<div dir="ltr">Good points, Jack - and certainly add color to the tenor of the times.<div><br></div><div>v</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 3:51 PM Jack Haverty <<a href="mailto:jack@3kitty.org">jack@3kitty.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">[Thread renamed to better reflect topic...]<br>
<br>
I agree with all of Vint's thread, but I'd like to add to it. I think<br>
there were several other situations and activities that I think also<br>
drove commercialization of "The Internet"<br>
<br>
1) The Proliferation of Private internets (aka Intranets)<br>
<br>
2) Parallel Creation of Other internets (aka Othernets)<br>
<br>
3) Deployment of Multi-Protocol internets (aka Multinets)<br>
<br>
4) Establishment of a Internet Technician pipeline<br>
<br>
5) Adoption of Web technology as a Client/Server standard<br>
<br>
Intranets<br>
<br>
While "The Internet" was growing, and steered by decisions by<br>
organizations such as NSF, NIST, etc., the same hardware and software<br>
was used to build private internets, totally disjoint from "The<br>
Internet". This probably occurred first in governmental arenas, where<br>
it was straightforward for a non-research group to simply buy some<br>
routers and hook them together as a private intranet. The same was soon<br>
true in commercial environments. I personally encountered this in<br>
1989-90 while consulting for a large Wall Street investment house, who<br>
were struggling to deploy their own TCP-based intranet connecting LANs<br>
and Sun workstations in New York, London, and Tokyo. But there were<br>
many types of Intranets, not based on TCP, because of Othernets.<br>
<br>
Othernets<br>
<br>
While "The Internet" was evolving, other organizations were building and<br>
promoting their own technology. Some of these were driven by "standards<br>
bodies" like ISO or CCITT. Others were driven by corporations who each<br>
had their own version of a "global network". IBM, DEC, Xerox, Wang,<br>
Novell, Banyan, Apple, and probably others I've forgotten all had their<br>
own technology for creating a global network. All of these would work<br>
great in a global installation, at least according to Marketing,<br>
especially if you only used their hardware and software.<br>
<br>
Multinets<br>
<br>
With so many choices, people made different decisions. Engineering<br>
seemed to like DECNET. Finance was true-blue with IBM SNA. Marketing<br>
often had Appletalk. Departments with lots of PCs had multiple choices,<br>
e.g., Novell, Banyan, etc. The weird guys in the Lab had something<br>
called TCP (which, if you were in the UK, was a mouthwash). There were<br>
X.25 networks in use, and perhaps someone was talking about ISO for the<br>
long-term solution, but they were still waiting for something they could<br>
install.<br>
<br>
Multi-protocol routers, bridges, and other such pieces of the Tinker Toy<br>
networking kit allowed you to run as many different Othernets as you<br>
liked, all over the same physical wires and circuits. Instead of<br>
picking one of the choices as your corporate standard, you could just<br>
have them all. You could have your own private Multinet.<br>
<br>
The Technician Pipeline<br>
<br>
With all of these different network technologies and products, staffing<br>
an IT department was a formidable challenge. You could hire people,<br>
and them send them to the various vendors' training to learn how to use<br>
each particular technology and products. Of course everyone would need<br>
retraining frequently as all the technologies were evolved. And then<br>
the best people might disappear, lured off to some other IT department.<br>
<br>
The exception was the TCP world. Somehow it seemed that new graduates<br>
were continually emerging from Academia already trained and experienced<br>
in using TCP-based systems. There seemed to be a pipeline through the<br>
schools around the world that was pumping TCP-qualified potential IT<br>
staff out into the world, who could get a TCP-based system up and<br>
running while other technologies advocates were still in networking school.<br>
<br>
Web Technology as Client-server Standard<br>
<br>
By the early 90s, the networking started by the ARPANET had evolved for<br>
20 years. But over those decades, the search for the next "killer app"<br>
hadn't produced much. File transfer, remote terminal access, and<br>
electronic mail were still the primary "apps" used broadly, and had been<br>
for 20 years.<br>
<br>
With the advent of The Web, that changed in the early/mid 90s. Suddenly<br>
there was a new "protocol on the wire" technology that enabled people to<br>
create and consume content, without the requirement to have the<br>
identical word-processing, graphics, or other "user interface" software<br>
on every machine. The first new "killer app" in 20 years had appeared.<br>
<br>
In the general business world, people wrote and read documents, but they<br>
also did a lot of other tasks with their IT systems. They did inventory<br>
control. They ran analyses, in financial, sales, marketing,<br>
engineering, and every other business discipline. They modelled<br>
physical systems such as weather or economics. They did everything<br>
associated with their business operations, using computers.<br>
<br>
Although the Web technology began as a way to collaborate on documents,<br>
it had the requisite "hooks" to enable "documents" to be generated on<br>
the fly, tailored by instructions gathered from the human user who would<br>
be viewing the result. This enabled many of the broader business tasks<br>
to be done using Web technology. Instead of viewing a Quarterly<br>
Analysis using an application on your workstation, you could view that<br>
same analysis as a "web page" that had just been created by a program as<br>
you just specified.<br>
<br>
In effect, the Web technology brought a wire-protocol standard for<br>
"Client-Server" interactions to the TCP technology arsenal. That was a<br>
capability none of the "Othernet" players had.<br>
<br>
======================================================<br>
<br>
All of the above reflects only what I personally experienced. So<br>
there's probably a lot more that was going as well that should be<br>
included when looking at the Commercialization aspect of Internet History.<br>
<br>
Note that everything I just mentioned happened outside of the topics<br>
that are most often discussed here as "Internet History" - RFCs, IENs,<br>
IETF, IAB, ISO, NIST. Those were all important, but I think there was<br>
lots of other things going on, like the ones I listed, that also<br>
strongly influenced the growth of the Internet.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that there's quite a lot of material recorded in things<br>
like the RFCs and even academic papers, but very, very little about the<br>
myriad "Othernet" technologies, or about what was going on in the "User"<br>
(i.e., Commercial) business world as it struggled to actually use all of<br>
this stuff. <br>
<br>
Back in the early 90s, Oracle had recruited me as "Internet Architect"<br>
with the rather vague direction to "get us into the Internet<br>
business". I recall one meeting, circa 1991-2 (pre-Web), where I<br>
finally realized that TCP had won. <br>
<br>
We had a "Customer Council" which was composed of senior staff (CIO,<br>
CTO, etc.) of a diverse group of customers. They were all from<br>
non-techology companies, e.g., Finance, Manufacturing, Transportation,<br>
etc., and from different countries and continents. Their common mission<br>
was to figure out how to use IT technology in their business operations.<br>
<br>
One of our meetings focussed on networking. We went around the room,<br>
and everyone briefly described their existing networking. There were<br>
"IBM shops", "DEC shops", and the like, but they all had smatterings of<br>
other stuff, e.g., PC-based LANs of some ilk, etc. They were all<br>
becoming de facto Multinet IT departments. More accurately, they were<br>
struggling to get it all to work.<br>
<br>
We went around the room again, and got everyone to describe their<br>
corporate strategy - their vision of where they wanted to get to.<br>
<br>
I was absolutely blown away by the response. Several dozen large<br>
corporations, in many industries, across many geographies ... every one<br>
of them said their future target was TCP. It might take them years, but<br>
that was the destination.<br>
<br>
I had to ask "Why TCP?"....<br>
<br>
There were a few common themes in the answers:<br>
<br>
- This multi-technology stuff is driving us nuts. <br>
<br>
- TCP works. We can see it running in the Internet (e.g., at Interop). <br>
We have it running in our lab. We can see other people using it<br>
successfully. It's here. We can use it.<br>
<br>
- TCP is under our control. [Bet you thought IETF was in charge...] TCP<br>
is an open de facto "standard", unencumbered by secrecy, patents, or<br>
vendors' business strategies and changing plans. We can buy products<br>
from many vendors, and we could, if we really had to, even build missing<br>
pieces ourselves.<br>
<br>
- TCP is well-supported. In particular, we can hire people, even just<br>
out of college, who already know about TCP and often already have<br>
several years operational experience with it. They "hit the ground<br>
running" in our IT department, saving us lots of time, and money.<br>
<br>
No one brought up anything resembling a technical issue. No "the XYZ<br>
routing protocol is better than the "JKL" one, or anything like that.<br>
<br>
These themes tie back to events in the technology world. For example,<br>
DARPA's choice to make TCP technology "open", and to create free<br>
implementations, coupled with NSF, CSNET, and other decisions to inject<br>
TCP into the academic machinery were likely crucial in creating that<br>
"pipeline" of qualified IT staff.<br>
<br>
Similarly, the technology industry's decision to proliferate competing<br>
technologies, and never coalesce into a standard, put the user<br>
communities in the position of having to deal with Multinets, which were<br>
a world-class arena for vendor finger-pointing. If you think building<br>
an operating a TCP Intranet is challenging, think about a Multinet (been<br>
there, done that...)<br>
<br>
This led to the User community taking the lead, if inadvertently and<br>
reluctantly. E.g., the Web came from a User environment, driven by the<br>
need to share documents and data.<br>
<br>
===================<br>
<br>
There was really a lot that happened outside of the more visible<br>
activities of the technical and standards worlds of IETF et al, much of<br>
which had significant effects on the growth and evolution of the<br>
Internet. I only saw a small part of course, and haven't run across<br>
much else written about the networking experience in the "real world"<br>
back in the 80s/90s and even today. Maybe I really should write down<br>
some more of at least what I remember.....<br>
<br>
/Jack Haverty<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/15/19 1:29 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:<br>
> Commercialization of the equipment and software arose from a different<br>
> thread:<br>
><br>
> 1. IBM, Digital and HP all implemented TCP/IP on their commercial<br>
> operating systems - but it was their Research Groups<br>
> who did that (I encouraged this).<br>
> 2. I also encouraged the UNIX TCP/IP development at 3COM for which<br>
> Metcalfe never forgave me because after<br>
> he implemented that offering, the Berkeley release came out for free<br>
> 3. INTEROP made Internet visible to a much larger, non-academic<br>
> audience, had training sessions and allowed<br>
> a lot of product vendors to demonstration the interoperability of<br>
> their software/hardware - a major sales point <br>
> when you are trying to decide what to buy. <br>
> 4. there were very few implementations of OSI and none that I know of<br>
> were commercially successful<br>
> 5. In 1992, NIST was persuaded to do an analysis of TCP/IP and OSI and<br>
> concluded that it was OK<br>
> for government users to procure TCP/IP despite previous guidance to<br>
> use OSI according to the<br>
> Government OSI Profile (GOSIP). <br>
> 6. MOSAIC hits about 1993 followed by Netscape Communications and its IPO.<br>
> 7. Cisco, Proteon and later, Juniper, produce commercial routers. Sun<br>
> Microsystems produces Work stations and they<br>
> all use TCP/IP.<br>
> 8. Novell tries to use IPX and XNS but just doesn't have the traction. <br>
><br>
_______<br>
internet-history mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" target="_blank">internet-history@postel.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history</a><br>
Contact <a href="mailto:list-owner@postel.org" target="_blank">list-owner@postel.org</a> for assistance.<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">New postal address:<div>Google<br><div>1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor</div><div>Reston, VA 20190</div></div></div></div>