I can probably scrounge the necessary hardware, and MIT has decent
bandwidth. Of course it might be better to simply have the server at
the IETF location.
-Jeff
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 08:47:28AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
At 07:33 AM 12/22/2000 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
At 20:17 21/12/2000 -0500, Tony Hansen wrote:
so too can using instant messaging be a valuable tool during a meeting.
tangential....I wonder whether the IETF could host an IRC server with one
channel per working group and BOF, as part of the "remote participation"
effort?
if some organization were to volunteer (and advertise!) this for
Minneapolis, it could be fun to try.....with the number of laptops in the
rooms, we could see an interesting example of simultaneous multilevel
conversations......
I originally missed this thread.....
I run an IRC server for my interop workshops. It is HIGHLY
effective. Even the one developer in Armenia was able to
participate. Interestingly, it was the corporate participants that had a
problem with IRC; most firewalls are set up to block it. A few would open
up to the specific IP address and ports of my server. A few testers had to
use dialup to get to the IRC server and the interop servers (CMP specifies
port 829).
I DID password my server to keep the rifraff out. I also ran a client on
the same subnet to get a log of the conversation.
I MIGHT be willing to open up my IRC server for the duration of next IETF
as an experiment, but I see three problems. First I only have 144Kb
bandwidth, and if people start using the server to transfer files, response
will tank. Second, a password shared by 2000 people is not a password, so
the server will end up being used by all sorts of users. And finally,
there is no one here when I am away to fix any problems.
What I might recommend is to get our host to supply the test IRC
server. They could configure 'rooms' for each workgroup. They could also
make the log files. I would be happy to work out details of this with our
host and anyone that thinks this is worthwhile.