About OIT About the OIT
Directories Directories
Connect to Network Connect to Network
Network Services Network Services
Security IT Security
Voice Services Voice Services
Cable TV Cable Television
Computing Computing
Information Resources Information Resources
Committees IT Committees
Jobs IT Jobs at UCSB
spacer spacer
spacer Office of Information Technology  
spacer view site index contact OIT staff
  OIT Home > Committees > ITPG > Meetings > ITPG Meeting Minutes 07/16/99
spacer spacer

ITPG Meeting Minutes July 16, 1999


Present: Arlene Allen, Art Battson, Ken Bowers, Glenn Davis, Bill Doering, Paolo Gardinali, George Gregg, Tom Lawton, Elise Meyer, Ed Mehlschau, Alan Moses, Joan Murdoch, Larry Murdock, Stan Nicholson, Vince Sefcik, Jamie Sonsini, Bob Sugar, Paul Valenzuela, John Vasi

Not Present: Debbie Anglin, Kevin Barron, Phil Handley, Sonia Johnston, Bill Koseluk, Pam Lombardo, Tom Marazita, Bill McTague, Kevin Schmidt

We started with a brief review of the ITB meeting of July 12. Those who attended thought that the ITB members present agreed that something needed to be done to improve strategic planning. The next step is to have an electronic discussion to define the roles the new office might play. As that is done the size of the effort will become clear. Those who seemed to favor a "part-time" position were concerned with the cost of setting up a new office and with the potential impact that would have on local control. Others think that the analysis of tasks might lead to the requirement for a full-time position. ITPG may be copied on the electronic discussion. Target is to have a recommendation some time this fall.

The Authentication/Directory group reported progress in defining LDAP fields and their ownership, specifically email addresses. The group proposes to have three email addresses in the directory - primary and secondary "corporate" addresses and a third, "personal", address. The unit head would determine who changes the primary and secondary addresses while the addressee would have direct control over the personal address. Next step is to change the existing LDAP schema to include UCNetID and UCSBNetID. Following that, PPS data, which includes UCNetID, will be merged with the existing LDAP data. Then the UCSBNetID will be added and a user interface will be provided. Privacy, ownership and the process of obtaining extracts were discussed. The most urgent general issue to be solved is access to licensed library materials from off campus. The long-range solution is the establishment of a PKI infrastructure. That may take some time, so IS&C is working with the Library to implement a short-term solution based on the emerging LDAP directory service.

The Survey Subcommittee reported finding that the pilot survey forms take about 15 minutes each to code for analysis. The possibility of reformatting the survey to make it "Scantron-able" was discussed. With the UCCSC coming up, there will only be time to rewrite the one clearly ambiguous question (#3) if we are to present the survey to a class during Summer Session (many classes end August 6). Paolo will circulate a couple of alternatives to question #3 and Stan will see that the survey gets presented in a couple of classes. The goal is to be ready for a larger sample during Fall Quarter.

Vince reported that the broadband network was powered down catching only one class that was using the cable plant to distribute foreign language news broadcasts. Alternative arrangements were made for this class and the broadband is now retired. For the historical record it was noted that Bob Sugar made the initial tests of the broadband network in 1982.

Secondly, Vince presented a handout and reported on discussions with Housing regarding expanding the bandwidth available to residents. A current project to wire Santa Ynez apartments will add another 978 potential customers to ResNet. Analysis indicates that we are current using from 5 to 12 megabits out of the 45 megabit connection we currently have to UCNet and CalREN-2. The group reached consensus that alternative number 4, connecting ResNet via an Ethernet link to a Communications Services router that is, in turn, connected to UCNet, was preferable. This alternative will limit ResNet's bandwidth to 10 Mbps, which should be quite supportable within the existing total bandwidth. Vince and George noted, further, that Housing would agree to pay Communications Services the same amount that they now pay for their separate T1 Internet circuit. The funds would be used either to offset some of the annual charges from UCOP for UCNet and the Internet connection or to fund network equipment augmentations or replacements.

Thirdly, Vince introduced the possibility of replacing the aging modem pool with new equipment. Vince noted that the estimated $86K cost, when amortized over three years, approximates the new revenue that would come from the bandwidth arrangement with Housing that is outlined above. Communications Services' proposal includes modems to replace the 96 "high-speed" (14.4Kbps) and 32 "low-speed" (2400 bps) modems plus the campus ISDN equipment with 144 new modems to serve all three groups. Discussion of this proposal revealed concerns. First, spending $86K from whatever source without reviewing existing commitments for network funding for FY 99/00 seemed unwise to some people. Next, upgrading the speed of all or a portion of the modem pool might change usage patterns. (For example, new modems could operate at 56 Kbps, causing previous ISDN customers to terminate their service in favor of using the pool. Moreover, 56 Kbps service combined with an authenticated terminal server might cause people to rethink obtaining their own ISP connection and, thus, overload the pool.) In light of these concerns, the group recommended that Communications Service go forward with the RFP while we review financial requirements for maintenance of other ongoing services and discuss what kinds and levels of modem services we want to offer.

Paul Valenzuela then reported on the work of a group convened to review campus utility systems, identify their criticality and document contingency plans for events that may occur on January 1, 2000. Systems reviewed included: power, emergency-911, telephone, water, sewer, elevators, HVAC, transportation and housing. Focus was on distribution to buildings, rather than within buildings. Paul noted that many of our services depend on the surrounding community and if they have a problem, we will too. Next, he noted that some middle-aged elevators might spontaneously go into maintenance mode, descend to the ground floor and open their doors. International telephone calls may also experience difficulty.

The Emergency Operations Center will be activated on January 1 with people from Facilities Management, Communications Services and elevator maintenance vendors in attendance. CSOs will also be available to carry messages, if necessary. Paul asked that you notify the EOC if you will have people working early on Saturday, January 1. (Those with mobility-impaired employees should probably suggest that they work on the ground floor that night.) Students do not return until January 5, so there is time to work through a few problems before the rush.

Call Paul (x7222) with questions. The revised Contingency Plan Table will be posted on the web this fall.

The chairs then introduced the final topic of the meeting, a discussion of the ITPG "Urgent Item" list, which has grown to seventeen items from the original ten. Alan opened the discussion stating that "Item 0" on the list should be to address aspects of the planning process that are broken. His example was intra-building wiring that has been estimated to cost $1.2 million and has not yet been funded. Planners in L&S believe intra-building wiring is a "campus problem" rather than one that should be solved by the college. Alan opined that this problem (i.e., the planning process) is so important to the college that ITPG shouldn't talk about the other items on the list until this one is addressed. Other people wondered how other divisions and other departments within L&S had solved their wiring problems and called for documentation of the problem along with estimates of the cost of fixing it versus not fixing it. It was noted that about 2/3 of L&S departments had solved their wiring problems with combinations of renovation and research funds while 1/3 of the departments remained with obsolete wiring arrangements.

Alan was concerned that planning a new campus backbone that could not be accessed by a significant fraction of L&S departments because of their outdated intra-building wiring generates a conflict of interest on the part of some BEG participants. This is because funding of a new backbone (which is important to the campus) might compete with funding intra-building wiring (which is important to the college). Others asked how intra-building data wiring is different than electric wiring or telephone wiring. "Maturity of the service" was offered as an explanation of the different funding models. Some believe that the funding for the intra-building telephone and data cable should be provided centrally and some do not.

It was suggested that ITPG's role should be to contribute the background and the technical analysis. What has been done historically? How have some departments solved the problem? What are the current needs and how much might it cost to address them? How often should people plan on upgrading building wiring? How often should people plan to upgrade building networking equipment? The funding model, however, should be decided at a higher level than ITPG. Alan was asked to bring documentation of the problem to ITPG. Other units with intra-building wiring issues might do the same. ITPG could then review the technical merits of the proposed solutions and decide whether to forward the issue to ITB as a policy problem.

The co-chairs proposed that these issues be discussed electronically and that we plan to hold another ITPG meeting in about one month (e.g., during the week of August 9-13).

Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule

spacer University of California Santa Barbara Home Page
  Copyright 2003-2018 The Regents of the University of California, All Rights Reserved
Web contactTerms of UseAccessibility
Last modified: 10/19/2007