Article View: list.future-l
Article #9Re: fall of Bitnet
From: Mark Bodenstein
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1990 21:47
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1990 21:47
53 lines
2718 bytes
2718 bytes
On Sun, 25 Feb 90 17:32:00 CST Rick Kirkham said:
> ...
>I know of no service provided by either Bitnet or UUCP that cannot be
>easily duplicated (and for the most part already is duplicated) on
>the Internet.
>Why deal with the technical headaches of running one protocol over
>another?
>
>None of the recent posting have succeeded in justifying the continued
>existence of Bitnet beyond the time when the forthcoming Edunet is
>fully independent/operational. ...
This discussion has also been going on on the POLICY-L@BITNIC list.
The following is an excerpt from a message I posted there. Many of
these points have been responded to there, in various ways. I can only
refer you to the LISTSERV archives at BITNIC for those responses.
Here are the things I can think of that Bitnet currently provides that
the Internet doesn't:
- Low cost connection for institutions that don't already have TCP/IP
connectivity.
- Connectivity to peer NJE networks in Europe, Canada, Mexico, Japan and
Scandinavia (and I'm probably forgetting some others.) Some of these
places support TCP/IP, but others currently do not.
- Sender-initiated no-recipient-password-required file transfer.
This allows sending files
- when the sender wishes to
- with no write access to recipient disks needed
- with no recipient password needed.
It makes possible the file distribution functions of LISTSERV and
NETSERV, including automatic file distribution.
Bitnet-style sender-initiated file transfer has been discussed of late
in the TCP/IP community, but is not provided by any of the standard TCP/IP
applications. It may be difficult to make generally available on the
Internet because it has operating system implications.
- Interactive messages.
One could consider creating such a service based on UDP, but again this
is not currently provided on the Internet.
This allows both human-to-human almost-real-time discussions, and also
a very nice transport mechanism for user-to-server commands and server-
to-user responses. (e.g. TELL LISTSERV AT node SUBSCRIBE ...).
Mark Bodenstein (mab@cornellc; 607-255-3747)
Cornell University
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<90Feb26.195320est.57432@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!BITNIC!FUTURE-LReferences:
Message of Sun,Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!BITNIC!FUTURE-L Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 16:47:09 EST Reply-To: BITNET Futures List <FUTURE-L@BITNIC.bitnet> Sender: BITNET Futures List <FUTURE-L@BITNIC.bitnet> From: Mark Bodenstein <MAB@CORNELLC.bitnet> Subject: Re: fall of Bitnet To: UofToronto LAN redistribution <FUTURE-L@UTORGPU.uucp> References: Message of Sun, Message-ID: <90Feb26.195320est.57432@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Newsgroups: list.future-l Distribution: ut Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu