[rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward?

[Seun Ojedeji]

Good and useful tips from Mukom for institutions finding themselves lacking
in any of the 4 areas listed.

I hope you understand the "we" i used in the scenarios i posted is just me
thinking for the institutions on any possible scenarios, usually it will be
rare for the whole 4 scenarios to happen to a single institution. Overall
the first item on the list is the major part; With a capable and determined
ICT directorate, every other bridge can be crossed overtime.

Cheers!


On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Mukom Akong T. <mukom.tamon at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Below is the order that is experienced
>>
>> 1) We don't think its necessary to change - Infact this is mostly the
>> case and when ICT directorate of an institution don't think there is any
>> benefit/need to run native v4 every other item below get stalled!
>>
>
>
> [Counter]
>
> a) So long as we are using NAT, the more users we worse performance will
> get. Show the IT director graphs that show that even though Internet is
> slow, we are still within our bandwidth usage. (The pain here which they
> feel is poor performance. Yes I've used this before ...successfully)
>
> b) Let's start with the network engineers, eliminate NATs internally!
> Route your RFC1918 space to and NAPT at the the edge. This has two
> implications
>
>     * You get visibility into your own internal nework
>     * You make it easier to see that NAT is the bottleneck because your
> NAT kludge is not distributed everywhere on the network.
>
> c) It should be easy to make the case for a larger block of public IPv4
> space for services. (and hint, if you work on some cool internal services
> that the management and users love but suddenly can't use them when they
> are not in the office on campus, then you have one more reason to justify
> what that service should be on a public IP address.)
>
>
>>
>> 2) We understand the need to change but scare of security implications
>>
>
>
> [Counter] "What security implications are those?". Education is the first
> weapon against fear. "Look your fear in the eye and it will lose its power
> over you"
>
> a) User behavior (clicking strange links, visiting hostile sites etc)
> already by-pass whateve security they think NAT provides.
>
> b) SPI whence from the perceived benefits of NAPT come from isn't an
> inherent part of NAPT - it just happens to be often co-exist with a NAPT
> service. If for some reason you really want to do that with a public IP
> address, it is possible to do.
>
>
>
>>
>> 3) Our ISP is hindering our change due to extra recurring charges
>>
>
>
> Specify your requirements that will work for you in your new RFP and put
> your ISP on notice. Only in rare cases does an institution not have options
> in ISP for a whole 3 years
>
>
>>
>> 4) Our management may not approve extra cost of internet (its not
>> something to feel and touch like classrooms :))
>>
>
>
> Most universities actually do highly value ICT as an investment to better
> the institution. The question is that does the ICT Director and his team
> know what the elements of effective ICTs are? So long as ICT infrastructure
> becomes another word for "Internet access" on campus, then of course while
> there is some Internet ... there's no need to improve.
>
> Effective ICTs for the service of education is quite a lot about putting
> in place infrastructure that helps students, staff and administration both
> on-campus and off campus. These services should be available on campus but
> also when people move off campus. Things like
>
> - MOOC or e-Learning services hosted on campus but that can be accessed
> off campus
> - Online registrations systems
> - Transcript application services
> - Time-tables
> - etc etc
>
>
> I have a philosphy that one uses responsibility to buy freedom and
> credibility. I doubt that there's a university where the network and sys
> admin team have worked hard to put in place a routed internal RFC1918
> network with useful services and still fail to make the case of a large
> block of public space. If there are, I'm offering to help guide them how to
> make the case to their suits.
>
> And no, a simple request to management of let's get public IPv4 space for
> every user will most likely get ignored and ridiculed because of the mere
> size. If the top 10 universities on this continent decided to give each
> network user 1 public IP address, your favourite RIR's v4 space won't
> last a year.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mukom Akong T.
>
> http://about.me/perfexcellence |  twitter: @perfexcellent
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> “When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of
> the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140721/2f9291ee/attachment.html>