From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon May 1 10:05:52 2006 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 13:05:52 -0400 Subject: [ih] early email standards committees Message-ID: <20060501170552.E5AFD67@aland.bbn.com> Hi folks: RFC 724 refers to a couple of email standards committees: * The "Message Service Committee", which apparently existed in the mid-1970s. * ARPA's "Committee on Computer-Aided Humand Communication (CAHCOM)", which replaced the Message Service Committee in 1977. Anyone know when the Message Service Committee was created and who was on it? Thanks! Craig E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com From jack at 3kitty.org Mon May 1 14:12:56 2006 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 14:12:56 -0700 Subject: [ih] early email standards committees In-Reply-To: <20060501170552.E5AFD67@aland.bbn.com> References: <20060501170552.E5AFD67@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <1146517976.4457.208.camel@pc2800.3kitty.org> Al Vezza was on the Message Services Committee when I wrote RFC713 in early 1976, which references: "... Vezza, Al, "Message Services Committee Minority Report", Jan. 1975 ..." Al was my boss at the time at MIT so as PI he was the Committee rep. I believe that at least part of the motivation for CAHCOM was to broaden the research to think "outside the box" of traditional (for 1975!) email and explore how to use computers to support human communications in a broader sense. That's how we got into some of the more exploratory areas like using the Datacomputer as a long-term searchable repository for messages, documents, etc. I was on CAHCOM along with a bunch of others like Ken Pogran, Don Oestreicher, Austin Henderson, etc. (assuming I'm remembering the right committee...). But I thought it was earlier than 1977 by a year or so, i.e., not long after that "Minority Report" referenced in RFC713. Sadly I can't find a copy of that report or any other such tidbits. /Jack On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 13:05 -0400, Craig Partridge wrote: > Hi folks: > > RFC 724 refers to a couple of email standards committees: > > * The "Message Service Committee", which apparently existed in > the mid-1970s. > > * ARPA's "Committee on Computer-Aided Humand Communication (CAHCOM)", > which replaced the Message Service Committee in 1977. > > Anyone know when the Message Service Committee was created and who > was on it? > > Thanks! > > Craig > > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > From t.moors at unsw.edu.au Mon May 15 18:42:33 2006 From: t.moors at unsw.edu.au (Tim Moors) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:42:33 +1000 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "router" Message-ID: <000401c6788a$005d91f0$355dab95@SOIF> I'm wondering if some of the sages on this mailing list might be able to shed some light on the origins of the term "router", in particular why it was introduced as a term distinct from "(packet) switch" or "gateway"? The earliest reference to "router" that I can find in RFCs is in RFC753 from March 1979, which discusses message (email) routers, e.g. "The Router is responsible for maintaining sufficient topological information to determine where to forward any incoming Message-Bag." Such "application-level" routing is mentioned in several subsequent RFCs. The first reference to routers in the context of the "network layer" appears in the April 1984 "Gateway SIG Meeting Notes" (RFC 898) in which Jon Postel mentions "leaving the normal router kernel function in charge of forwarding datagrams." and provides some history of "The CMU Gateway" which ?became? a "router" in "Oct 83". RFC 1001 also mentions network layer routers, while RFC 1009 from June 1987 seems to be the first to define and discuss technical details of such routers: "A router is a switch that receives data transmission units from input interfaces and, depending on the addresses in those units, routes them to the appropriate output interfaces." "Interface Message Processors (IMPs) are packet-level routers." "a gateway is an IP-level router" Is there, perhaps, a relationship between the use of the term "router" and activity of that juggernaut of routers, Cisco? E.g. the first RFC to mention Cisco is RFC985 from May 1986. Tim Moors http://www.ee.unsw.edu.au/~timm/ University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia From braden at ISI.EDU Tue May 16 14:29:17 2006 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 15, Issue 3 Message-ID: <200605162129.OAA12352@gra.isi.edu> *> I'm wondering if some of the sages on this mailing list might be able *> to shed some light on the origins of the term "router", in particular *> why it was introduced as a term distinct from "(packet) switch" or *> "gateway"? *> Packet switch is easy. The first link layer (layer 2) for the Internet was the ARPAnet, which was built of packet switches. Did not want to overload that term. In the early days, we called them gateways (as in the very first routing protocol, GGP -- Gateway-Gateway Protocol). I don't recall who first started calling IP gateways "routers". But again, "gateway" rapidly became overloaded; the early ARPAnet/Milnet lashup had email gateways. And "router" clearly expressed the essential semantics of packet forwarding in the IP layer. So it was probably natural for the "router" term to take over. . *> The earliest reference to "router" that I can find in RFCs is in *> RFC753 from March 1979, which discusses message (email) routers, *> e.g. "The Router is responsible for maintaining sufficient topological *> information to determine where to forward any incoming Message-Bag." *> Such "application-level" routing is mentioned in several subsequent *> RFCs. *> *> The first reference to routers in the context of the "network layer" *> appears in the April 1984 "Gateway SIG Meeting Notes" (RFC 898) in *> which Jon Postel mentions "leaving the normal router kernel function *> in charge of forwarding datagrams." and provides some history of "The *> CMU Gateway" which ?became? a "router" in "Oct 83". RFC 1001 also *> mentions network layer routers, while RFC 1009 from June 1987 seems to *> be the first to define and discuss technical details of such routers: *> *> "A router is a switch that receives data transmission units from input *> interfaces and, depending on the addresses in those units, routes them *> to the appropriate output interfaces." "Interface Message Processors *> (IMPs) are packet-level routers." "a gateway is an IP-level router" *> Yes, well, I believe that I wrote those words. Still trying to get the semantic space cleanly defined. *> *> Is there, perhaps, a relationship between the use of the term "router" *> and activity of that juggernaut of routers, Cisco? E.g. the first RFC to *> mention Cisco is RFC985 from May 1986. *> I don't recall that Cisco played a part here, but then Cisco was just a tiny startup in those days... Bob Braden *> *> Tim Moors *> http://www.ee.unsw.edu.au/~timm/ *> University of New South Wales *> Sydney, NSW, Australia *> *> *> *> *> ------------------------------ *> *> _______________________________________________ *> internet-history mailing list *> internet-history at postel.org *> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history *> *> *> End of internet-history Digest, Vol 15, Issue 3 *> *********************************************** *> From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue May 16 14:55:47 2006 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:55:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] origins of the term "router" Message-ID: <20060516215547.F1389872E3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: "Tim Moors" > I'm wondering if some of the sages on this mailing list might be able > to shed some light on the origins of the term "router" This is definitely the right place! In particular, I get a share (exactly how large I will let others judge) of the credit (blame?) for explicitly pushing the term "router" as a desirable replacement for "gateway". > in particular why it was introduced as a term distinct from "(packet) > switch" or "gateway"? We never called them "packet switches" much, because the latter is too broad a term: ARPAnet IMP's are packet switches too, but at a different level of abstraction. The term "gateway" is what we originally called them, but with the rise of application-layer "gateways" (principally email) to mediate between all the different flavours of protocol families (remember, this was before TCP/IP killed everything else off), we (well, I) found our use of the term "gateway" to be confusing when trying to explain TCP/IP to outsiders. So I started pushing to replace it with "router". I have no idea, at this distance, where "router" came from, or who coined it, alas. Others may have done the same, not sure at this distance. (There's probably some old IETF or TCP-IP email archive which gives more detail, if you can find it. I seem to recall writing email about it to such lists on a number of occasions.) > The earliest reference to "router" that I can find in RFCs is in RFC753 > from March 1979, which discusses message (email) routers That was an outlier; probably not important. > The first reference to routers in the context of the "network layer" > appears in the April 1984 "Gateway SIG Meeting Notes" (RFC 898) Have you looked in the Internet Meeting notes (in the IEN series, all available online, although only some are in ASCII)? That's probably the best place to look... > RFC 1001 also mentions network layer routers, while RFC 1009 from June > 1987 seems to be the first to define and discuss technical details of > such routers: Well, before that there wasn't really a "what functionality is in a router" document, although they were of course being built. Everyone who was building them was part of the IETF (or predecessor) community, and we just knew which parts of 791, 792, etc, etc, etc needed to be included. > Is there, perhaps, a relationship between the use of the term "router" > and activity of that juggernaut of routers, Cisco? Not that I recall, but the adoption of the term, and the start of Cisco, wer *very* roughly contemporaneous - but I *think* the term switch predated Cisco somewhat. I'd have to check the details to be sure, but the people who did Cisco were not the people who pushed the adoption of the term. Noel From vint at google.com Tue May 16 15:49:49 2006 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:49:49 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "router" In-Reply-To: <000401c6788a$005d91f0$355dab95@SOIF> Message-ID: <028f01c6793b$12351d60$0501000a@corp.google.com> The 1979 reference clearly shows an application layer use of the term. Vinton G Cerf Chief Internet Evangelist Google Regus Suite 384 13800 Coppermine Road Herndon, VA 20171 +1 703 234-1823 +1 703-234-5822 (f) vint at google.com www.google.com -----Original Message----- From: internet-history-bounces at postel.org [mailto:internet-history-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Tim Moors Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:43 PM To: internet-history at postel.org Subject: [ih] origins of the term "router" I'm wondering if some of the sages on this mailing list might be able to shed some light on the origins of the term "router", in particular why it was introduced as a term distinct from "(packet) switch" or "gateway"? The earliest reference to "router" that I can find in RFCs is in RFC753 from March 1979, which discusses message (email) routers, e.g. "The Router is responsible for maintaining sufficient topological information to determine where to forward any incoming Message-Bag." Such "application-level" routing is mentioned in several subsequent RFCs. The first reference to routers in the context of the "network layer" appears in the April 1984 "Gateway SIG Meeting Notes" (RFC 898) in which Jon Postel mentions "leaving the normal router kernel function in charge of forwarding datagrams." and provides some history of "The CMU Gateway" which ?became? a "router" in "Oct 83". RFC 1001 also mentions network layer routers, while RFC 1009 from June 1987 seems to be the first to define and discuss technical details of such routers: "A router is a switch that receives data transmission units from input interfaces and, depending on the addresses in those units, routes them to the appropriate output interfaces." "Interface Message Processors (IMPs) are packet-level routers." "a gateway is an IP-level router" Is there, perhaps, a relationship between the use of the term "router" and activity of that juggernaut of routers, Cisco? E.g. the first RFC to mention Cisco is RFC985 from May 1986. Tim Moors http://www.ee.unsw.edu.au/~timm/ University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia From vint at google.com Tue May 16 15:49:49 2006 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:49:49 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "router" In-Reply-To: <20060516215547.F1389872E3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <028e01c6793b$11b20ab0$0501000a@corp.google.com> There were bridges associated with LANs that would have emerged in the early 1980s - think of Judy Estrin's Bridge Corp by way of example. Gateway was the term Bob and I used in our 1974 paper. Cisco shows up, what, about 1984? I do have the distinct recollection of believing that cisco made first use of the term but I was largely focused on MCI Mail from late 1982-mid-1986 and not paying a lot of attention to Internet during that period. Noel, when did the first Proteon routers show up? I can confirm that we called the IMPs "packet switching" and what they did "packet switching" with regard to the ARPANET. The nodes of the Packet Radio and Packet Satellite network got similar nomenclature. vint Vinton G Cerf Chief Internet Evangelist Google Regus Suite 384 13800 Coppermine Road Herndon, VA 20171 +1 703 234-1823 +1 703-234-5822 (f) vint at google.com www.google.com -----Original Message----- From: internet-history-bounces at postel.org [mailto:internet-history-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 5:56 PM To: internet-history at postel.org Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [ih] origins of the term "router" > From: "Tim Moors" > I'm wondering if some of the sages on this mailing list might be able > to shed some light on the origins of the term "router" This is definitely the right place! In particular, I get a share (exactly how large I will let others judge) of the credit (blame?) for explicitly pushing the term "router" as a desirable replacement for "gateway". > in particular why it was introduced as a term distinct from "(packet) > switch" or "gateway"? We never called them "packet switches" much, because the latter is too broad a term: ARPAnet IMP's are packet switches too, but at a different level of abstraction. The term "gateway" is what we originally called them, but with the rise of application-layer "gateways" (principally email) to mediate between all the different flavours of protocol families (remember, this was before TCP/IP killed everything else off), we (well, I) found our use of the term "gateway" to be confusing when trying to explain TCP/IP to outsiders. So I started pushing to replace it with "router". I have no idea, at this distance, where "router" came from, or who coined it, alas. Others may have done the same, not sure at this distance. (There's probably some old IETF or TCP-IP email archive which gives more detail, if you can find it. I seem to recall writing email about it to such lists on a number of occasions.) > The earliest reference to "router" that I can find in RFCs is in RFC753 > from March 1979, which discusses message (email) routers That was an outlier; probably not important. > The first reference to routers in the context of the "network layer" > appears in the April 1984 "Gateway SIG Meeting Notes" (RFC 898) Have you looked in the Internet Meeting notes (in the IEN series, all available online, although only some are in ASCII)? That's probably the best place to look... > RFC 1001 also mentions network layer routers, while RFC 1009 from June > 1987 seems to be the first to define and discuss technical details of > such routers: Well, before that there wasn't really a "what functionality is in a router" document, although they were of course being built. Everyone who was building them was part of the IETF (or predecessor) community, and we just knew which parts of 791, 792, etc, etc, etc needed to be included. > Is there, perhaps, a relationship between the use of the term "router" > and activity of that juggernaut of routers, Cisco? Not that I recall, but the adoption of the term, and the start of Cisco, wer *very* roughly contemporaneous - but I *think* the term switch predated Cisco somewhat. I'd have to check the details to be sure, but the people who did Cisco were not the people who pushed the adoption of the term. Noel From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue May 16 16:24:34 2006 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:24:34 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "router" In-Reply-To: <028e01c6793b$11b20ab0$0501000a@corp.google.com> References: <028e01c6793b$11b20ab0$0501000a@corp.google.com> Message-ID: The router term definitely showed up after the gateway term. My vague recollection was that it started as a "marketing" term. But it is vague. Was there an attempt to draw a distinction between boxes that converted between different protocols at the same layer and those that had a common protocol but different protocols at a lower layer? Being a relativist, I remember I didn't like having different terms for the same thing just because it was at a different layer! Take care, John At 18:49 -0400 2006/05/16, Vint Cerf wrote: >There were bridges associated with LANs that would have emerged in the early >1980s - think of Judy Estrin's Bridge Corp by way of example. Gateway was >the term Bob and I used in our 1974 paper. Cisco shows up, what, about 1984? >I do have the distinct recollection of believing that cisco made first use >of the term but I was largely focused on MCI Mail from late 1982-mid-1986 >and not paying a lot of attention to Internet during that period. > >Noel, when did the first Proteon routers show up? > > I can confirm that we called the IMPs "packet switching" and what they did >"packet switching" with regard to the ARPANET. The nodes of the Packet Radio >and Packet Satellite network got similar nomenclature. > >vint > > >Vinton G Cerf >Chief Internet Evangelist >Google >Regus Suite 384 >13800 Coppermine Road >Herndon, VA 20171 > >+1 703 234-1823 >+1 703-234-5822 (f) > >vint at google.com >www.google.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: internet-history-bounces at postel.org >[mailto:internet-history-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa >Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 5:56 PM >To: internet-history at postel.org >Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu >Subject: Re: [ih] origins of the term "router" > > > From: "Tim Moors" > > > I'm wondering if some of the sages on this mailing list might be able > > to shed some light on the origins of the term "router" > >This is definitely the right place! > >In particular, I get a share (exactly how large I will let others judge) of >the credit (blame?) for explicitly pushing the term "router" as a desirable >replacement for "gateway". > > > in particular why it was introduced as a term distinct from "(packet) > > switch" or "gateway"? > >We never called them "packet switches" much, because the latter is too broad >a term: ARPAnet IMP's are packet switches too, but at a different level of >abstraction. > >The term "gateway" is what we originally called them, but with the rise of >application-layer "gateways" (principally email) to mediate between all the >different flavours of protocol families (remember, this was before TCP/IP >killed everything else off), we (well, I) found our use of the term >"gateway" >to be confusing when trying to explain TCP/IP to outsiders. So I started >pushing to replace it with "router". I have no idea, at this distance, where >"router" came from, or who coined it, alas. Others may have done the same, >not sure at this distance. > >(There's probably some old IETF or TCP-IP email archive which gives more >detail, if you can find it. I seem to recall writing email about it to such >lists on a number of occasions.) > > > > The earliest reference to "router" that I can find in RFCs is in >RFC753 > > from March 1979, which discusses message (email) routers > >That was an outlier; probably not important. > > > The first reference to routers in the context of the "network layer" > > appears in the April 1984 "Gateway SIG Meeting Notes" (RFC 898) > >Have you looked in the Internet Meeting notes (in the IEN series, all >available online, although only some are in ASCII)? That's probably the best >place to look... > > > RFC 1001 also mentions network layer routers, while RFC 1009 from June > > 1987 seems to be the first to define and discuss technical details of > > such routers: > >Well, before that there wasn't really a "what functionality is in a router" >document, although they were of course being built. Everyone who was >building them was part of the IETF (or predecessor) community, and we just >knew which parts of 791, 792, etc, etc, etc needed to be included. > > > > Is there, perhaps, a relationship between the use of the term "router" > > and activity of that juggernaut of routers, Cisco? > >Not that I recall, but the adoption of the term, and the start of Cisco, wer >*very* roughly contemporaneous - but I *think* the term switch predated >Cisco somewhat. I'd have to check the details to be sure, but the people who >did Cisco were not the people who pushed the adoption of the term. > > Noel From sbrim at cisco.com Wed May 17 04:51:18 2006 From: sbrim at cisco.com (Scott W Brim) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 07:51:18 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "router" In-Reply-To: <20060516215547.F1389872E3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20060516215547.F1389872E3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <446B0E36.4060500@cisco.com> On 05/16/2006 17:55 PM, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote: > > Is there, perhaps, a relationship between the use of the term "router" > > and activity of that juggernaut of routers, Cisco? > > Not that I recall, but the adoption of the term, and the start of Cisco, wer > *very* roughly contemporaneous - but I *think* the term switch predated Cisco > somewhat. I'd have to check the details to be sure, but the people who did > Cisco were not the people who pushed the adoption of the term. I'm sure of that. I remember talking to Len Bosack about "routers" when Proteon existed but Cisco did not yet. swb From jack at 3kitty.org Wed May 17 07:17:32 2006 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 07:17:32 -0700 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "router" In-Reply-To: <000401c6788a$005d91f0$355dab95@SOIF> References: <000401c6788a$005d91f0$355dab95@SOIF> Message-ID: <1147875452.12701.54.camel@pc2800.3kitty.org> My recollection is that the name change occurred for two reasons. Maybe I can help with the "why", although my "when" database has never been very good.... First, in the earliest days of the IP world (late 70s), a "gateway" was the box that connected between two networks, creating what Vint termed a "catenet" (for conCATEnated NETwork). Somebody (is Ginny Strazisar around?) correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those earliest gateways had a very rudimentary algorithm (static tables?) for making the decision on where to send an outgoing datagram. Somewhere around 1980 or so, the gateway project was moved from one group of BBN ("Division 4") to another ("Division 6"). These divisions had names, but of course I can't remember them... Roughly speaking, Division 4 did mostly advanced research, while Division 6 did some similar research, but also was the home of the "IMP Group", where all of the Arpanet evolution and operations occurred. I was the guy in Div 6 who managed the Internet-related contracts. With the "gateway guys" just down the hall (literally) from "the Arpanet guys", the "gateways" started to look more and more like Arpanet IMPs, in terms of internal functionality and architecture. In particular, they evolved features like "fake hosts" (an internal virtual host that would, for example, respond to "ping" datagrams), and "traps". which allowed remote boxes to report problems back to the Operations Center ("traps" folded into SNMP later). This was "technology transfer" at work and we encouraged it by keeping the groups very close in order to get more of the techniques for network operation into the Internet levels. Eric Rosen was one of "the Arpanet guys", and I got him to spend some time on the Internet project to help inject Arpanet-think into the Internet. Eventually we got some things written down in IENs 184, 187-189. It was in this period that the IP boxes became more and more like Arpanet IMPs - i.e., they evolved from "gateways" to "routers" in a technical sense. At some point (again, date lost in history) we realized that "gateways" didn't have to just interconnect between networks. They could be connected directly to each other by wires (leased lines), just like the Arpanet IMPs. A leased line was just a very, very simplistic type of network - only two ports (one at either end), no packet headers at all, etc. I remember giving a presentation, many times, about how the Internet looked a lot like the Arpanet - boxes interconnected by lines, some of which were virtual (paths through other lower-level networks), and some were physical (leased lines). With the addition of the Arpanet-style routing algorithm (SPF, but based on hops rather than delay), the boxes were no longer "gateways". They couldn't be "switches" either, since that term was owned by the IMPs. So they became routers. I don't know who first used that term, but it was pretty consistently used to identify the boxes that over the 80s ringed the Arpanet to handle IP traffic with code from the BBN crew - Mike Brescia, Bob Hinden, Alan Sheltzer, etc. This is probably the root of statements like "CMU node became a router" - I bet that signifies when the new BBN code was installed and Oct 1983 is certainly in the timeframe. We were building and deploying "routers" constantly during those years as Arpa grew the Internet. The second reason for the name change was more business-driven. Computer networks had already existed for quite a few years, and all of the good names were already taken. In particular, the term "gateway" was well known within IBM network communities. It also had the reputation as a technology that was expensive, unmanageable, and unreliable. We "Internet guys" weren't aware of this. So, from the perspective of a business trying to win more customers, "gateways" were not the kind of thing you wanted to have on your list of technologies when you went to try to get another system engineering contract, sell a clone of the Arpanet, etc. I remember one BBN salesman who got booted out of a big auto manufacturer when the CEO heard he was trying to sell them "gateways"; from then on they were called "routers", at least by the BBN crew. I suspect the same thing happened to startups (Cisco was a startup back then). As far as I know, no one every really decided to formally change the name to "router". It wasn't a standards issue, and there wasn't any vote or decision or such. It just happened over time. I saw it happen driven by the two reasons above, and there were probably others as well, especially as the various marketing departments tried to show how their box was different and new, and much more capable than all the others. Hope this helps, /Jack Haverty MIT 1966-1978; BBN 1978-1990; Oracle 1990-1998 On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 11:42 +1000, Tim Moors wrote: > I'm wondering if some of the sages on this mailing list might be able > to shed some light on the origins of the term "router", in particular > why it was introduced as a term distinct from "(packet) switch" or > "gateway"? > > The earliest reference to "router" that I can find in RFCs is in > RFC753 from March 1979, which discusses message (email) routers, > e.g. "The Router is responsible for maintaining sufficient topological > information to determine where to forward any incoming Message-Bag." > Such "application-level" routing is mentioned in several subsequent > RFCs. > > The first reference to routers in the context of the "network layer" > appears in the April 1984 "Gateway SIG Meeting Notes" (RFC 898) in > which Jon Postel mentions "leaving the normal router kernel function > in charge of forwarding datagrams." and provides some history of "The > CMU Gateway" which ?became? a "router" in "Oct 83". RFC 1001 also > mentions network layer routers, while RFC 1009 from June 1987 seems to > be the first to define and discuss technical details of such routers: > > "A router is a switch that receives data transmission units from input > interfaces and, depending on the addresses in those units, routes them > to the appropriate output interfaces." "Interface Message Processors > (IMPs) are packet-level routers." "a gateway is an IP-level router" > > > Is there, perhaps, a relationship between the use of the term "router" > and activity of that juggernaut of routers, Cisco? E.g. the first RFC to > mention Cisco is RFC985 from May 1986. > > > Tim Moors > http://www.ee.unsw.edu.au/~timm/ > University of New South Wales > Sydney, NSW, Australia > > > From braden at ISI.EDU Wed May 17 08:56:33 2006 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 15, Issue 4 Message-ID: <200605171556.IAA12549@gra.isi.edu> *> *> > From: "Tim Moors" *> *> > I'm wondering if some of the sages on this mailing list might be able *> > to shed some light on the origins of the term "router" *> *> This is definitely the right place! *> *> In particular, I get a share (exactly how large I will let others judge) of *> the credit (blame?) for explicitly pushing the term "router" as a desirable *> replacement for "gateway". *> Noel, We blame you for everything else, why not this... ;-) *> *> > The first reference to routers in the context of the "network layer" *> > appears in the April 1984 "Gateway SIG Meeting Notes" (RFC 898) *> *> Have you looked in the Internet Meeting notes (in the IEN series, all *> available online, although only some are in ASCII)? That's probably the *> best place to look... *> Just for fun, I just did a grep in ~in-notes/ien/, and got exactly one hit (among those that are online): IEN178, April 1981, by Carl Sunshine. [8]. Another approach might be to return a special error message to the neighboring router forcing it to choose another entry point to the failed network. This backup-and-try-alternate method has been implemented for call setup in Telenet [19]. Bob Braden