RE: Cu-SeeMe and the LAN

Robert (
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 19:24:21 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of Jason Williams
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 5:44 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Cu-SeeMe and the LAN
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Robert D Prociak wrote:
> > They call Cu-SeeMe"Desktop video conferencing software" .
> > One problem it won't work on most desktops connected to a LAN.
> I don't buy this..I've used it on a few LANs on campus and it works fine.
> I believe your problem with using it on a LAN is using it on a LAN that's
> a firewall or has a limited number of IPs.

As you state Jason you used on a few LANs on campus,most government or
universities have LANs that will support Cu-SeeMe but the vast majority of
Corporate America has no TCP/IP connectivity at all on there Desktop
Computers and those that do the majority use proxies like
Msproxy,wingate,gatekeeper or
network translators like Nat32.

> > Though if you have 300 computers you may not want 300 IP's so you may
> > have a proxy server on your LAN with private IP address.
> And there's your problem..your assumption here is that most LANs in
> existence today have private IP addresses. I don't believe this to be the
> case, but my only experience with that is from observing what the
> University does and what Bill Woodland's office does.

Same as above.

> The age old problem of CU not working with proxies is the fact that each
> client is also a server which embeds its IP into not only the IP packet
> headers but into the CU headers as well. Brian Godette's Enhanced
> Reflector notifies the participant when the two IPs differ. It's not just
> a problem with CU as I believe a few of the other videoconferencing
> programs have the same problem (I know iVisit does at this point).

> > So Cu-SeeMe will not work on the majority of desktop computers out
> > there.
> Again..your assumption is that most desktop computers are on LANs with
> private IPs behind a proxy. I don't believe that's the case.

Even if you disagree with my assumption that "most" desktop computers on
LANs have private IP's, at least you mite concede that there are enough to
warrant some effort to resolve this. I work for a computer Company and from
the tech call and customer feedback we get the amount of small offices and
home LANs alone is quite Significant.

> I also talked to a guy (got him on my ICQ list in fact) that uses the
> Microsoft Proxy with the White Pine version of CU. He opened up the right
> ports and it worked.

This one I don't believe at all and I think you are wrong.
But PLEASE prove me wrong :-) I would love to know the settings that would
do that!

> > Cu-SeeMe is video conferring software Net meeting is not.
> NetMeeting isn't videoconferencing? What is it then?

Well If I understand the concept of what a "conference" is, net meeting is
Internet video telephony or just a video phone. Traditionally the term
conferencing is only applied to 3 or more participant. Consider a normal
telephone that has a conference button!

> Netmeeting is more than videoconferencing as it does Whiteboarding and
> application sharing.
> > Cu-SeeMe is better.
> Agreed. :)
> > Ways to Workaround this problem with Cu-SeeMe on the LAN usually revolve
> > around putting a Cu-SeeMe reflector were it can see both the
> Internet and
> > LAN. You can't call out that way but if you have a fast
> connection you can
> > get pretty good communications. Unfortunately the best
> reflector for the job
> > is also lot of money.
> I dunno about that... Brian Godette's Enhanced Reflector
> ( seem to work pretty well given the
> bandwidth for it.
> > >Pricing is as follows: MeetingPoint Server (10 user) - $3,995
> > >> Maintenance & Support - $998.75
> > >> (includes 10 copies of CUSeeMe vers 3.1)
> Hmmph...and here Gary got ticked at me for quoting a $4000 price for MPCS.
> :) $1000 support? geeze.
> > uses it). Brian's Eref seems to be a very good reflector but I
> have never
> > been able to get it to work on two IPs at once.
> If you don't include a HOST command, it will bind to all IPs (INADDR_ANY I
> believe). Unless you have specific interfaces you DON'T want it to bind
> to, this would work fine.

again I think you are wrong on this one. I Sent a post to this list a couple
of month back and one of the replies was from Brian who said he could add
the support for binding 2 IP's if there was sufficient interest.
But again I hope you are right :-) and if I missed something key in Brian's
reply PLEASE clue me in!

> > There is another reflector port to NT . The UCSC Reflector. It will
> > bind to multiple IPs but is limited in some of the other features as
> > compared to Brian's Eref.
> Yucky...The UCSC reflector is also based on VERY old reflector code (2.0 I
> believe) which doesn't even support aux-data at all (no chat window). It
> may be a port of the 3.0b3 code..I'm not sure. It's been a few years
> since I've looked into that. I doubt it has code to bind to specific
> interfaces. More than likely, it binds to all of them. (The direct ports
> of the Cornell reflector don't allow you to choose interfaces to bind
> to..That was added by White Pine and Brian).
> > I really did not like some of the things that Frank had done with the
> > program like recording people's chat logs. The cgi scripting and web
> > interface aside I was imprest with the reflectors executable's
> performance
> > and the fact that it could bind to two IPs at once but it sure
> seems like
> > Eref in the way it works.
> If it looks like an Eref..if it runs like an Eref..if it has the exact
> same commandset as an Eref..if it has the same debugging comments as an
>'s an Eref. :)
> > Except it binds to two IPs.?

again see above.

> So will the Enhanced Ref...just don't include a HOST command and it binds
> to all...actually, an excerpt from "Frank's" hacked up confide file:
> "; ; ; ; ; ; LOCAL-BIND-IP
> ;
> ; NOTE! not working completely right yet !........................
> "
> So I doubt it does what you think it does. :)
> > I've read on the list that Frank allegedly plagiarized Brian's earlier
> > version of Reef source code. I'm fairly new to Cu-seem and never saw an
> > earlier version of Reef. Can anyone tell me if a port to NT ever exited
> > (binary executable) ?
> The Win95/NT port of the Enhanced Reflector has always existed as far back
> as I can remember (to 1.04 I believe). Go to the above URL and you can
> grab it.

Been there did not see any version below v1.07b9 for NT.

> > Can anyone tell me if it did ever exist can it still
> > be obtained ? Brian? I would love to get a copy of the
> executable to test
> > for binding to two IPs.
> See above. :)
> > The other problem with Cu-SeeMe from the desktop is you can't call the
> > Internet just your reflector on your LAN/Internet (Will Call You).
> Again..a problem with using Proxies and limited numbers of IPs.
> > Data supplied to us suggest that cable modems, or ASDL service will be
> > available to a full 2/3 of American households within 1-2 years.
> That seems rather high..They also said in the 1960's that "videophones
> would be in every living room within 10 years"..or something like that.
> As far as how accurate ADSL and cable modems are.. Texas is a pretty big
> state and I only know of El Paso which has cable modem access with Austin
> due by November. ADSL exists, but at $200/month for just the phone line,
> it's not quite practical.

Motarola sold 170,000 cable modems in the last 60 days alone. My 10mb cable
modem at home is $39.95 a month. The telephone companies want in to internet
access and Paradine has very aggressive plans for ASDL service that they
have been rolling out for years. 2-3 years is a conservative estimate on
there part.

> > Videoconferencing with Cu-SeeMe over cable modems was capable in our
> > of up to 15-32 frames a sec video.
> That also depends on the cable much it's being used at the
> time, etc. I've heard some Bellsouth cablemodem users complain that they
> weren't getting any more than 30kbps. If 2/3 of the US DOES get
> cablemodems or ADSL, you gotta think about oversubscription of services.
> Look at AOL for a prime example of what can go wrong when all of America
> tunes in. :)

The point you make may be true, but does not have to be that way on a well
thought out system.

> > With Intel DVI 32 kb audio sound is very life like, average frame rates
> > varies with number of participants and your desire to really burn up
> > your cable companies ATM network.
> Intel DVI rocks.. :) I wish I had the bandwidth for it. Given bandwidth,
> CU flies (as does every other net app).
> > With Color video cameras capture kits going for $69.95 the
> availability of
> > cable modems /asl and sound cards going for $19.95 there is no
> reason not to
> > believe that true cheep video conferencining for the masses may be just
> > around the corner.
> Keep in mind a recent post by Jamie Erbes about the misconception of
> people using videoconferencing as an extended telephone to call people
> they know. In reality, it's being used for sex. Does that mean 2/3rds of
> the US will be intending to use videoconferencing for sex? No..more than
> likely, most of the 2/3rds of the US will be using the cable modem to the
> usual..surfing web pages, etc. You have to keep in mind that just because
> the technology is available doesn't mean people will use it at all.

The telephone was an invention that had very limited applications until
everyone had the chance to have one.

> > I was just thinking about who's software was going to be on the
> desktop on
> > millions of LAN connected computers out there?
> More than likely that would be Netmeeting seeing as how it's sold with
> Win95 i believe (or IE4...)..definitely sold with Win98.

I hope you are wrong on this one to :-)

> > ///////////////////////
> > Disclaimer :All software mention is copyrighted by there
> respective owners.
> > I do not speak on behalf of anyone but myself I do not speak on
> behalf of
> > any Computer company including any I may have or currently work for. No
> > offer is made to sell products or provide a service. Mention of the
> > consideration or evaluation of various software pack ages does not
> > constitute an offer to purchase any products at this time. No
> guaranty is
> > made that any service will ever be offered and if subsequently
> offered will
> > not constitute a requirement that said service will be as
> described here.
> >
> > Cu-seeme reflectors mentioned here are currently for closed private
> > evaluation. No Public access is permitted at this time.
> THAT is a disclaimer :)
> --
> * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx. | |
> * University of Texas at Austin | ___ |
> * BS Computer Science \_|_/
> *************** **************|