<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:13px"><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_250225"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_251469">SRI had a project with ITT to take SINCGARS, a combat net radio, and transform it into a MANET. The prototype used the packet radio protocols for a baseline but they needed to be modified to fit the characteristics of SINCGARS. I believe Mike Pursley (Clemson) also participated. This development effort involved creating a box that provided a packet overlay on the voice channel besides the protocol support. We did demo the prototype to the military. ITT subsequently did a lot of development under internal R&D and I believe put the results into the next generation of SINCGARS. I think General Dynamics also supported those protocols once they became a supplier of SINCGARS. After the contract with ITT ended, I heard very little about what ITT did. (I do believe routing was significantly changed but this is only because I was asked to attend a meeting where this was discussed. ) CECOM, Fort Monmouth, was our POC. Mark Lewis was the original lead from SRI and I became involved later. He can probably supply more info. He is still at SRI.</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_251936" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_251469"><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_252029" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_251469">This is the only one I can directly tie to packet radio. I don't know if this is what is currently used. This work was done in the 80s.<br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_251934" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_251469"><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_254010" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_251469">barbara</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_250230" class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div style="display: block;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_250234" class="yahoo_quoted"> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_250233" style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 13px;"> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_250232" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_250236" dir="ltr"> <font id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_250235" face="Arial" size="2"> <hr id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_252030" size="1"> <b id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_252580"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_252579" style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> "internet-history-request@postel.org" <internet-history-request@postel.org><br> <b id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_252578"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_252577" style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> internet-history@postel.org <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:41 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> internet-history Digest, Vol 105, Issue 40<br> </font> </div> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_250231" class="y_msg_container"><br>Send internet-history mailing list submissions to<br> <a id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1472616023279_252581" ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history" target="_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org">internet-history-request@postel.org</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history-owner@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history-owner@postel.org">internet-history-owner@postel.org</a><br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: internet-history Digest, Vol 105, Issue 33 (Lyndon Nerenberg)<br> 2. Re: Packet Radio and Why TCP (Jack Haverty)<br> 3. Re: Ethernet, was Why TCP? (Paul Vixie)<br> 4. Re: Ethernet, was Why TCP? (Brian E Carpenter)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:32:38 -0700<br>From: Lyndon Nerenberg <<a ymailto="mailto:lyndon@orthanc.ca" href="mailto:lyndon@orthanc.ca">lyndon@orthanc.ca</a>><br>Subject: Re: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 105, Issue 33<br>To: Nigel Roberts <<a ymailto="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>><br>Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:524374CE-1070-4B40-BFE9-B41CC93CA7B4@orthanc.ca" href="mailto:524374CE-1070-4B40-BFE9-B41CC93CA7B4@orthanc.ca">524374CE-1070-4B40-BFE9-B41CC93CA7B4@orthanc.ca</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br><br>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Nigel Roberts <<a ymailto="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>> AX.25 was based on X.25 and was used at slow (300-1200baud) speeds over<br>> HF radio.<br><br>It's *very* loosely based on X.25, and tends to be used as a link layer datagram protocol for other stream oriented applications (not protocols).<br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>Name: signature.asc<br>Type: application/pgp-signature<br>Size: 801 bytes<br>Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail<br>Url : <a href="http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20160831/eb8a7a94/signature-0001.bin" target="_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20160831/eb8a7a94/signature-0001.bin</a><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:23:09 -0700<br>From: Jack Haverty <<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [ih] Packet Radio and Why TCP<br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:b97fc567-cdf8-1670-5e18-360e593ba430@3kitty.org" href="mailto:b97fc567-cdf8-1670-5e18-360e593ba430@3kitty.org">b97fc567-cdf8-1670-5e18-360e593ba430@3kitty.org</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed<br><br>I wasn't directly involved in Packet Radio itself, but heard about it, <br>mostly from Jim Mathis and (IIRC) Holly Nelson who were at most of the <br>meetings. Helicopters were definitely in the thought experiments, and <br>even faster low-altitude aircraft, as users of communications. But I <br>think you're right that probably only land-mobile and high-altitude <br>aircraft was possible to actually demo, at least at first.<br><br>There were many problems to be solved (we all had lots of lists of <br>"things that need to be worked on"), and packet radio with higher speed <br>mobile platforms was probably one of them. It involved not only <br>power/weight/size but also things like routing protocols, which would <br>likely have to be much faster to respond to changes.<br><br>I never have heard how (or if) that early Packet Radio work evolved into <br>"real" use in modern military systems. E.G., do drones still use TCP, <br>do they communicate with Packet Radio protocols, etc. There's probably <br>a good history story there for some future historian to uncover.<br><br>/Jack<br><br>On 08/31/2016 07:29 PM, Barbara Denny wrote:<br>> In case people are interested, various packet radio efforts did<br>> actually have demos for the military that utilized a hummer or an Air<br>> Force airplane besides the SRI bread/mobile van which is now sitting<br>> outside the Computer History Museum. I am not aware of any packet radio<br>> demos with helicopters. I think power, weight, size issues probably<br>> prevented this but feel free to correct if anyone knows otherwise.<br>> Helicopters have been used in more recent MANET program demos for DARPA.<br>><br>> barbara<br>><br>> p.s.<br>> Packet radios may have ended up on a boat too before I started working<br>> on the project. I believe SRI had access to a research vessel.<br>><br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> *From:* "<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org">internet-history-request@postel.org</a>"<br>> <<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org">internet-history-request@postel.org</a>><br>> *To:* <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 3:35 PM<br>> *Subject:* internet-history Digest, Vol 105, Issue 37<br>><br>> Send internet-history mailing list submissions to<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a>><br>><br>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>> <a href="http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history" target="_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history</a><br>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org">internet-history-request@postel.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history-request@postel.org">internet-history-request@postel.org</a>><br>><br>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history-owner@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history-owner@postel.org">internet-history-owner@postel.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history-owner@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history-owner@postel.org">internet-history-owner@postel.org</a>><br>><br>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>> than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..."<br>><br>><br>> Today's Topics:<br>><br>> 1. Why TCP? (Jack Haverty)<br>> 2. Re: Why TCP? (Vint Cerf)<br>> 3. Re: Why TCP? (Brian E Carpenter)<br>> 4. Re: Why TCP? (Vint Cerf)<br>><br>><br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>><br>> Message: 1<br>> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:43:24 -0700<br>> From: Jack Haverty <<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a>>><br>> Subject: [ih] Why TCP?<br>> To: <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a>><br>> Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:87d2d00a-361a-8ec1-b1cd-2e047a40df93@3kitty.org" href="mailto:87d2d00a-361a-8ec1-b1cd-2e047a40df93@3kitty.org">87d2d00a-361a-8ec1-b1cd-2e047a40df93@3kitty.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:87d2d00a-361a-8ec1-b1cd-2e047a40df93@3kitty.org" href="mailto:87d2d00a-361a-8ec1-b1cd-2e047a40df93@3kitty.org">87d2d00a-361a-8ec1-b1cd-2e047a40df93@3kitty.org</a>>><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed<br>><br>> [I changed the subject because I hate unsearchable subjects like<br>> "...internet history digest..."]<br>><br>> I think Dave's observation is a really important fact for future<br>> historians - the Internet did not evolve in a vacuum.<br>><br>> ARPANET was one of the first packet networks (I'll let others argue<br>> about which was First...), but it was preceded by networks based on<br>> phone lines and modems interconnecting terminals and computers.<br>><br>> The ARPA Packet Radio net enabled communications between mobile<br>> computers, moving around in jeeps and helicopters, by radio links. But<br>> it was preceded by AlohaNet in Hawaii, which interconnected the various<br>> islands by radio. AlohaNet was also the inspiration for Ethernet. In<br>> the early 1970s, Bob Metcalfe's office at MIT was three doors down the<br>> hallway from mine as he wrote his thesis that spawned Ethernet. I<br>> remember hearing about AlohaNet from him.<br>><br>> Later, SATNET interconnected sites using satellite links, also obviously<br>> using radio for communications. Unlike the packet radio environment,<br>> the path of the satellites was highly predictable, and the massive dish<br>> antennas on the ground didn't move at all.<br>><br>> SATNET was subsequently adapted to create MATNET, a Navy project, that<br>> used satellite dishes on ships for communication. Ships moved of<br>> course, but not as rapidly or spasmodically as jeeps and aircraft.<br>><br>> Ethernet was evolved by Xerox PARC into its own "internet", with<br>> multiple LANs interconnecting by radio links or telephone lines.<br>> During the early 80s, The Internet which we still use today was running<br>> in parallel with the PARC internet (I can't recall what they called it),<br>> using PUP where we used TCP.<br>><br>> As Dave noted, we got used to hearing that the mission of the Internet<br>> Project (as driven by the IAB/ICCB under Vint's direction) was to<br>> develop the infrastructure technology, i.e., protocols and algorithms<br>> and standards, to interconnect these networks, both the existing types<br>> and anything else that someone might dream up in the future.<br>><br>> If some new type of network could carry packets from point A to point B,<br>> it should be possible to incorporate it into the Internet --- without<br>> requiring the host computers to change any software (which would be<br>> hard), or change all of the routers in the Internet (only the ones that<br>> directly interface to the new network need to change to be able to use it)<br>><br>> We even mused about extreme networking. For example, TCP/IP should be<br>> able to utilize a "network" implemented using carrier pigeons for<br>> transport, with each pigeon carrying a small tube with a strip of paper<br>> containing one packet of data.<br>><br>> As far as I know, no one ever did that.... But it was one of the<br>> scenarios that came up in the brainstorming discussions to prevent us<br>> from changing the technical mechanisms in a way that precluded<br>> PigeonNet's use.<br>><br>> On another extreme, we mused about incorporating another Internet into<br>> The Internet, i.e., using some existing set of routers and lines<br>> (Internet 1), as a means to interconnect routers in an overlaid internet<br>> (Internet 2). After all, a fragment of an internet meets the<br>> definition of a network - a communications mechanism that can carry packets.<br>><br>> As far as I know, such multi-layer Internet-of-Internets *did* happen.<br>> It was used in some secure environments and I think also used as a<br>> technique to implement the IP4 to IP6 transition (are we there<br>> yet...it's been more than 30 years!???)<br>><br>> So, as Dave noted, TCP/IP was developed as an overlay that would run<br>> over all existing, or future, networks. That goal often came up during<br>> the meetings and discussions as something akin to a Prime Directive.<br>><br>> ==============<br>><br>> IMHO, future historians might also like to know *why* that was the Prime<br>> Directive. In other words, Why TCP? The intransigence of people to<br>> settle on a single technology and protocol was important as a motivator,<br>> but IMHO only part of it.<br>><br>> My introduction to TCP was in 1977. I had been working in the ARPANET<br>> environment, doing things like email et al at MIT. I moved to BBN in<br>> 1977 and my first task was to write the first TCP for Unix, which was<br>> needed as part of an ARPA project. At that time, TCP was at the version<br>> 2.5 stage.<br>><br>> Over the next year or so, we made a lot of changes to create TCP 3 and<br>> then TCP 4.<br>><br>> Creating a technology that could incorporate any kind of network was a<br>> big part of the mission. But there were others. For example, it was<br>> desirable that the infrastructure support different types of user<br>> traffic. Ideally, the TCP infrastructure would support all types of<br>> user traffic in a way similar to its ability to utilize any type of<br>> network that might appear.<br>><br>> Specifically, voice traffic - realtime human-human speech - was found to<br>> not work very well over a TCP connection. With our traditional uses,<br>> e.g., FTP/Telnet/Email, getting all of the data there intact was the<br>> overriding goal. In speech, getting the data there in a timely fashion<br>> was most important, and some loss of snippets of speech was acceptable.<br>><br>> That, among other things, motivated the split of TCP into TCP/IP,<br>> allowing the creation of UDP and "higher" protocols to carry things like<br>> speech and video.<br>><br>> =======================<br>><br>> All of these internet-history discussions tend to revolve around<br>> technology - protocols, algorithms, etc., which isn't surprising since a<br>> lot of the people on this list were deeply involved in creating that<br>> technology.<br>><br>> But for the benefit of historians, there's another "layer" of discussion<br>> that seems important - Why TCP? In other words, why was it so important<br>> to create a whole new infrastructure with such capabilities.<br>><br>> The Departments of Defense (note plural) put quite a lot of money into<br>> the efforts to develop the Internet technology. ARPA, part of the US<br>> military, was a large player, acting as a conduit for funds from the<br>> various parts of the military - Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. But other<br>> players from other countries were there too - RSRE (UK), NDRE (Norway),<br>> DFVLR (Germany), and CNUCE (Italy) are ones I remember.<br>><br>> So, .... the interesting question is "Why did they send money, and keep<br>> sending it, to create the TCP/IP technology"? Why did they care about<br>> being able to interconnect all sorts of networks?<br>><br>> The answer of course is because they needed it to solve their own<br>> communications problems.<br>><br>> During that TCP2-->4 evolution period, I remember that we were<br>> continuously aware of stereotypical military scenarios in which TCP was<br>> supposed to operate. The military folks didn't really care about bits,<br>> bytes, packets, etc. They just knew what they wanted to be able to do<br>> with it all.<br>><br>> The scenario I remember most was what I heard on joining the fray in<br>> 1977 and learning what exactly this "TCP" thing and associated projects<br>> were all about.<br>><br>> It was a "Command and Control" scenario, which is the bread-and-butter<br>> of the military world. The notion was that someone "out in the field",<br>> perhaps a scout in a jeep, would see something interesting, and need to<br>> report it up the command chain. "I see a column of tanks coming along<br>> the river valley".<br>><br>> The jeep of course couldn't be wired into an IMP port on the ARPANET.<br>> But it could have a radio, and that radio should be able to communicate<br>> with another jeep, or tank, or whatever else might be around. And they<br>> might be able to communicate with the field headquarters, possibly<br>> several miles away. But everyone had to be able to move, often rapidly<br>> and unpredictably.<br>><br>> So, .... here's some money....make it work... and Packet Radio networks<br>> were born.<br>><br>> With lots of jeeps, or helicopters, or whatever, and their eyes and<br>> ears, the field headquarters could be connected back to the Pentagon<br>> over the ARPANET and all of that information could be used to figure out<br>> what to do about it. But somehow we need to have messages flow from the<br>> Packet Radio to the ARPANET...<br>><br>> So, .... here's some money....make it work.... and gateways (aka<br>> routers) were born.<br>><br>> Back at the Pentagon, looking at all the reports, it might become clear<br>> that the Army guys in the jeeps needed a little help as waves of tanks<br>> approached them.<br>><br>> Perhaps there's a ship offshore, with some big guns, and a carrier full<br>> of nasty airplanes. But they're over the horizon, too far away for the<br>> Packet Radio to reach, or for wires to an IMP port. But they do have<br>> satellite dishes, and can talk to other dishes halfway around the planet<br>> if necessary. If only their computers could talk with everybody else...<br>><br>> So, here's some money....make it work.... and SATNET and MATNET were<br>> born. The USS Carl Vinson was on The Internet.<br>><br>> When things get frenetic, messages and email just aren't fast enough.<br>> Real time voice communication is critical (remember, no cell phones in<br>> those days). But voice over TCP isn't working well.<br>><br>> So, here's some money....make it work.... and TCP is split into TCP and<br>> IP, UDP is defined, and the obstacle to realtime voice is removed. Hey,<br>> it should even work for video someday.<br>><br>> We can't do video, but graphics are a big help. A general might be able<br>> to view a map while talking with commanders in the field who see the<br>> same map. Even use a pointer to highlight specific areas of the map as<br>> he gives instructions. "Unit A, you move here (pointing somewhere),<br>> and Ship B, you fire at this location (pointing somewhere else)".<br>><br>> It's really important that the "pointing" actions in the graphics are<br>> well-synchronized with the speech giving the commands......<br>><br>> So, the real-time UDP speech needs to be time-synched with the graphics<br>> images over TCP.<br>><br>> So, here's some money....make it work....and .... mechanisms such as NTP<br>> (thank you Dave Mills!) are created to provide high-accuracy global<br>> time. But I have no idea if the voice/graphics synching is guaranteed<br>> even today. Sure hope so...<br>><br>> There were a number of these scenarios that drove our thinking about the<br>> problems. I was an initial member of Vint's IAB (then called ICCB), and<br>> these kinds of scenarios played a significant role in those discussions,<br>> which complemented the technical discussions in the larger Internet<br>> group meetings. The IAB in part acted as a conduit to translate the<br>> desires of the guys with the money into the technical goals that drove<br>> the creation of the TCP/IP protocols and machinery.<br>><br>> Someone (I wish I knew who) made the decision to do all of this work,<br>> and spend all of that money, in an open environment, and make the<br>> technology freely available and standardized for anyone to use. None of<br>> the competing Internet architectures (Xerox, Novell, DEC, IBM, ISO,<br>> etc.) did that. So when the rest of the world discovered that the<br>> military TCP/IP technology not only worked but also could solve their<br>> problems, the ascension of the Internet was natural.<br>><br>> So, that's why we have TCP!<br>><br>> As usual, I've written a lot, sorry about that. It just seems important<br>> to get this written down somewhere to capture some of the "why" part of<br>> the Internet history. The existence of concrete scenarios was key in<br>> focusing the technical work on actual real-world problems to be solved.<br>> That permeated the culture of the Internet developers. Instead of<br>> writing documents, we wrote code...<br>><br>> /Jack Haverty<br>> August 31, 2016<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On 08/31/2016 07:17 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:<br>>> On 8/31/2016 6:50 AM, Craig Partridge wrote:<br>>>> As I recall the story (I arrived on the scene later), Bob Kahn was in<br>>>> the process of funding Packet Radio Networks and he and Vint needed to<br>>>> solve the<br>>>> interconnection problem and that motivated the TCP paper.<br>>><br>>><br>>> This is a variant of the broader problem statement I was used to hearing:<br>>><br>>> Even by 1972 there already were a variety of independent networks<br>>> around the world. How to interconnect them, since it was unlikely that<br>>> they would all agree to switch over to someone else's network protocols.<br>>><br>>> TCP was developed as an overlay that would run on all of them,<br>>> connecting them.<br>>><br>>> d/<br>>><br>><br>><br>> ------------------------------<br>><br>> Message: 2<br>> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:29:05 -0400<br>> From: Vint Cerf <<a ymailto="mailto:vint@google.com" href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:vint@google.com" href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a>>><br>> Subject: Re: [ih] Why TCP?<br>> To: Jack Haverty <<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a>>><br>> Cc: internet history <<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a>>><br>> Message-ID:<br>> <CAHxHggd8=NHr6T-j89ANp+<a ymailto="mailto:sDOYak8sVtV1YyQs3EDfZYc9rAxA@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:sDOYak8sVtV1YyQs3EDfZYc9rAxA@mail.gmail.com">sDOYak8sVtV1YyQs3EDfZYc9rAxA@mail.gmail.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sDOYak8sVtV1YyQs3EDfZYc9rAxA@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:sDOYak8sVtV1YyQs3EDfZYc9rAxA@mail.gmail.com">sDOYak8sVtV1YyQs3EDfZYc9rAxA@mail.gmail.com</a>>><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>><br>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Jack Haverty <<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>>><br>>> We even mused about extreme networking. For example, TCP/IP should be<br>>> able to utilize a "network" implemented using carrier pigeons for<br>>> transport, with each pigeon carrying a small tube with a strip of paper<br>>> containing one packet of data.<br>>><br>>> As far as I know, no one ever did that...<br>><br>><br>> yeah, they did - there's even an RFC about it, I think, from UK.<br>><br>><br>> see also YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQCZH9Lp8uo" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQCZH9Lp8uo</a><br>><br>> The audio and auto-caption is hilariously disconnected.<br>><br>> <a href="https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/09/08/29/1934251/pigeon-protocol-finds-a-practical-purpose" target="_blank">https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/09/08/29/1934251/pigeon-protocol-finds-a-practical-purpose</a><br>><br>> <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/pigeon-powered-internet-takes-flight/" target="_blank">http://www.cnet.com/news/pigeon-powered-internet-takes-flight/</a><br>><br>> v<br>> <<a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/pigeon-powered-internet-takes-flight/" target="_blank">http://www.cnet.com/news/pigeon-powered-internet-takes-flight/</a>><br>><br>> --<br>> New postal address:<br>> Google<br>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor<br>> Reston, VA 20190<br>> -------------- next part --------------<br>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> URL:<br>> <a href="http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20160831/30aad3c0/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20160831/30aad3c0/attachment-0001.html</a><br>><br>> ------------------------------<br>><br>> Message: 3<br>> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:31:16 +1200<br>> From: Brian E Carpenter <<a ymailto="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com" href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com" href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a>>><br>> Subject: Re: [ih] Why TCP?<br>> To: Jack Haverty <<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a>>><br>> Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a>><br>> Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:50804405-fff3-c6cb-421a-44d1bf08ab2c@gmail.com" href="mailto:50804405-fff3-c6cb-421a-44d1bf08ab2c@gmail.com">50804405-fff3-c6cb-421a-44d1bf08ab2c@gmail.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:50804405-fff3-c6cb-421a-44d1bf08ab2c@gmail.com" href="mailto:50804405-fff3-c6cb-421a-44d1bf08ab2c@gmail.com">50804405-fff3-c6cb-421a-44d1bf08ab2c@gmail.com</a>>><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>><br>> On 01/09/2016 09:43, Jack Haverty wrote:<br>> ...<br>>> For example, TCP/IP should be<br>>> able to utilize a "network" implemented using carrier pigeons for<br>>> transport, with each pigeon carrying a small tube with a strip of paper<br>>> containing one packet of data.<br>>><br>>> As far as I know, no one ever did that....<br>><br>> Of coure they did:<br>> <a href="http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/writeup/" target="_blank">http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/writeup/</a><br>><br>> Brian<br>><br>><br>><br>> ------------------------------<br>><br>> Message: 4<br>> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:35:06 -0400<br>> From: Vint Cerf <<a ymailto="mailto:vint@google.com" href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:vint@google.com" href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a>>><br>> Subject: Re: [ih] Why TCP?<br>> To: Jack Haverty <<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a>>><br>> Cc: internet history <<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a>>><br>> Message-ID:<br>> <CAHxHggfi9-LNbV71bUSX6ozkX=<a ymailto="mailto:GTtioTLdVTMk2EhBi_Y-Z3wg@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:GTtioTLdVTMk2EhBi_Y-Z3wg@mail.gmail.com">GTtioTLdVTMk2EhBi_Y-Z3wg@mail.gmail.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:GTtioTLdVTMk2EhBi_Y-Z3wg@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:GTtioTLdVTMk2EhBi_Y-Z3wg@mail.gmail.com">GTtioTLdVTMk2EhBi_Y-Z3wg@mail.gmail.com</a>>><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>><br>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Jack Haverty <<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:jack@3kitty.org" href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>>><br>>> Someone (I wish I knew who) made the decision to do all of this work,<br>>> and spend all of that money, in an open environment, and make the<br>>> technology freely available and standardized for anyone to use. None of<br>>> the competing Internet architectures (Xerox, Novell, DEC, IBM, ISO,<br>>> etc.) did that. So when the rest of the world discovered that the<br>>> military TCP/IP technology not only worked but also could solve their<br>>> problems, the ascension of the Internet was natural.<br>><br>><br>> Bob Kahn, Larry Roberts and Dave Russell are probably the closest to the<br>> deciding parties<br>> at the IPTO level but one has to credit George Heilmeier and Steve Lukasic<br>> as DARPA<br>> Directors for their strong support for ARPANET and then Internet.<br>><br>> v<br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> New postal address:<br>> Google<br>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor<br>> Reston, VA 20190<br>> -------------- next part --------------<br>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> URL:<br>> <a href="http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20160831/86df189e/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20160831/86df189e/attachment.html</a><br>><br>> ------------------------------<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> internet-history mailing list<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a>><br>> <a href="http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history" target="_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history</a><br>> Contact <a ymailto="mailto:list-owner@postel.org" href="mailto:list-owner@postel.org">list-owner@postel.org</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:list-owner@postel.org" href="mailto:list-owner@postel.org">list-owner@postel.org</a>> for assistance.<br>><br>><br>> End of internet-history Digest, Vol 105, Issue 37<br>> *************************************************<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> _______<br>> internet-history mailing list<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br>> <a href="http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history" target="_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history</a><br>> Contact <a ymailto="mailto:list-owner@postel.org" href="mailto:list-owner@postel.org">list-owner@postel.org</a> for assistance.<br>><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:29:38 -0700<br>From: Paul Vixie <<a ymailto="mailto:paul@redbarn.org" href="mailto:paul@redbarn.org">paul@redbarn.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [ih] Ethernet, was Why TCP?<br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:57C7A0A2.70601@redbarn.org" href="mailto:57C7A0A2.70601@redbarn.org">57C7A0A2.70601@redbarn.org</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br><br>John Levine wrote:<br>> It is my recollection that at the time a lot of people thought that<br>> Ethernet sounded too good to be true. If it were heavily loaded, all<br>> those collisions would surely cause a storm of interference and<br>> performance collapse, unlike a token ring that shared the capacity in<br>> a predictable way.<br><br>david boggs had, posted on his office window at DECWRL, a photocopy of <br>an internal D|I|G|I|T|A|L memorandum from the head of the DEC Office <br>Connect project, who was looking for a way to connect office computers <br>that wasn't twisted-pair. boggs used a yellow "highlighter" to <br>illuminate one key passage which i shall never forget:<br><br>"Ethernet is a laboratory toy. Its random exponential backoff mechanism <br>is clear evidence that <blah blah blah>."<br><br>somehow DEC ended up adopting ethernet, and hiring boggs, in spite of <br>this memo. later when DECWRL visited the main "NAC" (Networks and <br>Communications) office building to give a series of technical talks, <br>someone came into a conference room where boggs was sitting and told him <br>they had the room reserved. boggs should not have had to leave. it was <br>the Metcalfe and Boggs conference room, after all.<br><br>later on, DEC poured billions (that's like millions except with a "b") <br>of dollars into DECnet Phase V, proving after all that they, and not the <br>community, knew what the future of networking was going to look like. <br>(they should have saved the money so that Compaq could have it.)<br><br>anyway the list of things that can't be done, and the naysayers who have <br>proved those negatives, continues to get longer every few minutes.<br><br>-- <br>P Vixie<br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 4<br>Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:40:56 +1200<br>From: Brian E Carpenter <<a ymailto="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com" href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [ih] Ethernet, was Why TCP?<br>To: John Levine <<a ymailto="mailto:johnl@iecc.com" href="mailto:johnl@iecc.com">johnl@iecc.com</a>>, <a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br>Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:dcrocker@bbiw.net" href="mailto:dcrocker@bbiw.net">dcrocker@bbiw.net</a><br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:ae1c7f2e-4a4b-f8f6-373d-3b18430aa428@gmail.com" href="mailto:ae1c7f2e-4a4b-f8f6-373d-3b18430aa428@gmail.com">ae1c7f2e-4a4b-f8f6-373d-3b18430aa428@gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br><br>On 01/09/2016 14:09, John Levine wrote:<br>>> So if one wanted a cheaper mechanism, tossing out the extreme discipline <br>>> made sense to me. We always hear about computing/storage tradeoffs. <br>>> This was a cost/channel-efficiency tradeoff.<br>> <br>> It is my recollection that at the time a lot of people thought that<br>> Ethernet sounded too good to be true. If it were heavily loaded, all<br>> those collisions would surely cause a storm of interference and<br>> performance collapse, unlike a token ring that shared the capacity in<br>> a predictable way.<br>> <br>> As we all know, Ethernets worked just fine. A lot of people didn't<br>> believe it until they saw it, and sometimes not even then.<br><br>There was a paper around 1984 from either UCB or LBL that showed (by<br>simulations, I think) that the performance curves were the same shape for<br>Ethernet or (IBM) Token Ring. For Ethernet the drop-off was caused by<br>collisions on the wire, for Token Ring by I/O buffer overflows. At that<br>time memory wasn't dirt cheap, so buffer sizes tended to be small.<br><br>At CERN we were bombarded by DEC with reasons why we should choose Ethernet<br>and by IBM with reasons why we should use Token Ring. Being CERN, we chose<br>both (Ethernet for general purpose use, and Token Ring for the control<br>system of LEP, the machine that preceded the LHC).<br><br>When I spent a couple of years in 2001-3 at the IBM Zurich Lab, where<br>the IBM Token Ring was conceived, the wounds were still raw. Many IBM<br>sites were still on Token Ring then. I had to travel with PCMCIA cards<br>for both Ethernet and TR, plus an adaptor for sites that ran Ethernet<br>over the IBM Cabling System instead of RJ45/UTP5.<br><br>I think Token Ring really failed because the IBM Cabling System was<br>too good, and therefore very expensive. The Ethernet discourse (one<br>simple coax cable goes everywhere) was very persuasive, especially<br>when Cheapernet (thin coax) came along.<br><br>Regards<br> Brian<br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>internet-history mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a><br><a href="http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history" target="_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history</a><br>Contact <a ymailto="mailto:list-owner@postel.org" href="mailto:list-owner@postel.org">list-owner@postel.org</a> for assistance.<br><br><br>End of internet-history Digest, Vol 105, Issue 40<br>*************************************************<br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>