Committees and BoardsTechnology Planning Committee
|
|
Minutes of the Technology Planning Committee Meeting Members: Mark Covey (P), Werner Faries (P), Bibhor Dhungel (P), Steve Frank (P), Jim Hewitt (P), Sharon Hoverson (P), Keith Landa (P), Sharon Nelson (P), Erik Ramstad (P), Martin Tackie (P), Don Rice (P), Carole Stalheim (A), Darin Ulness (A) Committee businessThe meeting was called to order by Mark Covey and Werner Faries. There were no objections to the proposed meeting schedule for the committee. Keith Landa was selected as committee secretary by general consensus. Keith provided a proposed agenda for the meeting: begin a review of the technology long-range plan; receive updates on current discussions concerning future development of the ResNet as well as a potential new directory services and college information environment; and brainstorm concerning agenda items for the coming year. Technology long-range planTechnology Planning has been given the following specific responsibilities for 2003/2004 by Senate Coordinating Committee: continue to develop five-year technology plan; consult with faculty on five-year plan. Keith reviewed the process and format for the current version of the technology long-range plan, and the goal to periodically review the general principles and especially the specific recommendations, to keep them up-to-date with the changing technology landscape. Copies of the general principles and specific recommendations from the current plan were distributed to committee members. Committee members are to provide initial comments on the plan at the next meeting. ResNet discussionSteve and Keith reviewed ongoing discussions concerning potential changes for network access on campus, and the possibility of connecting the ResNet to the Internet through a separate internet service provider. Committee members reviewed the network problems at the beginning of the academic year that resulted from virus traffic on the ResNet, and the ongoing network performance difficulties due to ResNet traffic, including peer-to-peer file sharing. The ongoing network congestion is impacting Library and classroom access to network resources, the ability of the Business Office to process billing and has interrupted vending services, including laundry, in the residence halls. One potential solution would be to increase our bandwidth through our connection from the state of Minnesota, but our current network management tools could not keep that increased bandwidth from being used up by peer-to-peer traffic. As an alternative, Computer Services is soliciting proposals from other internet service providers (702 Communications, IdeaOne) to provide separate access for the ResNet, leaving the academic network connected through our state of Minnesota service. The residence hall computer clusters, door access controls, vending services and residence hall directors would remain on the main campus network. It would take a month or so to bring in the fiber needed and make the network changes. A transition over Christmas break would be preferable, which would require a quick decision on whether to go ahead or not. Committee members discussed various advantages of segmenting the ResNet off to a separate connection. The performance and stability of the academic network would be improved. A commercial internet service provider would be able to manage the amount of bandwidth available to individual network ports, preventing excessive peer-to-peer traffic from a few students impacting the network access of other students. (Discussions with vendors have included the possibility of students being able to contract for a higher bandwidth on an individual basis.) The commercial ISP would also provide help-desk services for students in the residence halls, which is limited currently. A physical separation of the ResNet from the rest of the campus network would prevent a reoccurrence of the difficulties we experienced this past fall, and would reduce the liability of the college over peer-to-peer issues. A separate ResNet would provide an opportunity for greater student involvement in establishing and governing acceptable use of network resources. Separating the ResNet from the main campus network will facilitate future development of the main campus network. Some potential issues arising from moving the ResNet to a commercial internet service provider were raised by the committee. Would reliability and performance of the ResNet be adequate, given the switch from a service provided by the college to a commodity provided by a for-profit company? Would the hours and quality of the help-desk services match the needs of our students? (It was pointed out that there is no formal student help-desk currently, so the hours provided by 702, for example, would be an increase in service.) Would a separation of the ResNet from the main campus network impact the availability of academic resources, such as Library databases, to students in the residence halls? Any proposal for outside service would include a specific range of IP addresses reserved for our residence halls, which could be included in the list of campus IP addresses in any negotiations with vendors. What campus resources (fiber, network equipment) would be used in implementing this switch? Would separating the ResNet from the main campus network impact future development of wireless access points on campus? Contracting a separate service for the ResNet would be a new, unbudgeted expense. Current discussions have centered on purchasing 5 Mbps bandwidth for the residence halls, and reducing bandwidth through the state of Minnesota for the rest of the network from 9 Mbps to 6 Mbps. (This would be an increase in our total bandwidth.) The savings from reducing our contract with the state would cover about half of the cost of contracting the separate ResNet. The other remaining $2K+ could be covered by phasing out the modem pool. Committee members discussed the pros and cons of such a move. Many colleges are getting out of the dail-up business, or never took it on. The modem pool serves faculty and staff, and off-campus students, and is still heavily used at certain times of the day. Phasing out the modem pool would mean that those users would have to use alternative services. The question was brought up as to why faculty and staff should expect free internet service through the college, rather than just paying for access through an ISP as other residents in the community do. Part of the rationale for the initial establishment of the modem pool was that it would facilitate faculty incorporation of technology into their instruction and scholarship. On the other hand, it may be the case that the dialup access provided by the college has been superceded by broadband access provided by commercial ISPs, and that faculty and staff who use the college modem service should move on to better access through other vendors. There was an issue raised whether it was equitable to fund improved network access for on-campus students by eliminating dialup access for off-campus students. Students are increasingly asked to access network resources for class assignments and removal of the modem pool may make that more difficult for students living off campus. However, the college doesn't pay for other utilities of off-campus students, so why should it provide internet access? It was suggested that ResNet access in the future could be considered a basic utility provided to the residence halls (like electricity, water, basic phone, cable, etc), and the cost be built into the the residence hall fees instead of the technology budget. The issue of eliminating the modem pool was left open for future discussion. Directory servicesComputer Services and Academic Computing have had discussions and vendor presentations recently with representatives from Sun and from Novell, covering their solutions for integrated systems providing directory, messaging, calendar, file, print, portal and other services. These discussions arose in response to at least two issues on campus. One was an interest in setting up LDAP directory services to provide a single authentication system, as opposed to the multiple accounts and logins that campus users deal with now. Users have separate accounts on gloria, for the Windows CCM domain, storage space on space.cord.edu, the faculty login, CCAngel, etc. Windows is moving toward Active Directory, and it's not clear that we want to follow. The other main impetus was the desire to move to a different calendar/email system than the Exchange server, which has had significant problems a number of times now. Moving to a new architecture would facilitate the development of a variety of web services (e.g., on-line registration), which could be provided in a portal environment. Steve and Keith and a number of Computer Services staff are visiting Valley City State University on the 14th, to see how they have implemented the Sun system of services. Next meeting will be November 20th. Items for the agenda include: an update on the VCSU visit; initial comments on the technology long-range plan; brainstorming agenda items for the year. Keith Landa |
|
This page created and maintained by Keith
Landa |