RE: Cu-SeeMe and the LAN

Jason Williams (
Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:30:20 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Robert wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps you're right...As I said, my experience is limited to about 50,000
computers on campus. But if most government and universities have LANS
that support CU-SeeMe, that has to be a pretty large number of desktops.
:) The people I've heard about running Proxies with private IPs are
generally the smaller companies with 20-100 computers. If that's the
case, then it's still not the "majority of desktops". If ONE University
has about 50,000 machines connected on the Internet with no private IPs, I
can imagine there's quite a few more out there.

> 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.

True...which is one reason I'd like to see an IP Selector like iVisit has.
:) Unfortunately, development on the Cornell PC version has ceased so
you'll have to rely upon the bloated White Pine version in the future.

> > 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!

He just happened to be online to ICQ whenever I got to this. :)
Here's what he said:
"Gee, I usually sell that information at $1000/pop...<g> But seriously, it
really depends on the Proxy configuration. If you don't have access
control enabled, then it's just a simple matter of modifying the
mspclnt.ini file (Entries to follow). If you have access control enabled,
then you need to setup a "cu-seeme" protocol definition on the server AND
modify the mspclnt.ini file.


Perhaps that will mean much more to you than it does to me. It only works
with Enhanced CU.

> 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!

Guess that depends on your definition of videoconferencing:
>From the online websters here:
vid-eo-con-fer-ence \-,ka^:n-f(e-)ren(t)s, -fern(t)s\ n
:a teleconference conducted by television
-- vid-eo-con-fer-enc-ing n
tele-con-fer-ence \'tel-i-,ka^:n-f(e-)ren(t)s, -fern(t)s\ n
:a conference among people remote from one another who are linked by
telecommunication devices (as telephones, televisions, or computer
-- tele-con-fer-enc-ing \-f(e-)ren(t)-si{nj}, -fern(t)-si{nj}\
con-fer-ence \'ka^:n-f(e-)ren(t)s, -fern(t)s, for 2 usu ken-'fer-en(t)s\ n
1a: a meeting of two or more persons for discussing matters of common

I never really placed a "conference" as having to be more than two people.
Netmeeting supports conferences of more than two people (can share apps,
use the whiteboard and chat with more than two people). You just can't
videoconference with more than one other person at a time without the use
of something like MeetingPoint from White Pine (or another multipoint
conferencing unit).

> 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!

I believe what you missed or didn't understand (or perhaps I don't
understand) is the fact that with no HOST command, it binds to ALL
interfaces. WITH a HOST command, it binds to one and only one interface.
If you want to bind to two interfaces, simply don't include the HOST
command and it will bind to them all (INADDR_ANY). Include the HOST
command and it will bind to only that one. The only real problem with
doing that is if you have three or more interfaces and only choose to bind
to two of them, you have to use the White Pine version. Brian did work on
that for a bit from I understand but ran into problems determining which
interface each packet came from. (I'm sure Brian will correct me if I'm
wrong about that though).

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

Right..I believe Brian only keeps the latest versions available for each
OS. You also don't see earlier 1.06 versions for any other platforms
except the ones that haven't had 1.07 ported to it. It's the same reason
you don't see MPCS 3.0 RC3 SP3 still available..White Pine keeps the
latest versions online. There's no point in letting people use the
buggier versions.

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

Sure it an extent. Everyone is sharing bandwidth. Cablemodem
users share it much more directly. I believe Roadrunner provides 23Mbps
for every 300 home segment with cable modems. Everyone also shares
bandwidth on the routers. It's the age old problem of increasing
bandwidth at the end points doesn't necessarily fix bandwidth problems.
In the case of the University here, Sprint's routers have been congested
for quite sometime. I believe it's slowly being fixed/upgraded. A well
thought out system can only go so far to ensure bandwidth for its
customers. In a global network, a lot of things can go wrong (and have).

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

True..but just because people might have the "chance" to have a capture
card and camera doesn't mean they will. Most of the people I've seen
outside of CU-SeeMe with cablemodems generally love the fact that they can
download off the web much faster. Perhaps a serious marketing campaign
would help...dunno.

> > 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 :-)

So do I, but it's hard to fight a company that has such high visibility
with its software. I seriously doubt IE4 would have gotten the foothold
that it has if it wasn't for the million of computers selling with it
already installed.

--    * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx.  |     |       * University of Texas at Austin  | ___ |         * BS Computer Science             \_|_/
*************** **************|