On     Tue,    24     Jan     1995    13:54:56     EST    Will     Sadler
<[log in to unmask]> said:
 
>This  discussion brings  up something  I have  wondered about.  Why does
>BITNET  even  still   exist?  I  was  under  the   impression  that  the
>optimizations that LISTSERV  can do linking LISTSERV  sites together can
>be done  under BITNET  or SMTP.  Does LISTSERV  require BITNET  for this
>feature?
 
There  are two  flavours of  LISTSERV: LISTSERV-NJE  and LISTSERV-TCP/IP.
LISTSERV originated in 1986 as a  VM application that required BITNET (at
that time  the Internet as  we know  it did not  exist, it was  a limited
project that was mostly  restricted to defense sites in the  US and a few
cooperating universities).  In March 94,  a TCP/IP version  was developed
and the old version was renamed  to LISTSERV-NJE for clarity. In June 94,
this TCP/IP version was ported to VMS and unix. The TCP/IP version can in
fact run  in NJE compatibility  mode if desired,  so if you  buy LISTSERV
today you always  get the TCP/IP version. But about  250 sites had gotten
the NJE version  while it was freely available, so  there are many active
copies of LISTSERV-NJE. Some are migrating to LISTSERV-TCP/IP on VM, many
are migrating from VM to unix or VMS. Most however do not see any need to
migrate until their organization's overall plans call for phasing out the
mainframe system or dropping the NJE connection. Some of the unix servers
for instance  jumped from 0 to  220 lists overnight, as  they reached the
corresponding item  on their migration schedule/checklist.  The migration
policies vary  from one organization  to another.  Some want to  make all
changes overnight,  so that  users only complain  once :-),  while others
prefer to  migrate one  service at a  time, due to  lack of  manpower. It
seems most mainframes  are going to be phased out  this year, either this
summer or  at Christmas. The  ones that will  survive into 96  are mostly
from places that have no intention  of getting rid of their mainframes in
the near future. I think about 1/3 to  1/2 of the current VM sites are in
that situation.
 
The problem  we are  having with  BITNET is that  the core's  capacity is
having trouble growing at  the same rate as the traffic.  CREN has a plan
to address that problem  but before I comment on it I  have asked them to
provide some sort of official description of  the plan as I don't want to
misrepresent them or anyone else. Let's just say that I am fully aware of
the problems and that I am not sitting here waiting for a miracle to take
place. These  delays have been  mostly tolerable thus  far but it  is now
becoming apparent  that we must find  a solution that can  be implemented
say  within the  next 3  months, as  opposed to  just letting  the slower
migration to TCP/IP take care of it.
 
  Eric