Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!OPAL.BERKELEY.EDU!minshall
From: minshall@OPAL.BERKELEY.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Dial-up TCP/IP (was interactive SMTP over phone lines)
Message-ID: <8705122054.AA18720@opal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 12-May-87 16:54:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: opal.8705122054.AA18720
Posted: Tue May 12 16:54:27 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 15-May-87 03:18:47 EDT
References: <8705121757.AA19307@armagnac.DEC.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 38

Chris,
	Currently, a user logged in to one of our IP hosts can now
run any/all of the client protocols they would like.  When they
do this, they run the protocol using the IP host's CPU cycles,
and things they do that reference files (ftp, "screen capture" on
telnet) they reference files located on the IP host system.

	What I would like is for any user with an account on
any of our IP hosts to be able to dial in (from home), or otherwise
connect, and run those same clients from their micro (thus affecting
the files in the micro, and using, mostly, CPU cycles from the
micro).  One of the advantages here is that the user need not submit
a "request for an IP address" form to the local administration.
Nor do they need to know what IP address they are talking from.

	I am the first to admit that the RPC mechanism solves only the
problem I am posing.  Still, I think it is an interesting problem.

	As to your point about validation schemes, I tend to differ.
I agree that the .rhosts scheme has limited usability (and can be
something of a security hole).  However, I think that the most
interesting schemes will be those relying on authentication, keys,
etc. (and NOT on knowledge of the remote host name).

	Again, my purpose is to allow micros to become clients.  This
is also my bias.  Not to prompt any heated discussion, but I am dubious
of the desirability of running SMTP servers on large numbers of micros.
Here I think the POP-like protocols are more interesting.  In those
(relatively fewer) cases where it is necessary to run a machine with
servers, then a separate IP address (and separate protocols) would be
the way to go.

	I should make clear that I am not even seriously proposing
any work in this area at this time.  It is just an idea I've been
kicking around for a while, and the recent discussion was enough
to finally prod me into airing it a bit.

Greg