Internet II is coming...

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Sort of...

It's a way for Universities to talk to _each_other_ at higher speeds without
having to pay for the *ahem* value "added" by the Internet. Higher-Ed
institutions want to talk to each other at higher speeds but don't
necessarily want pay for their undergrads' (or professors' for that matter)
ability to download nudie-GIFs 20x faster. So while there's no more money
in the budget for faster Internet connectivity, many university provosts
would be willing to spend more money for bandwidth if it were used for
"nobler" pursuits. Basically, they want the Internet they had 6 years ago
only faster.

Internet II, if it happens, would be Higher-Ed's intranet.

--zawada

Paul J. Zawada, RCDD | Senior Network Engineer
zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications
+1 217 244 4728 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada

2

Sounds great. It all sounded great until it got to the part about "federal
funding". I, for one, have a problem with my tax dollars going towards
some professor being able to gawk at another professor in a
videoconference.

-BD

3

It's a way for Universities to talk to _each_other_ at higher speeds without
having to pay for the *ahem* value "added" by the Internet. Higher-Ed

Would this be such a Bad Thing(tm)? Many times I have seen research
professors and students in the research field getting extremely upset
because data that they used to exchange with other schools and countries
is now taking 20 times longer because Joe Blow from L.A. is checking out
all his favorite sports stories 300 times a day and John Dough is
downloading all the porn he can fit on his 5 gig drive from across the
country.

  I wouldn't really see this move as a "Internet Separatist"
movement, more as a "return to normalcy" in the true spirit of the
Internet. Consider if you were a biochemical research student at
biochem.edu and you wanted to transfer a 30Meg molecular model back and
forth between biochem.edu and chem.edu but in between both of you were
hundreds and thousands of hosts, using Internet resources for commercial and
entertainment purposes. Wouldn't you be a little upset when your ftp was
finished at .098K/s over a multi-homed DS3?

Ben

4

Even with "recreational" use of the Internet, the Internet today is much
faster then it was 6 years ago (T1 national backbone (singular)). MAE East
and West traffic stats bear this out operating at around %30 capacity. The
problem is ISP's who oversell backbones, Universities who overuse T1/T3
links. Given this, it would behove the Universities to form a private
"intranet" and become thier own ISP. Of course, this model is an old one
allready done by Suranet, etc.. who eventually went commercial for lack of
funding when the next wave of technolgy arrived. In the end the benifit
went to the equipment manufactures and the likes of AOL.

Hopefully students will find new and fun ways to use Internet II -
Then we can have Internet III?? Im very excited :slight_smile:

/stb

5

> It's a way for Universities to talk to _each_other_ at higher speeds without
> having to pay for the *ahem* value "added" by the Internet. Higher-Ed

Would this be such a Bad Thing(tm)? Many times I have seen research
professors and students in the research field getting extremely upset
because data that they used to exchange with other schools and countries
is now taking 20 times longer because Joe Blow from L.A. is checking out
all his favorite sports stories 300 times a day and John Dough is
downloading all the porn he can fit on his 5 gig drive from across the
country.

You neglected to point out that Joe Blow and John Dough are both
undergraduate students at the two universities in question and are using
up the university's T1 that was virtually empty two years ago.

  I wouldn't really see this move as a "Internet Separatist"
movement, more as a "return to normalcy" in the true spirit of the
Internet. Consider if you were a biochemical research student at
biochem.edu and you wanted to transfer a 30Meg molecular model back and
forth between biochem.edu and chem.edu but in between both of you were
hundreds and thousands of hosts,

This *IS* the NANOG list, my friend. We now know you are a fool or a liar
because we all know that TCP/IP is rarely configured to use more than 30
hops between two connections and most .edu sites in North America would
have 15 or less hops. Several orders of magnitude less that the hundreds
that you claim.

entertainment purposes. Wouldn't you be a little upset when your ftp was
finished at .098K/s over a multi-homed DS3?

Sure, if I were a clueless biochem researcher I would be peeved. But if I
were a clueful biochem researcher then I would realize that networking is
not my specialty and I would be overstepping myself to make claims in the
field. Thus I would seek out the networking specialists and ask them to
examine the problem and determine why this is so slow. No doubt the
problem would be traced to either local Ethernet congestion at the
university due to poor network topology or an overloaded T1 line due to
administrators who thought that WAN costs would be fixed for the next
twenty years.

If there are problems, we have the diagnostic tools to trace them down and
find the true cause and then fix the true problem. There is no point in
guessing because anybody who does this stuff for a living knows that if
you have ten problems with virtually identical symptoms you will track
them down to ten different root causes. It could be as simple as a faulty
Ethernet card on the machine in the office down the hall causing spurious
collisions, a broken router in a grossly overheated wiring closet, or
water in an sloppily spliced copper cable.

Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

6

This argument is, if you will pardon the phrase, utter and complete
bullshit. Before those annoying Joe Schmoe's threw their six-pack-guts
up to the rail and started paying for their access, universities usually
had what level of access to the net? 56k? Maybe T1? All feeding onto
what, a T1 backbone?

Commercialization of the network has brought a flood of resources to
building out the backbones and making access cheaper for everyone,
including the universities. You can't argue that congestion was not a
problem before '94, because it was. You can't argue that the
transatlantic links weren't always choking before '94, because they were.

Commercialization of the 'net has made the vBNS, Internet II, etc.,
possible at OC-(whatever). Commercialization has pushed development of
router, modem, Unix, IP software, etc., technology far faster than the
universities ever could have pushed it. This elitish bullshit makes me
want to puke.

Pull your head out of your ass; it smells much better out here in the
real world.

7

You neglected to point out that Joe Blow and John Dough are both
undergraduate students at the two universities in question and are using
up the university's T1 that was virtually empty two years ago.

Actaully, no, Joe and John were employees at major corporations that have
bought T1's for their web servers so that they can sell a product and
allow employees to browse the web when they are bored, or use it to find
a better job.

> entertainment purposes. Wouldn't you be a little upset when your ftp was
> finished at .098K/s over a multi-homed DS3?

Sure, if I were a clueless biochem researcher I would be peeved. But if I
were a clueful biochem researcher then I would realize that networking is
not my specialty and I would be overstepping myself to make claims in the

Actually if you were a biochem professor, clueless or not about
networking, you would still be pissed off because of A.) all the
undergrads downloading porn/warez while you try and get things done B.)
The slow speed of the transfer as compared to a year ago. (Yes, the
network connections are faster but they have not been upgraded to
compensate for the massive influx of people) It's like saying, cars are
faster today on the N.Y. freeways, which may be true, but there is still
traffic jams and conjestion, so for the most part no one is going any faster.
Plus, add 200% more people onto that freeway and you are going nowhere, I
don't care if they are all in ferraris or if you widen the road two fold.

you have ten problems with virtually identical symptoms you will track
them down to ten different root causes. It could be as simple as a faulty
Ethernet card on the machine in the office down the hall causing spurious
collisions, a broken router in a grossly overheated wiring closet, or
water in an sloppily spliced copper cable.

I belive this goes further than the LAN, or even the local WAN setup. I
am sure they could wire the whole school with FDDI and they would get
super inter-campus performance, but once they step outside they are back
at everyone elses mercy.

Ben

8

This argument is, if you will pardon the phrase, utter and complete
bullshit. Before those annoying Joe Schmoe's threw their six-pack-guts
up to the rail and started paying for their access, universities usually
had what level of access to the net? 56k? Maybe T1? All feeding onto
what, a T1 backbone?

And I suppose you look down upon the Military for no longer dumping tons
of time and resources into the Internet. But I guess thats okay with you
because NOW commercial entities _control the net_ *spit*.

I can't wait to see when your attitude hits Berkely. Commercial Sendmail
should be nice. "What? You want a patch for sendmail? That'll be $200.00
for our service contract, plus .... etc."

Commercialization of the network has brought a flood of resources to
building out the backbones and making access cheaper for everyone,

I don't dispute this, commercialization of the Internet was a needed move
in the right direction for the Internet. What I am disputing is you
blatant disregard for the research and development departments all around
the world that developed the Internet. Where the hell would you be
without Berkeley Sockets?

So before you turn your nose up, look what's under it. You'll find that
"your" Internet was built on alot of grants and volunteer work.

Commercialization of the 'net has made the vBNS, Internet II, etc.,
possible at OC-(whatever). Commercialization has pushed development of

Sure, it's helped development, but don't thumb your nose at who got you
to this point. It's not elitism, it's efficiency, they want to go back to
sharing resources trans-collegiate without all the garbage inbetween, I
really don't see what your problem is.

Pull your head out of your ass; it smells much better out here in the
real world.

What smells better? My ass or the real world?

bah.

Ben

9

I can't wait to see when your attitude hits Berkely. Commercial Sendmail
should be nice. "What? You want a patch for sendmail? That'll be $200.00
for our service contract, plus .... etc."

You obviously missed my .sig

> Commercialization of the network has brought a flood of resources to
> building out the backbones and making access cheaper for everyone,

I don't dispute this, commercialization of the Internet was a needed move
in the right direction for the Internet. What I am disputing is you
blatant disregard for the research and development departments all around
the world that developed the Internet. Where the hell would you be
without Berkeley Sockets?

I never contested the contributions that academia has made to
networking. I contested the assertion that commercialization is
responsible for the horrible state the network is in. 1) The network is
not in a horrible state. 2) Whatever problems that are there, namely
congestion, were there just as badly before. 3) Commercialization has
contributed to the health if the network. To say that the network is
worse off than it was before is just plain wrong.

So before you turn your nose up, look what's under it. You'll find that
"your" Internet was built on alot of grants and volunteer work.

You mean like my contributions, however small, to Linux? Like Dosemu,
GNUS, sendmail, all of which my coworkers have worked on?

> Pull your head out of your ass; it smells much better out here in the
> real world.

What smells better? My ass or the real world?

I overreacted. Apologies.