From owner-freebsd-chat  Mon Aug 11 05:09:04 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA29534
          for chat-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 05:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (eivind@bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA29529
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 05:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) id OAA09531; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 14:07:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 14:07:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199708111207.OAA09531@bitbox.follo.net>
From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
To: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu
CC: perhaps@yes.no, adrian@obiwan.psinet.net.au, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Joel Ray Holveck's message of Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:48:01 -0400
Subject: Re: uunet vs. internet
References: <199708101208.OAA04516@bitbox.follo.net>
	<199708110448.AAA06504@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> 
> > > I was actually tossing up whether to setup an IPv6 tunnel network between
> > > local Perth ISPs, then linking the "network" to somewhere in the eastern
> > > states. Anyone else on here game? Even an IPIP tunnel with our own network
> > > would be really funky.
> > Any reason to go for these instead of PPP over TCP/IP, which we
> > already have support for?  PPP over TCP over SSH, and you have a VPN
> > there and then.  (Well, perhaps you'd want to add name-resolving...)
> 
> Sorry, what's VPN?

Virtual Private Network - a network running through tunnels over the
Internet, but not publically accessible; ie, the users are
authenticated before they get access.

> But what separate Usenet?

A private one that is being booted presently; more info will be
available if the effort turns out to actually escalate enough to be
reasonable to inform about (and the authentication problem is properly
solved)

Eivind.