In article <JIM.90Sep7132657@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes: >> >> As to running tcp/ip over janet, any reason you couldn't run slip over a >> coloured book terminal session ? >> >Yes. The JNT wouldn't like it. What you're proposing is not very >efficient: a better (and easier) option is to put IP datagrams inside >X.25 frames. That too would upset the JNT since you'd be running >something other than CB on JANET. > > Jim Oh dear.. does that mean they don't like people running kermit over janet lines, after all kermit is a file transfer protocol and it's not in the coloured books (not even the yellow and purple spotty one 8-)), does seem to be a certain amount of a red tape factory running here. Maybe the planned shakeup of the steering committes of janet is a good thing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everything is hereby disclaimed.. if a superbeing can give me this for a working universe, then I can give him back buggy software too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sb380@cs.city.ac.uk (Andy Holt) (09/13/90)
In article <4862@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk> anarchy@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk (Alan Cox) writes: >Oh dear.. does that mean they don't like people running kermit over janet >lines, after all kermit is a file transfer protocol and it's not in the >coloured books (not even the yellow and purple spotty one 8-)), does seem >to be a certain amount of a red tape factory running here. Maybe the planned >shakeup of the steering committes of janet is a good thing. > Technically they don't! Mentioning Kermit at a Networkshop was a good way to get very black looks from JNT members (just like TCP/IP). The standard joke was "if it works and is a **de facto** standard, it is clearly unacceptable". Of course though the frog is the only viable file transfer protocol for some brain-damaged mainframes, newer (also de-facto) standards like zmodem give much better performance over phone lines. Andy -------------------------------------------------------------------- "I like to have lots of standards so I can choose which ones to abuse"
cur022@zodiac.ukc.ac.uk (Bob Eager) (09/13/90)
In article <4862@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk>, anarchy@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk (Alan Cox) writes: > Oh dear.. does that mean they don't like people running kermit over janet > lines, after all kermit is a file transfer protocol and it's not in the > coloured books (not even the yellow and purple spotty one 8-)), Actually, they don't like it! Kermit is like a red rag to a bull as far as the JNT are concerned.... ---------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Bob Eager | University of Kent at Canterbury rde@ukc.ac.uk | +44 227 764000 ext 7589 ---------------------+----------------------------------------------------- *** NB *** Do NOT use the return path in the article header *************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------