[HECnet] Suggestions for LAT.

[Steve Davidson]

Johnny Billquist

On 2010-10-17 05:16, Steve Davidson wrote:
Johnny Billquist

On 2010-10-17 04:01, Johnny Billquist wrote:

So here is a new suggestion for the bridge which is "hubbed" around Update.

0 Publicly available systems
1 Update
2 BQT

Let me know, and I'll happily assign LAT groups for others as well.

Small correction to that list:

0	Public systems
1	Update
2	Update
3	BQT
4	BQT

	Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist                                   || "I'm on a bus
                                                                      ||   on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se                         ||   Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                                         ||   tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol


Johnny,

The way I do it around here is use group 0 for public access.   It is the
default group anyway.   I use group 19, which is also my DECnet area for my
private use.   This allows us to have 63 private areas if we map to DECnet area
numbers.   Areas from 64 to 255 can be special case.   I use 64 whe I want to
combine my group with someone else.

Nice that we agree on group 0. :-)
However, I see very little need to combine groups. If you want to 
combine groups, just set the port to access both groups instead.

I would suggest that
group 0 be public
group 1 through 63 be private based on DECnet area # (self managed)
groups 64-255 be managed (and reserved) (each area could have 4 such #s)

I see a problem with that. Areas are not a good separation here. There 
are several different people in area 1, for instance, which don't really 
match the groups of systems that might be public or private.

I am (as you might have noticed) separating me (BQT) from Update, even 
though we're both in area 1. There are more people in area 1 as well, 
which I would believe it would make more sense to place in other groups 
as well.

Also, I have further separated my groups into two parts. General access 
systems and special services.

So, for me and Update, it now looks like this:

0	General public access
1	General public access for Update users
2	Consoles for Update machines
3	General access for my systems
4	Consoles for my systems

So, for Update terminal servers, I have set them to see machines in 
group 0 and 1.
For my terminal servers, I see group 0,1 and 3 by default (since I'm 
also using Update machines regularly).
When I need to fool around with systems, I also add group 2 and 4.

When Update people would need to fool around, they would add group 2, 
they don't have access to my systems in general, and there is no point 
for them to see those (my console) services.

I hope you see the point here.

Because I am already using group 64 I am reserving it.   I make it available to
others when it makes sense for me to "share" as it were.   Reserved groups
should be by invitation only because as you point out the list does get
cluttered.

No problem with that. I'm definitely no where near group 64 so far.

But I also think that people should not set their machines to be in 
other groups than their own unless it is very obvious that the machines 
actually belong in several groups.
But (as you probably know), there is no way to prevent anyone from 
setting up any group numbers they want, so this will be very much by 
voluntary participation.

The use of passwords is a great idea for the DECservers we have in HECnet.
Some of mine have it, some do not - personal choice.

Just making suggestions. :-)

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                                   || "I'm on a bus
                                                                    ||   on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se                         ||   Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                                         ||   tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

When I rebuilt BUBBLE for Mark I enabled group 4 for his local group of
machines and group 19 so that we could go back and forth as necessary.
This was prior to your announcement of groups you proposed to use.

-Steve