[2230] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Why Can't we have Both Gigabit Testbeds AND Plug'n Play Slip?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David J. Farber)
Sat Feb 1 18:49:01 1992
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 92 18:43:52 EST
From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David J. Farber)
To: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Begin forwarded message:
Received-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 92 18:26:22 EST
Posted-Date: 1 Feb 92 17:46:12 EST (Sat)
To: com-priv@psi.com
Subject: Why Can't we have Both Gigabit Testbeds AND Plug'n Play Slip?
Date: 1 Feb 92 17:46:12 EST (Sat)
>From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
<<MESSAGE from>> Gordon Cook 01-FEB-92 17:46
Yeah, private enterprise is developing slip software etc. For some reason
however it has not yet developed plug in and play implementations of the
kind recently discussed on this list. If federal money is to go into
making the network faster, and the Congress in its wisdom decides that it
is a national priority for the network to facilitate education, I still
have difficulty seeing why it would be poor policy to have the NSF issue a
solicitation for the prompt development of such software.
Dave says:
Not sure what you mean. There is at least two PPP/SLIP systems for the NeXT
that are sold and supported, several for the PC, supported SUN and HP, SCO Unix
etc. Most terminal concentrators accept PPP or SLIP or CSLIP.
While it would be great to teach graduate students how to program via an
nsf grant to build yet another , I see no need. Then again we could
get industry to do it "better" with Gov money -- the $6million
slip :-)
Dave
