[ih] principles of the internet

[Noel Chiappa]

    > From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>

    > Strictly speaking there is always some form of "call setup" even if it
    > is by "ad-hoc" means, i.e. some code it in or a management system
    > configures it. Something must ensure there is something that expects
    > the packet on the other end.

I thought we were talking about the network, not the applications? There's
clearly a big difference _in the network_ if it has some sort of call setup,
or if it's pure datagram (send packets to anywhere, anytime, no prior
anything).

    > the paradigm shift was not a step function. Baran starts it, the
    > ARPANET takes a few more steps, but conceptually it is CYCLADES that
    > first puts all the elements together.
    > ...
    > Continental drift got people to look at the problem which lead to
    > further insights. Plate tectonics refined the concept One was not
    > possible without the other.

Ah, got it. Yes, I think we agree - but I think we have been all along, we've
only been arguing about how big the various steps are in relationship to each
other... :-)


    > The thing that saved our bacon was that it was the DoD who did and was
    > willing to spend like crazy on it. Because otherwise it wouldn't have
    > looked as good as it did. 

Not just DoD, but DARPA specifically. Remember the story about how some part
of DoD was about to be dragooned into doing packets, and Baran pulled the
plug because he knew they'd screw it up, and he knew that that would taint
packet switching for a long time, so it was better to can the effort before
it did that.

Too lazy to go look it up (don't recall exactly where I read it, so it might
take a while to find), but it shows great smarts on his part, IMO.

	Noel