From braden at ISI.EDU Sat Aug 1 01:54:55 2009 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:54:55 -0700 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? Message-ID: <4A7402DF.5020301@isi.edu> Sandy Murphy just asked me "I was wondering if you knew of a map of the Arpanet somewhere on-line? Something with the old figures representing the imps and the imp names, etc." Does anyone know of a collection of ARPAnet maps? I am sure I have seen one sometime. If not, should we try to collect all the (readable and undamaged) images of ARPAnet maps? Bob Braden From vint at google.com Sat Aug 1 03:27:00 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 06:27:00 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? In-Reply-To: <4A7402DF.5020301@isi.edu> References: <4A7402DF.5020301@isi.edu> Message-ID: <6F981C13-C7C4-49AF-9C6A-896429DDE599@google.com> a google search of "arpanet" with images will turn up a number of them. alex mckenzie used to have a bunch I think. v On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:54 AM, Bob Braden wrote: > > Sandy Murphy just asked me "I was wondering if you knew of a map of > the Arpanet somewhere on-line? Something with the old figures > representing the imps and the imp names, etc." > > Does anyone know of a collection of ARPAnet maps? I am sure I have > seen one sometime. If not, should we try to collect all the > (readable and undamaged) images of ARPAnet maps? > > Bob Braden > > From William.Plummer at alum.mit.edu Sat Aug 1 05:38:23 2009 From: William.Plummer at alum.mit.edu (William Plummer) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 08:38:23 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? In-Reply-To: <6F981C13-C7C4-49AF-9C6A-896429DDE599@google.com> Message-ID: I heard Larry Roberts tell an audience in about 1975 that the ARPANet had grown to the point he could no longer make a meaningful map of it. __________________________ William W. "Bill" Plummer William.Plummer at alum.mit.edu -----Original Message----- From: internet-history-bounces at postel.org [mailto:internet-history-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Vint Cerf Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 6:27 AM To: Bob Braden Cc: internet-history at postel.org; sandy at sparta.com Subject: Re: [ih] ARPAnet maps? a google search of "arpanet" with images will turn up a number of them. alex mckenzie used to have a bunch I think. v On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:54 AM, Bob Braden wrote: > > Sandy Murphy just asked me "I was wondering if you knew of a map of > the Arpanet somewhere on-line? Something with the old figures > representing the imps and the imp names, etc." > > Does anyone know of a collection of ARPAnet maps? I am sure I have > seen one sometime. If not, should we try to collect all the > (readable and undamaged) images of ARPAnet maps? > > Bob Braden > > From lpress at csudh.edu Sat Aug 1 05:51:13 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 05:51:13 -0700 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? In-Reply-To: <4A7402DF.5020301@isi.edu> References: <4A7402DF.5020301@isi.edu> Message-ID: <4A743A41.4070902@csudh.edu> Bob Braden wrote: > Does anyone know of a collection of ARPAnet maps? Years ago, I posted some here: http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/history/arpamaps/ Martin Dodge also posted some at: http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeography/atlas/historical.html > If not, should we try to collect all the (readable and > undamaged) images of ARPAnet maps? That would be a good idea too. I scanned the images from: Heart, F., McKenzie, A., McQuillian, J., and Walden, D., ARPANET Completion Report, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Burlington, MA, January 4, 1978. The entire document and ones like it should also be online. There are all sorts of old papers and videos that I'd like to see online. Larry Press From vint at google.com Sat Aug 1 05:58:08 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 08:58:08 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1A674F25-8593-4428-8532-EF2E39850C22@google.com> that is.... an odd statement On Aug 1, 2009, at 8:38 AM, William Plummer wrote: > I heard Larry Roberts tell an audience in about 1975 that the > ARPANet had > grown to the point he could no longer make a meaningful map of it. > > __________________________ > William W. "Bill" Plummer > William.Plummer at alum.mit.edu > > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-history-bounces at postel.org > [mailto:internet-history-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Vint Cerf > Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 6:27 AM > To: Bob Braden > Cc: internet-history at postel.org; sandy at sparta.com > Subject: Re: [ih] ARPAnet maps? > > a google search of "arpanet" with images will turn up a number of > them. > alex mckenzie used to have a bunch I think. > > v > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:54 AM, Bob Braden wrote: > >> >> Sandy Murphy just asked me "I was wondering if you knew of a map of >> the Arpanet somewhere on-line? Something with the old figures >> representing the imps and the imp names, etc." >> >> Does anyone know of a collection of ARPAnet maps? I am sure I have >> seen one sometime. If not, should we try to collect all the >> (readable and undamaged) images of ARPAnet maps? >> >> Bob Braden >> >> > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sat Aug 1 06:43:37 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? Message-ID: <20090801134337.B3ED16BE552@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Bob Braden > we try to collect all the (readable and undamaged) images of ARPAnet > maps? Ditto for early Internet maps. I have a wonderful fairly early one from 1982 (by Jon Postel) that's notable for having only Class A network numbers on it (that one's up on Wikipedia). It would be nice to collect all similar very early ones (since those exist in probably very limited numbers, in physical form). > From: "William Plummer" > I heard Larry Roberts tell an audience in about 1975 that the ARPANet > had grown to the point he could no longer make a meaningful map of it. Maybe he meant 'from memory'? BBN certainly produced nice maps all the way through its lifetime. Now, the Internet, that's something it's now hard to produce a meaningful map of! :-) Noel From jeanjour at comcast.net Sat Aug 1 08:34:57 2009 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:34:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? In-Reply-To: <20090801134337.B3ED16BE552@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20090801134337.B3ED16BE552@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: No, guys. ;-) The ones you want are the ones that were produced by a program at NMC. Does anyone remember what the well-known socket number at SEX was that one connected to to get a *current* ARPANet map indicating what hosts were up and down? I think it went away when the map would no longer fit on a single piece of paper or not long after it had to go to a second page. These others are just vague artist's renderings! ;-) Take care, John At 9:43 -0400 2009/08/01, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Bob Braden > > > we try to collect all the (readable and undamaged) images of ARPAnet > > maps? > >Ditto for early Internet maps. I have a wonderful fairly early one from 1982 >(by Jon Postel) that's notable for having only Class A network numbers on it >(that one's up on Wikipedia). It would be nice to collect all similar very >early ones (since those exist in probably very limited numbers, in physical >form). > > > From: "William Plummer" > > > I heard Larry Roberts tell an audience in about 1975 that the ARPANet > > had grown to the point he could no longer make a meaningful map of it. > >Maybe he meant 'from memory'? BBN certainly produced nice maps all the way >through its lifetime. > >Now, the Internet, that's something it's now hard to produce a meaningful map >of! :-) > > Noel From vint at google.com Sat Aug 1 09:31:09 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:31:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? In-Reply-To: References: <20090801134337.B3ED16BE552@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: john, boy I sure don't remember that. charley, steve, do you? v On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:34 AM, John Day wrote: > No, guys. ;-) > > The ones you want are the ones that were produced by a program at > NMC. Does anyone remember what the well-known socket number at SEX > was that one connected to to get a *current* ARPANet map indicating > what hosts were up and down? > > I think it went away when the map would no longer fit on a single > piece of paper or not long after it had to go to a second page. > > These others are just vague artist's renderings! ;-) > > Take care, > John > > At 9:43 -0400 2009/08/01, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> > From: Bob Braden >> >> > we try to collect all the (readable and undamaged) images of >> ARPAnet >> > maps? >> >> Ditto for early Internet maps. I have a wonderful fairly early one >> from 1982 >> (by Jon Postel) that's notable for having only Class A network >> numbers on it >> (that one's up on Wikipedia). It would be nice to collect all >> similar very >> early ones (since those exist in probably very limited numbers, in >> physical >> form). >> >> > From: "William Plummer" >> >> > I heard Larry Roberts tell an audience in about 1975 that the >> ARPANet >> > had grown to the point he could no longer make a meaningful >> map of it. >> >> Maybe he meant 'from memory'? BBN certainly produced nice maps all >> the way >> through its lifetime. >> >> Now, the Internet, that's something it's now hard to produce a >> meaningful map >> of! :-) >> >> Noel > From jeanjour at comcast.net Sat Aug 1 14:29:15 2009 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:29:15 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? In-Reply-To: References: <20090801134337.B3ED16BE552@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <2A9415C1-974F-4B29-942E-3D0DC97E19C5@shinkuro.com> Message-ID: Yes, there was. As I said, I can't remember the number or when it disappeared. (It was pretty early. You can't get many ASCII character boxes on a single sheet of paper.) In fact, I even have a vague recollection of it being sufficiently popular that people were asked not to over use it. >I don't remember if we had a map socket. We did have a survey socket >that gave you status on socket 243. If I recall correctly, Mark >Kampe had something to do with that. > >-- charley > > >From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve at shinkuro.com] >Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 9:37 AM >To: Vint Cerf >Cc: Steve Crocker; John Day; Charles Kline; Noel Chiappa; >internet-history at postel.org >Subject: Re: [ih] ARPAnet maps? > >Alex McKenzie would be the guy to check with. > >Steve > >On Aug 1, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > >>john, >> >>boy I sure don't remember that. >> >>charley, steve, do you? >> >>v >> >>On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:34 AM, John Day wrote: >> >>>No, guys. ;-) >>> >>> >>>The ones you want are the ones that were produced by a program at >>>NMC. Does anyone remember what the well-known socket number at >>>SEX was that one connected to to get a *current* ARPANet map >>>indicating what hosts were up and down? >>> >>> >>>I think it went away when the map would no longer fit on a single >>>piece of paper or not long after it had to go to a second page. >>> >>> >>>These others are just vague artist's renderings! ;-) >>> >>> >>>Take care, >>> >>>John >>> >>> >>>At 9:43 -0400 2009/08/01, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> >>>> > From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU> >>>> >>>> >>>> > we try to collect all the (readable and undamaged) images of ARPAnet >>>> >>>> > maps? >>>> >>>> >>>>Ditto for early Internet maps. I have a wonderful fairly early >>>>one from 1982 >>>> >>>>(by Jon Postel) that's notable for having only Class A network >>>>numbers on it >>>> >>>>(that one's up on Wikipedia). It would be nice to collect all similar very >>>> >>>>early ones (since those exist in probably very limited numbers, in physical >>>> >>>>form). >>>> >>>> >>>> > From: "William Plummer" >>>><William.Plummer at alum.mit.edu> >>>> >>>> >>>> > I heard Larry Roberts tell an audience in about 1975 that the ARPANet >>>> >>>> > had grown to the point he could no longer make a meaningful map of it. >>>> >>>> >>>>Maybe he meant 'from memory'? BBN certainly produced nice maps all the way >>>> >>>>through its lifetime. >>>> >>>> >>>>Now, the Internet, that's something it's now hard to produce a >>>>meaningful map >>>> >>>>of! :-) >>>> >>>> >>>>Noel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony.li at tony.li Sat Aug 1 20:59:12 2009 From: tony.li at tony.li (Tony Li) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 05:59:12 +0200 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? In-Reply-To: <20090801134337.B3ED16BE552@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20090801134337.B3ED16BE552@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A750F10.7070401@tony.li> Noel Chiappa wrote: > Now, the Internet, that's something it's now hard to produce a meaningful map > of! :-) Actually, I'm quite partial to the one's that KC has been doing. Admittedly, they are more art work than scientifically insightful, but I find them inspirational from the 'what have we wrought' viewpoint. Tony From cos at aaaaa.org Sat Aug 1 21:15:51 2009 From: cos at aaaaa.org (Ofer Inbar) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 00:15:51 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? In-Reply-To: <4A743A41.4070902@csudh.edu> References: <4A7402DF.5020301@isi.edu> <4A743A41.4070902@csudh.edu> Message-ID: <20090802041551.GA2005@mip.aaaaa.org> Larry Press wrote: > Bob Braden wrote: > > >Does anyone know of a collection of ARPAnet maps? > > Years ago, I posted some here: > > http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/history/arpamaps/ I posted this on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/geek/comments/96n9a/very_early_maps_of_the_arpanet/ ... and one of the readers made an animated GIF of it: http://imgur.com/G90Q0.gif -- Cos From lpress at csudh.edu Sun Aug 2 09:42:06 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 09:42:06 -0700 Subject: [ih] Collecting old movies, videos and papers In-Reply-To: <4A74CF70.2000304@sun.com> References: <4A74CF70.2000304@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A75C1DE.8060809@csudh.edu> > I hope that USC/ISI's POSTEL center will start a collection of old > movies/videos and make > them available online (say by using youTube). ACM has historically important videos from old SIGCHI and SIGRAPH conferences. I believe there were also videos from their History of Programming Languages conference. In addition to videos, I'd like to see original papers and reports like the ARPAnet Completion Report and papers like those listed as references in these old articles: http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/articles/hist.htm http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/articles/govt.htm > (also known as voice over IP) work. This video was shot in January > 1978, which is over THIRTY > years ago. Cool video -- I've added it to my VOIP teaching notes and a collection of AV teaching material at: http://isav.pbworks.com/. Larry From craig at aland.bbn.com Sun Aug 2 11:46:40 2009 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:46:40 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? Message-ID: <20090802184640.A458E28E137@aland.bbn.com> I collected a bunch of them at BBN about the time the ARPANET was turned off and we published them in CCR but I cannot find them in the on-line version (perhaps I'm searching in the wrong place). I then donated the originals to the Computer Museum. Sad story -- I went hunting for maps a few weeks after a new secretary had thrown away a 20+ year complete collection thinking they were no longer needed. They were part of BBN's reports to DARPA and DISA. So somewhere in the National Archives, there's a complete set of maps from 1969 until ARPANET was turned off but the non-Govt copies, except those I collected, are largely lost. Thanks! Craig > > Sandy Murphy just asked me "I was wondering if you knew of a map of the > Arpanet somewhere on-line? Something with the old figures representing > the imps and the imp names, etc." > > Does anyone know of a collection of ARPAnet maps? I am sure I have seen > one sometime. If not, should we try to collect all the (readable and > undamaged) images of ARPAnet maps? > > Bob Braden > ******************** Craig Partridge Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com Phone: +1 517 324 3425 From craig at aland.bbn.com Sun Aug 2 13:13:36 2009 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:13:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPAnet maps? Message-ID: <20090802201336.9F5D528E137@aland.bbn.com> > Now, the Internet, that's something it's now hard to produce a meaningful map > of! :-) Remember that Mike Brescia used to do maps until around 1992 or so -- they appeared in the IETF reports. BBN actually made some color versions of Mike's maps for me as 35mm slides. I still have the slides. I've never found a good way to get them on-line. Thanks! Craig From lpress at csudh.edu Tue Aug 4 10:01:41 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:01:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] Collecting old movies, videos and papers In-Reply-To: <4A776F46.6050206@sun.com> References: <4A74CF70.2000304@sun.com> <4A75C1DE.8060809@csudh.edu> <4A776F46.6050206@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A786975.80604@csudh.edu> Danny Cohen wrote: > Larry, > > I'm glad that such collections exist. > > What is needed. IMHO, is to advertise them > and to provide elementary access tools (Search, etc). > > I hope that the computerhistory museum, Postel.org, ACM,... > will perform this task ... Google, Cisco, Microhoo, ... What could the folks on this list do to bring that about? What sort of funds or in-kind support would be needed? Larry From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Wed Aug 5 15:10:04 2009 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:10:04 +0200 Subject: [ih] That Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1 Message-ID: <4A7A033C.9040702@cs.tu-berlin.de> Dear all, I was wondering if anyone had a pointer to or some bibliographic data on Crocker's "Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1". Walden refers to it in RFC 65 (and so do RFCs 93 and 102), but I cannot find it anywhere online. Both RFC 33 and 54 look like good candidates but from the page references in RFC 65 they don't quite look like it. Thanks for your clarifications. Matthias -- Matthias B?rwolff www.b?rwolff.de From vint at google.com Wed Aug 5 18:47:08 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:47:08 -0400 Subject: [ih] That Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1 In-Reply-To: <4A7A033C.9040702@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4A7A033C.9040702@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <961E9CA5-BAF8-4748-81A7-519329CB609F@google.com> www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1.html On Aug 5, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > Dear all, > > I was wondering if anyone had a pointer to or some bibliographic > data on > Crocker's "Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1". Walden refers to it in > RFC 65 (and so do RFCs 93 and 102), but I cannot find it anywhere > online. Both RFC 33 and 54 look like good candidates but from the page > references in RFC 65 they don't quite look like it. Thanks for your > clarifications. > > Matthias > > -- > Matthias B?rwolff > www.b?rwolff.de > From randy at psg.com Thu Aug 6 04:03:47 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:03:47 -0700 Subject: [ih] That Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1 In-Reply-To: <4A7A033C.9040702@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4A7A033C.9040702@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1.txt From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Fri Aug 7 02:36:43 2009 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:36:43 +0200 Subject: [ih] That Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4A7A033C.9040702@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4A7BF5AB.6070800@cs.tu-berlin.de> Thanks for the hint. But actually I was under strong impression that RFC 1 was just that: a request for comments with more questions and problem statements than bold proposals; and the first go at really specifying a generic host-host protocol happened some time in 1970 rather than early 1969 (when the BBN 1822 report was not even out yet). I took it that the references and discussion in RFC 65 are about this document (which is therein referred to as Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1; and this term is referred to in various other accounts at the time, too, so I was just curious as to what exactly that document was; I frankly doubt it's RFC 1). (I may go and ask Dave Walden or Steve Crocker directly on this.) Randy Bush wrote: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1.txt > -- Matthias B?rwolff www.b?rwolff.de From vint at google.com Fri Aug 7 04:06:03 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 07:06:03 -0400 Subject: [ih] That Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1 In-Reply-To: <4A7BF5AB.6070800@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4A7A033C.9040702@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4A7BF5AB.6070800@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: RFC 1 was written to establish the series. We thrashed around with a number of ideas in the late 1969 and early 1970 period. NIL, DEL, and eventually the H-H protocol. Steve Crocker led that effort and is surely the expert on events of the day. v On Aug 7, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > Thanks for the hint. But actually I was under strong impression that > RFC > 1 was just that: a request for comments with more questions and > problem > statements than bold proposals; and the first go at really > specifying a > generic host-host protocol happened some time in 1970 rather than > early > 1969 (when the BBN 1822 report was not even out yet). I took it that > the > references and discussion in RFC 65 are about this document (which is > therein referred to as Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1; and this > term > is referred to in various other accounts at the time, too, so I was > just > curious as to what exactly that document was; I frankly doubt it's RFC > 1). (I may go and ask Dave Walden or Steve Crocker directly on this.) > > Randy Bush wrote: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1.txt >> > > -- > Matthias B?rwolff > www.b?rwolff.de > From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Aug 9 13:08:38 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:08:38 -0700 Subject: [ih] ISOC Postel Award to CSNet Message-ID: <4A7F2CC6.80800@dcrocker.net> Folks, Primarily since it entailed some historical review I found interesting, I thought I thought folks might be interested in tidbits about this year's Postel Award to CSNet: CSNet included a few stodgy names, familiar to the list. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Wed Aug 12 08:03:05 2009 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:03:05 +0200 Subject: [ih] Enforecment of NSFNET's Acceptable Use Policy Message-ID: <4A82D9A9.50003@cs.tu-berlin.de> Dear all, I was wondering if anyone knows about or has pointers to sources on actual cases of violations of NSFNET's Acceptable Use Policy and repercussions of such cases. The final report is silent on this specific point. - Has there ever been a case where someone (some network) had its access to NSFNET's backbone removed (or was at least told off or fined in any way)? - How did NSF monitor the use of their backbone? - Was there any effect of the AUP other than people "feeling" constrained by it, and not blatantly advertising things in a commercial fashion? The only statement I found on this comes from an obscure source (netdictionary.com/a.html) saying "its [NSFnet's AUP's] limitations on commercial activity were so widely ignored that it was finally abandoned in 1994". Thanks for your help. Matthias -- Matthias B?rwolff www.b?rwolff.de From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 13 12:08:16 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:08:16 +0100 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> Hello all, This is my first posting to this list. It's a question about the Bell 103 modem in 1962 and Carterfone If AT&T sold modems commercially since 1962 (the 103 modem), why was the carterfone decision so important? I understand that the introduction of the Hayes modem prompted Christensen to write XMODEM and set the scene for the BBSs - but does anybody recall why these things could not have happened with the Bell 103 from1962 on? Was the 103 just intended for subscribers of expensive leased lines such as corporations or universities? Best wishes to you all, Johnny -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ From vint at google.com Thu Aug 13 12:49:48 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:49:48 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I thought the bell modems were pretty expensive for residential users? v On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > Hello all, > > This is my first posting to this list. It's a question about the Bell > 103 modem in 1962 and Carterfone > > If AT&T sold modems commercially since 1962 (the 103 modem), why was > the carterfone decision so important? I understand that the > introduction of the Hayes modem prompted Christensen to write XMODEM > and set the scene for the BBSs - but does anybody recall why these > things could not have happened with the Bell 103 from1962 on? Was the > 103 just intended for subscribers of expensive leased lines such as > corporations or universities? > > Best wishes to you all, > > Johnny > > > -- > My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net- > history-2010/ From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Aug 13 12:51:38 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:51:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? Message-ID: <20090813195138.21F036BE556@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Johnny RYAN > This is my first posting to this list. Welcome! > the Bell 103 modem in 1962 and Carterfone > If AT&T sold modems commercially since 1962 (the 103 modem), why was > the carterfone decision so important? > ... does anybody recall why these things could not have happened with > the Bell 103 from 1962 on? Was the 103 just intended for subscribers of > expensive leased lines such as corporations or universities? I think you're conflating two different things. Carterfone was important because it allowed other people to build stuff to connect up to the network (originally only acoustically, like the old acoustic-coupler modems), _but_ I don't think it has any relationship to the thing you're asking about (which I take to be the generic 'computer communication revolution'). The answer to your question about 'why no computer communication revolution in the 60s' is, I am pretty sure, in the technology of the era (both hardware and software). Remember that until things like the PDP-11 (1970 - although I suppose the PDP-8, from 1965 on, also would count) there weren't a lot of small computers to connect together. Personal computers were significantly later than that - the Altair was 1975, and the Apple II (the first really plausible personal PC) was 1977. Ditto for software - the first time-sharing OS's were in the early 1960's, but there were only a very few early on, and they ran on a very few large mainframe systems. It wasn't until circa 1970 that that operational mode became relatively common. Even the simplest of computer communication stuff (remote dumb terminal dialed into a time-sharing machine) thus had to wait for that. Saying that, though, reminds me that there was a small amount of stuff significantly earlier - you might want to look into the SABRE reservations system, which dates back to 1957 or so (although the idea is a couple of years older), for remote access in a more specialized system. That's just my opinion, though - others may have a different take. Noel From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 13 13:17:41 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:17:41 +0100 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <20090813195138.21F036BE556@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20090813195138.21F036BE556@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908131317h7fb4d2dbmd3f87f9d5e050d3d@mail.gmail.com> Dear Noel (good point Vint - thanks) Yes, as you say, the Altair and the rest of the personal computers had not come until the mid 70s. What I'm curious about is a more abstract point - on the modem side rather than the computer side, why is Carterfone decision such a big deal if modems were already available for use on the normal phone line? Was it, as Vint says, price? Johnny -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > ? ?> From: Johnny RYAN > > ? ?> This is my first posting to this list. > > Welcome! > > ? ?> the Bell 103 modem in 1962 and Carterfone > ? ?> If AT&T sold modems commercially since 1962 (the 103 modem), why was > ? ?> the carterfone decision so important? > ? ?> ... does anybody recall why these things could not have happened with > ? ?> the Bell 103 from 1962 on? Was the 103 just intended for subscribers of > ? ?> expensive leased lines such as corporations or universities? > > I think you're conflating two different things. > > Carterfone was important because it allowed other people to build stuff to > connect up to the network (originally only acoustically, like the old > acoustic-coupler modems), _but_ I don't think it has any relationship to the > thing you're asking about (which I take to be the generic 'computer > communication revolution'). > > > The answer to your question about 'why no computer communication revolution > in the 60s' is, I am pretty sure, in the technology of the era (both hardware > and software). > > Remember that until things like the PDP-11 (1970 - although I suppose the > PDP-8, from 1965 on, also would count) there weren't a lot of small computers > to connect together. Personal computers were significantly later than that - > the Altair was 1975, and the Apple II (the first really plausible personal > PC) was 1977. > > Ditto for software - the first time-sharing OS's were in the early 1960's, > but there were only a very few early on, and they ran on a very few large > mainframe systems. It wasn't until circa 1970 that that operational mode > became relatively common. Even the simplest of computer communication stuff > (remote dumb terminal dialed into a time-sharing machine) thus had to wait > for that. > > Saying that, though, reminds me that there was a small amount of stuff > significantly earlier - you might want to look into the SABRE reservations > system, which dates back to 1957 or so (although the idea is a couple of > years older), for remote access in a more specialized system. > > > That's just my opinion, though - others may have a different take. > > ? ? ? ?Noel > From lpress at csudh.edu Thu Aug 13 14:20:36 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:20:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <20090813195138.21F036BE556@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20090813195138.21F036BE556@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A8483A4.4050005@csudh.edu> > Carterfone was important because it allowed other people to build stuff to > connect up to the network (originally only acoustically, like the old > acoustic-coupler modems) In 1956, before the Carterfone, Mr. Carter won a court case that overruled an FCC ban on his Hush-a-Phone, which snapped on to a telephone and made it possible for the user to speak in a whisper. http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomHistory/ The Hush-a-Phone only muted the human voice -- hard to see why the FCC would have banned it. > Saying that, though, reminds me that there was a small amount of stuff > significantly earlier - you might want to look into the SABRE reservations > system, which dates back to 1957 or so (although the idea is a couple of > years older), for remote access in a more specialized system. Also check out Whirlwind from MIT which led to the SAGE air-defense network and trained a significant number of programmers -- a short description and a couple of references at: http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/articles/govt.htm Tons more via Google. > That's just my opinion, though - others may have a different take. Sounds right on to me. Larry From chipps at chipps.com Thu Aug 13 14:26:26 2009 From: chipps at chipps.com (Kenneth M. Chipps Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:26:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908131317h7fb4d2dbmd3f87f9d5e050d3d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090813195138.21F036BE556@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <9dd8c4d80908131317h7fb4d2dbmd3f87f9d5e050d3d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A848502.6000708@chipps.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sherry.griddine at inetinteractive.com Thu Aug 13 14:27:43 2009 From: sherry.griddine at inetinteractive.com (Sherry Griddine) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:27:43 -0500 Subject: [ih] Unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908131317h7fb4d2dbmd3f87f9d5e050d3d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200908132127.n7DLRjIW029031@boreas.isi.edu> Please unsubscribe - thank you. Sherry Griddine -----Original Message----- From: internet-history-bounces at postel.org [mailto:internet-history-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Johnny RYAN Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:18 PM To: Noel Chiappa Cc: internet-history at postel.org Subject: Re: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103,and why didnt BBSs start earlier? Dear Noel (good point Vint - thanks) Yes, as you say, the Altair and the rest of the personal computers had not come until the mid 70s. What I'm curious about is a more abstract point - on the modem side rather than the computer side, why is Carterfone decision such a big deal if modems were already available for use on the normal phone line? Was it, as Vint says, price? Johnny -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > ? ?> From: Johnny RYAN > > ? ?> This is my first posting to this list. > > Welcome! > > ? ?> the Bell 103 modem in 1962 and Carterfone > ? ?> If AT&T sold modems commercially since 1962 (the 103 modem), why was > ? ?> the carterfone decision so important? > ? ?> ... does anybody recall why these things could not have happened with > ? ?> the Bell 103 from 1962 on? Was the 103 just intended for subscribers of > ? ?> expensive leased lines such as corporations or universities? > > I think you're conflating two different things. > > Carterfone was important because it allowed other people to build stuff to > connect up to the network (originally only acoustically, like the old > acoustic-coupler modems), _but_ I don't think it has any relationship to the > thing you're asking about (which I take to be the generic 'computer > communication revolution'). > > > The answer to your question about 'why no computer communication revolution > in the 60s' is, I am pretty sure, in the technology of the era (both hardware > and software). > > Remember that until things like the PDP-11 (1970 - although I suppose the > PDP-8, from 1965 on, also would count) there weren't a lot of small computers > to connect together. Personal computers were significantly later than that - > the Altair was 1975, and the Apple II (the first really plausible personal > PC) was 1977. > > Ditto for software - the first time-sharing OS's were in the early 1960's, > but there were only a very few early on, and they ran on a very few large > mainframe systems. It wasn't until circa 1970 that that operational mode > became relatively common. Even the simplest of computer communication stuff > (remote dumb terminal dialed into a time-sharing machine) thus had to wait > for that. > > Saying that, though, reminds me that there was a small amount of stuff > significantly earlier - you might want to look into the SABRE reservations > system, which dates back to 1957 or so (although the idea is a couple of > years older), for remote access in a more specialized system. > > > That's just my opinion, though - others may have a different take. > > ? ? ? ?Noel > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Aug 13 14:36:27 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? Message-ID: <20090813213627.CE1D26BE55E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Johnny RYAN > What I'm curious about is a more abstract point - on the modem side > rather than the computer side, why is Carterfone decision such a big > deal if modems were already available for use on the normal phone line? > Was it, as Vint says, price? Two things: price, and technological innovation. As long as Western Electric was the only company allowed to build things to connect up to the PSTN, technological evolution was fairly glacial in pace. (If you've never used a 300bps modem, you _cannot_ imagine how big a deal the higher speeds, starting with 1200 bps, are! :-) Same thing happened with long-distance: once MCI et al were allowed into the game, it wasn't just price that fell like a rock, we got other innovations too (e.g. high-speed digital services). Noel From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 13 14:46:53 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:46:53 +0100 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <20090813213627.CE1D26BE55E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20090813213627.CE1D26BE55E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908131446l270749bevee3a7883dea1ff51@mail.gmail.com> Noel, So if I understand you correctly, it was competition that was the key - the Carterfone decision, by allowing other devices from various manufacturers, enabled competition. Very helpful - thank you! Johnny -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > ? ?> From: Johnny RYAN > > ? ?> What I'm curious about is a more abstract point - on the modem side > ? ?> rather than the computer side, why is Carterfone decision such a big > ? ?> deal if modems were already available for use on the normal phone line? > ? ?> Was it, as Vint says, price? > > Two things: price, and technological innovation. > > As long as Western Electric was the only company allowed to build things to > connect up to the PSTN, technological evolution was fairly glacial in pace. > > (If you've never used a 300bps modem, you _cannot_ imagine how big a deal the > higher speeds, starting with 1200 bps, are! :-) > > Same thing happened with long-distance: once MCI et al were allowed into the > game, it wasn't just price that fell like a rock, we got other innovations > too (e.g. high-speed digital services). > > ? ? ? ?Noel > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Aug 13 14:51:26 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? Message-ID: <20090813215126.C76E56BE55E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Larry Press > a court case that overruled an FCC ban on his Hush-a-Phone > ... > hard to see why the FCC would have banned it. Umm, because they were a rubber stamp for the Bell System? :-) > Also check out Whirlwind from MIT which led to the SAGE air-defense > network and trained a significant number of programmers Yeah, I'd passed over that, but it too had a significant communication component. (In fact, IIRC, some of the first modems were constructed for a predecessor system that sent radar data from somewhere to Cambridge.) It did a _whole bunch_ of things first (too long a list to list here, and from memory). It was the first significant real-time system; first replicated system for reliability; first user interface via display and pointing device (light pen), among many other things. There are a couple of good books about it: John F. Jacobs, "The SAGE Air Defense System: A Personal History", MITRE, Bedford, 1986 Kent C. Redmond, Thomas M. Smith, "Project Whirlwind: The History of a Pioneer Computer", Digital, Bedford, 1980 Kent C. Redmond, Thomas M. Smith, "From Whirlwind to MITRE: The R&D Story of the SAGE Air Defense Computer", M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, 2000 and others that cover it as part of their coverage of other stuff: Robert Buderi, "The Invention That Changed the World: How a Small Group of Radar Pioneers Won the Second World War and Launched a Technical Revolution", Simon and Schuster, Riverside, 1998 is one I recall off the top of my head (that's a truly fabulous book, one everyone with an interest in the history of technology should have). And there's a complete issue of the 'IEEE Annals of the History of Computing' about it: Volume 5, Number 4. Noel From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Aug 13 15:12:40 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? Message-ID: <20090813221240.D77966BE55E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Johnny RYAN > if I understand you correctly, it was competition that was the key - > the Carterfone decision, by allowing other devices from various > manufacturers, enabled competition. Exactly. One thing I should 'walk balk' (as the current politics-speak has it) a bit: clearly the tech innovation and lower costs that Carterphone brought in helped and accelerated the computer communication revolution later on, so it did have _some_ impact on that revolution. But the reason nothing much happened before the early 70s was IMO not so much cost/technology on the communication end (as you point out, the Bell modem was available, albeit at higher cost - and some systems, like SAGE and SABRE, made use of the available primitive modems) as simply that there wasn't the non-communications computer infrastructure there to use it - that was my earlier point. It's definitely interesting the way the two areas changed in a roughly synchronized way - the communications stuff on one side, and the computers on the other. There probably is some sort of loose synergistic connection there. Noel From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Thu Aug 13 15:32:07 2009 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:32:07 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <20090813213627.CE1D26BE55E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20090813213627.CE1D26BE55E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A845C27.6028.4DAC4838@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 13 Aug 2009 at 17:36, Noel Chiappa wrote: > (If you've never used a 300bps modem, you _cannot_ imagine how big a deal the > higher speeds, starting with 1200 bps, are! :-) Actually, you're one generation late: I'd say "If you've never used a 110baud modem, you can't imagine how neat my 300baud TI silent 700 was...:o)" Boy was I happen to give my Model 33 TTY back to bbn...:o) /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From randy at psg.com Thu Aug 13 15:48:06 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:48:06 +0900 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > does anybody recall why these things could not have happened with the > Bell 103 from1962 on? a dual serial port on an ibm lameframe, and there were only lameframes in '62, was the size of a fridge and cost a mint. randy From jeanjour at comcast.net Thu Aug 13 17:15:38 2009 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:15:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <4A845C27.6028.4DAC4838@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <20090813213627.CE1D26BE55E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4A845C27.6028.4DAC4838@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: With a nod to David Lodge's Small World, I think we have severe case of here of the effect of T.S. Eliot on Shakespeare. At 18:32 -0400 2009/08/13, Bernie Cosell wrote: >On 13 Aug 2009 at 17:36, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> (If you've never used a 300bps modem, you _cannot_ imagine how big >>a deal the >> higher speeds, starting with 1200 bps, are! :-) > >Actually, you're one generation late: I'd say "If you've never used a >110baud modem, you can't imagine how neat my 300baud TI silent 700 >was...:o)" Boy was I happen to give my Model 33 TTY back to bbn...:o) > > /Bernie\ > > >-- >Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers >mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA > --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From louie at transsys.com Thu Aug 13 18:03:53 2009 From: louie at transsys.com (Louis Mamakos) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:03:53 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908131446l270749bevee3a7883dea1ff51@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090813213627.CE1D26BE55E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <9dd8c4d80908131446l270749bevee3a7883dea1ff51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <06C62696-91A6-4B20-82F3-198675E1693F@transsys.com> On Aug 13, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > Noel, > > So if I understand you correctly, it was competition that was the key > - the Carterfone decision, by allowing other devices from various > manufacturers, enabled competition. Very helpful - thank you! > > Johnny It was enabling innovation, not just competition for the services that AT&T would let you buy from them. In my experience at that time, you didn't buy modems from AT&T (or your local operating company). Much like the 2500 set on your desk, you got to lease it on a monthly basis rather than an outright capital purchase. At the the time, I was working at the Computer Center at the University of Maryland, and we had this large rack with perhaps 12 or 20 modems within that volume. (As Randy pointed out, this was a good density match for quite a while given the size of the communication controllers on the mainframe computers we had for some time.) You got to choose from whatever AT&T thought that you needed, and that's about it. The CPE was the same sort of thing; you got to lease a Bell 113A DATA-phone, with advanced features like RS-232 AND 20mA current loop interfaces! TALK and DATA buttons. Woo! Once third parties started building modems for sale, there were now real commercial pressure to produce products that customers actually wanted, higher densities, lower cost of purchase, etc. It wasn't Western Electric that built modems with "AT" commands for "easy" in-band dialing and control; it was another company that had a different idea that the market responded to. Curiously, once these other commercial ventures starting building products, AT&T/Bell Labs/Western Electric with years of experience and head start in that market never really was able to field competitive products into the marketplace. Perhaps this comes from years of never really having to compete for the business and SELL these products, vs. allowing the customer to place an order for them, like it or not. Louis Mamakos From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Aug 13 18:43:46 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:43:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> Randy Bush wrote: > ... an ibm lameframe, and there were only lameframes in '62, Just within the IBM stable, in the early 60s, 7090s [1] were mainframes, but the 1401 [2] and 1620 [3] definitely were not. The 1620 introduced a lot of folk to computing. d/ [1] 7090, size of large room: [2] 1401, size of fridge: [2] 1620, size of desk: -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Aug 13 19:08:54 2009 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:08:54 -0700 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908131317h7fb4d2dbmd3f87f9d5e050d3d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090813195138.21F036BE556@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <9dd8c4d80908131317h7fb4d2dbmd3f87f9d5e050d3d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1250215734.3269.35.camel@localhost> I agree that everything was expensive, but there were other factors too that had an effect. It was common at the time to interact with mainframes by decks of punch-cards, then wait til your job ran (minutes to hours to overnight), then collect the printout. Hooking terminals to computers wasn't very common, except for very special-purpose applications like reservation systems. The common "general purpose" computing approach was still batch processing and punch cards in the 60s. So, especially outside of the R&D environment, comms devices (modems and front-end processors) were bought as part of the mainframe system configuration designed to do a specific application such as airline reservations. Computer terminals were thought of as I/O devices for some application, rather than as ways to interact with the computer in a general way. Also, modems were typically connected to leased lines, often "multidrop", with huge monthly bills for those lines. So not only was the box expensive, the monthly charges were high too. So, even when "modems were available", there wasn't much available on the other end of the communications path except inside a single closed application system. Modems were however used in non-computer applications, which we computer guys hardly ever think about. E.G., there were HF radio receivers that could be placed in a quonset hut somewhere at the end of a long wire, interacting via RS232 over modems with a human operator far away. Through the modem link, the human could manipulate all of the knobs and switches as if he were located at the radio. I suspect there were lots of these kinds of "remote operation" modem uses totally independent of computers. Even back in the early 70s, as computers were coming on to the Arpanet, batch processing was still lingering on. I remember writing a program/service on the MIT ITS machine that allowed a user to prepare/edit a virtual "deck of cards" for the UCLA CCN 360, automatically submit it to the CCN machine, and then poll the mainframe and retrieve the "printout" when it was ready. That was how you could use the 360 to create and run your own programs. So, before dial-up modems became common, people had to get used to the idea of interacting with computers in the new "terminal" way, to create the demand for equipment that motivated companies to try to compete with the established mainframe industry. Carterfone made competition possible; the mindset outside of the early-adopters had to change to increase demand for equipment and make competition sensible. Timesharing was still a new idea outside of the R&D crowd. Dial-up services like TymNet/Tymshare helped change the mindset and create the demand in the "real world". It wasn't all that long before those days that experts in the industry projected that the computing needs of the world would require a handful or so of computers at most. I forget the quote - was it T. J. Watson? /Jack Haverty Point Arena, CA On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 21:17 +0100, Johnny RYAN wrote: > Dear Noel > > (good point Vint - thanks) > > Yes, as you say, the Altair and the rest of the personal computers had > not come until the mid 70s. > What I'm curious about is a more abstract point - on the modem side > rather than the computer side, why is Carterfone decision such a big > deal if modems were already available for use on the normal phone > line? Was it, as Vint says, price? > > Johnny > > -- > My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > > From: Johnny RYAN > > > > > This is my first posting to this list. > > > > Welcome! > > > > > the Bell 103 modem in 1962 and Carterfone > > > If AT&T sold modems commercially since 1962 (the 103 modem), why was > > > the carterfone decision so important? > > > ... does anybody recall why these things could not have happened with > > > the Bell 103 from 1962 on? Was the 103 just intended for subscribers of > > > expensive leased lines such as corporations or universities? > > > > I think you're conflating two different things. > > > > Carterfone was important because it allowed other people to build stuff to > > connect up to the network (originally only acoustically, like the old > > acoustic-coupler modems), _but_ I don't think it has any relationship to the > > thing you're asking about (which I take to be the generic 'computer > > communication revolution'). > > > > > > The answer to your question about 'why no computer communication revolution > > in the 60s' is, I am pretty sure, in the technology of the era (both hardware > > and software). > > > > Remember that until things like the PDP-11 (1970 - although I suppose the > > PDP-8, from 1965 on, also would count) there weren't a lot of small computers > > to connect together. Personal computers were significantly later than that - > > the Altair was 1975, and the Apple II (the first really plausible personal > > PC) was 1977. > > > > Ditto for software - the first time-sharing OS's were in the early 1960's, > > but there were only a very few early on, and they ran on a very few large > > mainframe systems. It wasn't until circa 1970 that that operational mode > > became relatively common. Even the simplest of computer communication stuff > > (remote dumb terminal dialed into a time-sharing machine) thus had to wait > > for that. > > > > Saying that, though, reminds me that there was a small amount of stuff > > significantly earlier - you might want to look into the SABRE reservations > > system, which dates back to 1957 or so (although the idea is a couple of > > years older), for remote access in a more specialized system. > > > > > > That's just my opinion, though - others may have a different take. > > > > Noel > > > > From spencer at mcsr-labs.org Thu Aug 13 20:09:29 2009 From: spencer at mcsr-labs.org (Spencer Dawkins) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:09:29 -0500 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> Dave, I'm pretty sure that no one could actually see the other boxes behind a 7090 :-) just kidding, of course. i showed up in 360-land, in about 1974 or so ... a 360/50 was small by comparison (but only by comparison)... Spencer > > > Randy Bush wrote: >> ... an ibm lameframe, and there were only lameframes in '62, > > > Just within the IBM stable, in the early 60s, 7090s [1] were mainframes, > but the 1401 [2] and 1620 [3] definitely were not. > > The 1620 introduced a lot of folk to computing. > > > > d/ > > [1] 7090, size of large room: > > [2] 1401, size of fridge: > > [2] 1620, size of desk: > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From randy at psg.com Thu Aug 13 21:53:22 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:53:22 +0900 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> Message-ID: > I'm pretty sure that no one could actually see the other boxes behind > a 7090 :-) they did not go on the 7040 and 7094 or 1401 we had (u chi comp center). no comms, period. well, bisync. and the 1130 had nada as i remember. perhaps we were deprived, don't remember. maybe the lgps and GEs etc vint and the other kinky left coasters played with had comms in those days. and let's not forget 134 baud 2741 selectrics. doug mosher (rip) was able to whistle into an acustic coupler to get those to type his name, an amazing feat. and we shoukd really say dale heatherington, the engineer behind the curtain, not hayes. dennis was management, and bad management it turned out. (i consulted to hayes through those years). to try to be a bit on topic, i too think carterfone was all about opening to competition. and not just modems. it meant we could attach anything (reasonable) to the at&t's and itt's (you do remember them, yes?) networks. randy From vint at google.com Thu Aug 13 22:14:38 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:14:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> Message-ID: <03E22318-DD3A-4247-B940-26816EBA12FB@google.com> i was running a Quiktran time sharing system for IBM on an IBM 7044 using a 7740 multiplexor/communications controller. We served dial up users (using IBM 1050 terminals) in 1965. vint On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that no one could actually see the other boxes behind >> a 7090 :-) > > they did not go on the 7040 and 7094 or 1401 we had (u chi comp > center). > no comms, period. well, bisync. and the 1130 had nada as i remember. > perhaps we were deprived, don't remember. > > maybe the lgps and GEs etc vint and the other kinky left coasters > played > with had comms in those days. > > and let's not forget 134 baud 2741 selectrics. doug mosher (rip) was > able to whistle into an acustic coupler to get those to type his name, > an amazing feat. > > and we shoukd really say dale heatherington, the engineer behind the > curtain, not hayes. dennis was management, and bad management it > turned > out. (i consulted to hayes through those years). > > to try to be a bit on topic, i too think carterfone was all about > opening to competition. and not just modems. it meant we could > attach > anything (reasonable) to the at&t's and itt's (you do remember them, > yes?) networks. > > randy From louie at transsys.com Thu Aug 13 22:33:48 2009 From: louie at transsys.com (Louis Mamakos) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:33:48 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <03E22318-DD3A-4247-B940-26816EBA12FB@google.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> <03E22318-DD3A-4247-B940-26816EBA12FB@google.com> Message-ID: <82F1C82B-2B57-4B90-9EAA-146D85AC8D8B@transsys.com> If there's interest in physical manifestations of the hardware from this era, I was inspired to photograph my Bell 113A "DATAphone" so you might see what some of us were using circa 1978 and earlier. (Yes, it still works and I've used it as a voice phone on my Vonage VoIP telephone service, pulse dialing and everything). Someone also pointed me to a document on the silent700 terminal that was also quite popular during that time - the silent700 was a 300 bits/second terminal that was "silent" in that it used a thermal print head on paper. Certainly silent compared the teletype it often replaced, and portable, too. louie On Aug 14, 2009, at 1:14 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > i was running a Quiktran time sharing system for IBM on an IBM 7044 > using a 7740 multiplexor/communications controller. We served dial > up users (using IBM 1050 terminals) in 1965. > > vint > > > On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> I'm pretty sure that no one could actually see the other boxes >>> behind >>> a 7090 :-) >> >> they did not go on the 7040 and 7094 or 1401 we had (u chi comp >> center). >> no comms, period. well, bisync. and the 1130 had nada as i >> remember. >> perhaps we were deprived, don't remember. >> >> maybe the lgps and GEs etc vint and the other kinky left coasters >> played >> with had comms in those days. >> >> and let's not forget 134 baud 2741 selectrics. doug mosher (rip) was >> able to whistle into an acustic coupler to get those to type his >> name, >> an amazing feat. >> >> and we shoukd really say dale heatherington, the engineer behind the >> curtain, not hayes. dennis was management, and bad management it >> turned >> out. (i consulted to hayes through those years). >> >> to try to be a bit on topic, i too think carterfone was all about >> opening to competition. and not just modems. it meant we could >> attach >> anything (reasonable) to the at&t's and itt's (you do remember them, >> yes?) networks. >> >> randy > From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Aug 14 04:28:59 2009 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:28:59 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> Message-ID: While Illinois had a 7094 with 2 1401s when I got there (which was interesting to code), they also had the asynchronous Illiac II, and within a couple of years a 360/75 and /50 (which was a mess to code), the fabulous B5500 was not only a revelation, but an inspiration. With it you learned the power of good design over mediocre design. At 13:53 +0900 2009/08/14, Randy Bush wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that no one could actually see the other boxes behind >> a 7090 :-) > >they did not go on the 7040 and 7094 or 1401 we had (u chi comp center). >no comms, period. well, bisync. and the 1130 had nada as i remember. >perhaps we were deprived, don't remember. > >maybe the lgps and GEs etc vint and the other kinky left coasters played >with had comms in those days. > >and let's not forget 134 baud 2741 selectrics. doug mosher (rip) was >able to whistle into an acustic coupler to get those to type his name, >an amazing feat. > >and we shoukd really say dale heatherington, the engineer behind the >curtain, not hayes. dennis was management, and bad management it turned >out. (i consulted to hayes through those years). > >to try to be a bit on topic, i too think carterfone was all about >opening to competition. and not just modems. it meant we could attach >anything (reasonable) to the at&t's and itt's (you do remember them, >yes?) networks. > >randy From randy at psg.com Fri Aug 14 05:00:23 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:00:23 +0900 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> Message-ID: > While Illinois had a 7094 with 2 1401s when I got there (which was > interesting to code), they also had the asynchronous Illiac II, and > within a couple of years a 360/75 and /50 (which was a mess to > code), the fabulous B5500 was not only a revelation, but an > inspiration. > > With it you learned the power of good design over mediocre design. i do not believe the illiacs had comms, but i did not use them. we only drove up north for chinese food. we got the bends above muddy waters on 43rd. by the time the /50 nd /75 were out, coms controllers, though not inexpensive, were well sub-astronomic in costs. but you're past carterfone time. perhaps the lowering costs were an effect of carterphone. my memory is that the B1700, a very interesting machine, had affordable comms. but i do not remember comms for barton's 5500. algol not ascii! randy From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Fri Aug 14 05:47:16 2009 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:47:16 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com>, , <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4A852494.7197.50BB3339@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 13 Aug 2009 at 18:43, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: > > ... an ibm lameframe, and there were only lameframes in '62, > > Just within the IBM stable, in the early 60s, 7090s [1] were mainframes, but the > 1401 [2] and 1620 [3] definitely were not. > > The 1620 introduced a lot of folk to computing. That would include me -- hacking the 1620 [with a 407 and a Friden "square root" calculator thrown in for variety] started me down my path to ruin. And before the 1620 there was the 650. It was a relatively small computer, too, no? [they retired it the year before I arrived]. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Aug 14 05:41:47 2009 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:41:47 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> Message-ID: > > >my memory is that the B1700, a very interesting machine, had affordable >comms. but i do not remember comms for barton's 5500. algol not ascii! No Illiac II was had no comm but was very fast with no clock. There was most definitely data comm on the 5500. We had probably a dozen terminals connected to ours. We also modified the OS (MCP) to support IPC. Talk about apples and oranges. "Algol not ascii"? ;-) Those were the days when ASCII quite sanely had a "left-arrow" character that could be used to designate a replacement operator as opposed the infinitely ugly ":=" or the just plain wrong typography in C and most other languages. ;-) From randy at psg.com Fri Aug 14 06:01:08 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:01:08 +0900 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> Message-ID: > Talk about apples and oranges. "Algol not ascii"? ;-) the serial controller on the first 360s (ebcdic machines) had an ascii mode. when you ran a line to the old dual-lobed pdp-8's serial, the bits arrived in the reverse order. the 360's translate op came in handy. serial comms has kinda been the armpit for a long time. randy From lpress at csudh.edu Fri Aug 14 10:11:52 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:11:52 -0700 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> Message-ID: <4A859AD8.9060300@csudh.edu> Randy Bush wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that no one could actually see the other boxes behind >> a 7090 :-) At UCLA Western Data Processing Center (709 - 1090 - 1094) we processed remote jobs, but card images were transmitted in to a high speed (500 CPS?) paper tape punch, converted to mag tape using an off-line 1401, and fed to a batch processing OS on the mainframe. The 7090/94 and a 1410 were connected to a shared 1301 disk drive. I worked on a 1410 system that replaced the off-line 1401s by putting jobs on the 1301 and spooling printouts from the 1301 -- no tape mounting and the 1410 could have multiple card readers and printers. (The 1410, unlike the 1401, could handle I/O interrupts and it had indirect addressing). We had lots of hardware hassle -- the 1410 was built by a different division within IBM than the 1301 and 7000 machines. Memory lane ... Lar From lpress at csudh.edu Fri Aug 14 11:40:23 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:40:23 -0700 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <03E22318-DD3A-4247-B940-26816EBA12FB@google.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> <03E22318-DD3A-4247-B940-26816EBA12FB@google.com> Message-ID: <4A85AF97.5060803@csudh.edu> Vint Cerf wrote: > i was running a Quiktran time sharing system for IBM on an IBM 7044 More memory lane! I saw Quiktran at IBM Research in Yorktown Heights in the early 60s and was blown away -- batch processing was clearly toast. JOSS at RAND was similar. I was fortunate to be able to use the Q32 TSS at SDC for my dissertation. Larry From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Aug 14 12:21:35 2009 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:21:35 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <8E2D2F87F5BD43BE9179139E7003FB8B@china.huawei.com> Message-ID: The CS Dept computing center provided TSS on the 360s with a few terminals (selectrix), but the performance and user interface was so bad no one (at least in our project) bothered with it. Everything about them was so backward it was a waste of time. By 1970, the IBM equipment on campus was barely tolerated and left to the clueless. One professor teaching an "OS course" who believed that IBM walked on water. He would make these sweeping statements and one of our guys kept objecting. They finally reached a truce and our guy was given 3 lectures at the end of the course to explain how non-IBM systems worked. But as we all know, sales and marketing counts for more than engineering and scientific excellence. At 22:01 +0900 2009/08/14, Randy Bush wrote: > > Talk about apples and oranges. "Algol not ascii"? ;-) > > > >the serial controller on the first 360s (ebcdic machines) had an ascii >mode. when you ran a line to the old dual-lobed pdp-8's serial, the >bits arrived in the reverse order. the 360's translate op came in >handy. > >serial comms has kinda been the armpit for a long time. > >randy From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 13:03:37 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:03:37 +0100 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Thanks you for your responses on Carterfone. But if I may be so bold, one other... >From papers of Peter Kirsten and Robert Kahn, it looks like seismic data transfer was an important reason to pursue SATNET, presumably particularly so in the context of the Mansfield Amendment --- were there other important reasons? The sequence for SATNET as I understand it is ------------------ Background events re seismic data.... 1957 - 'Rainier', US first underground nuclear test, detected by seismic instruments across the globe 1963, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 116 nations commit to underground testing 1970, US starts recieving seismic data from NORSAR at Kjeller, Norway (seismic data went by cable from Norway to UK and then by satellite to US). 1972, seismic data goes to US through Sweden by Satellite ------------------- 1973, ARPANET connects by satellite to UCL and University of Hawaii 1975, SATNET initiated - US link to UK (British Post Office and UCL) using Intelisat IV 1977, Norweigan Defense Establishment link by satellite Does this sound right? Johnny -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ From vint at google.com Fri Aug 14 13:53:14 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:53:14 -0400 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8E915B14-C8AE-493A-AD68-505BBE146004@google.com> well not exactly. the seismic stuff had its own dedicated circuit. Bob Kahn successfully argued that we could provide higher speed service by sharing the satellite capacity between the seismic data and the internet data and splitting the costs. But the seismic data itself was not necessarily a driver of packet satellite as a technology. v On Aug 14, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > Dear All, > > Thanks you for your responses on Carterfone. But if I may be so bold, > one other... > >> From papers of Peter Kirsten and Robert Kahn, it looks like seismic > data transfer was an important reason to pursue SATNET, presumably > particularly so in the context of the Mansfield Amendment --- were > there other important reasons? > > The sequence for SATNET as I understand it is > > ------------------ > Background events re seismic data.... > 1957 - 'Rainier', US first underground nuclear test, detected by > seismic instruments across the globe > 1963, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 116 nations commit to underground > testing > 1970, US starts recieving seismic data from NORSAR at Kjeller, Norway > (seismic data went by cable from Norway to UK and then by satellite to > US). > 1972, seismic data goes to US through Sweden by Satellite > > ------------------- > 1973, ARPANET connects by satellite to UCL and University of Hawaii > 1975, SATNET initiated - US link to UK (British Post Office and UCL) > using Intelisat IV > 1977, Norweigan Defense Establishment link by satellite > > Does this sound right? > > Johnny > > -- > My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net- > history-2010/ From lpress at csudh.edu Fri Aug 14 14:32:37 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:32:37 -0700 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <4A852494.7197.50BB3339@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com>, , <4A84C152.6030604@dcrocker.net> <4A852494.7197.50BB3339@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <4A85D7F5.1010401@csudh.edu> > And before the 1620 there was the 650. It was a relatively small > computer, too, no? [they retired it the year before I arrived]. I came after the 650 also, but heard about it from the old timers (gulp :-). It was a drum machine -- programmers placed instructions on the drum in order to minimize latency. I believe the 305 RAMAC (first disk drive -- had a drum for stored programs and also plug boards), 704, 709, 1401 and also came between the 650 and the 1620. I think the 701 preceded the 650. (There was also the 604 -- card I/O -- an electronic calculator programmed using plug boards and with registers, but no stored program). Lar From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 14:51:14 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:51:14 +0100 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) In-Reply-To: <8E915B14-C8AE-493A-AD68-505BBE146004@google.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> <8E915B14-C8AE-493A-AD68-505BBE146004@google.com> Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908141451h7466f991h86b2b32803501e9d@mail.gmail.com> Dear Vint, I had better examine this more to understand the reasoning behind SATNET any pointers or source suggestions would be very welcome! ( I cant find a text online for R.E. Kahn, "The Introduction of Packet Satellite Communications," National Telecommunications Conference, Nov. 1979, referenced in your RFC 829 ) Johnny -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > well not exactly. the seismic stuff had its own dedicated circuit. Bob Kahn > successfully argued that we could provide higher speed service by sharing > the satellite capacity between the seismic data and the internet data and > splitting the costs. But the seismic data itself was not necessarily a > driver of packet satellite as a technology. > > v > > On Aug 14, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Thanks you for your responses on Carterfone. But if I may be so bold, >> one other... >> >>> From papers of Peter Kirsten and Robert Kahn, it looks like seismic >> >> data transfer was an important reason to pursue SATNET, presumably >> particularly so in the context of the Mansfield Amendment --- were >> there other important reasons? >> >> The sequence for SATNET as I understand it is >> >> ------------------ >> Background events re seismic data.... >> 1957 - 'Rainier', US first underground nuclear test, detected by >> seismic instruments across the globe >> 1963, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 116 nations commit to underground testing >> 1970, US starts recieving seismic data from NORSAR at Kjeller, Norway >> (seismic data went by cable from Norway to UK and then by satellite to >> US). >> 1972, seismic data goes to US through Sweden by Satellite >> >> ------------------- >> 1973, ARPANET connects by satellite to UCL and University of Hawaii >> 1975, SATNET initiated - US link to UK (British Post Office and UCL) >> using Intelisat IV >> 1977, Norweigan Defense Establishment link by satellite >> >> Does this sound right? >> >> Johnny >> >> -- >> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ > > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Fri Aug 14 15:26:13 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? Message-ID: <20090814222614.112BF6BE5EA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Larry Press > the 650 ... was a drum machine -- programmers placed instructions on > the drum in order to minimize latency. > I believe the 305 RAMAC ... 704, 709, 1401 and also came between the > 650 and the 1620. I think the 701 preceded the 650. (There was also the > 604 -- card I/O -- an electronic calculator programmed using plug > boards and with registers, but no stored program). For those who are interested in early IBM computers, there's a good book on them: Charles J. Bashe, Lyle R. Johnson, John H. Palmer, Emerson W. Pugh, "IBM's Early Computers", MIT Press, Cambridge, 1986 There are some other references on those machines too - if anyone is interested, let me know, and I'll dig 'em up. Noel From mills at udel.edu Fri Aug 14 16:21:02 2009 From: mills at udel.edu (David Mills) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:21:02 +0000 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A85F15E.8010405@udel.edu> Vint, I recall that 103s were $25 per month; that's when a POTS line was $7.50. I used an accoustic coupler anyway. After the FCC Carterfone decision AT&T began offering Data Access Arrangements and offbrand 103s became available. I had the first DAA installation in Michigan. Ma Bell sent literally a fleet of cars, trucks and installers to light up the thing. The installers ignored my ham radio phone patch, which technically was illegal, but the installers didn't care. Upon returning to the US in 1972 I called to order a DAA and the operator asked what color I wanted. True story. Dave Vint Cerf wrote: > I thought the bell modems were pretty expensive for residential users? > > v > > On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> This is my first posting to this list. It's a question about the Bell >> 103 modem in 1962 and Carterfone >> >> If AT&T sold modems commercially since 1962 (the 103 modem), why was >> the carterfone decision so important? I understand that the >> introduction of the Hayes modem prompted Christensen to write XMODEM >> and set the scene for the BBSs - but does anybody recall why these >> things could not have happened with the Bell 103 from1962 on? Was the >> 103 just intended for subscribers of expensive leased lines such as >> corporations or universities? >> >> Best wishes to you all, >> >> Johnny >> >> >> -- >> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net- history-2010/ > > From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 18:42:03 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:42:03 +0100 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908141451h7466f991h86b2b32803501e9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> <8E915B14-C8AE-493A-AD68-505BBE146004@google.com> <9dd8c4d80908141451h7466f991h86b2b32803501e9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908141842u5df7458dgf4008e1788d98244@mail.gmail.com> please ignore my last re Kahn's paper (found it here http://ia300230.us.archive.org/3/items/TheIntroductionOfPacketSatelliteCommunication/) -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > Dear Vint, > I had better examine this more to understand the reasoning behind SATNET > any pointers or source suggestions would be very welcome! > ( I cant find a text online for R.E. Kahn, "The Introduction of Packet > Satellite Communications," National Telecommunications Conference, > Nov. 1979, referenced in your RFC 829 ) > Johnny > > -- > My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> well not exactly. the seismic stuff had its own dedicated circuit. Bob Kahn >> successfully argued that we could provide higher speed service by sharing >> the satellite capacity between the seismic data and the internet data and >> splitting the costs. But the seismic data itself was not necessarily a >> driver of packet satellite as a technology. >> >> v >> >> On Aug 14, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Thanks you for your responses on Carterfone. But if I may be so bold, >>> one other... >>> >>>> From papers of Peter Kirsten and Robert Kahn, it looks like seismic >>> >>> data transfer was an important reason to pursue SATNET, presumably >>> particularly so in the context of the Mansfield Amendment --- were >>> there other important reasons? >>> >>> The sequence for SATNET as I understand it is >>> >>> ------------------ >>> Background events re seismic data.... >>> 1957 - 'Rainier', US first underground nuclear test, detected by >>> seismic instruments across the globe >>> 1963, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 116 nations commit to underground testing >>> 1970, US starts recieving seismic data from NORSAR at Kjeller, Norway >>> (seismic data went by cable from Norway to UK and then by satellite to >>> US). >>> 1972, seismic data goes to US through Sweden by Satellite >>> >>> ------------------- >>> 1973, ARPANET connects by satellite to UCL and University of Hawaii >>> 1975, SATNET initiated - US link to UK (British Post Office and UCL) >>> using Intelisat IV >>> 1977, Norweigan Defense Establishment link by satellite >>> >>> Does this sound right? >>> >>> Johnny >>> >>> -- >>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >> >> > From vint at google.com Sat Aug 15 02:22:39 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:22:39 -0400 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908141842u5df7458dgf4008e1788d98244@mail.gmail.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> <8E915B14-C8AE-493A-AD68-505BBE146004@google.com> <9dd8c4d80908141451h7466f991h86b2b32803501e9d@mail.gmail.com> <9dd8c4d80908141842u5df7458dgf4008e1788d98244@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <82AB68C9-4A69-4D9D-A0DB-7D645195300C@google.com> bob's paper will help. Larry Roberts initiated the program, Bob insisted that the network be separable from ARPANET and that was part of his very significant effort to develop the concept of "open" networking. We needed packet satellite to serve ship-to-ship and ship- to-shore data communications (in our conceptual model of using packet networking to aid in computer-based command and control). Packet Radio was needed for ground and air mobile. ARPANET was the prototype for wireline, land-based command and control. These three networks, plus the ethernet invented at Xerox PARC formed the basis for much of the Internet's architecture. vint On Aug 14, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > please ignore my last re Kahn's paper (found it here > http://ia300230.us.archive.org/3/items/TheIntroductionOfPacketSatelliteCommunication/) > > > -- > My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net- > history-2010/ > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Johnny RYAN > wrote: >> Dear Vint, >> I had better examine this more to understand the reasoning behind >> SATNET >> any pointers or source suggestions would be very welcome! >> ( I cant find a text online for R.E. Kahn, "The Introduction of >> Packet >> Satellite Communications," National Telecommunications Conference, >> Nov. 1979, referenced in your RFC 829 ) >> Johnny >> >> -- >> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> well not exactly. the seismic stuff had its own dedicated circuit. >>> Bob Kahn >>> successfully argued that we could provide higher speed service by >>> sharing >>> the satellite capacity between the seismic data and the internet >>> data and >>> splitting the costs. But the seismic data itself was not >>> necessarily a >>> driver of packet satellite as a technology. >>> >>> v >>> >>> On Aug 14, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Thanks you for your responses on Carterfone. But if I may be so >>>> bold, >>>> one other... >>>> >>>>> From papers of Peter Kirsten and Robert Kahn, it looks like >>>>> seismic >>>> >>>> data transfer was an important reason to pursue SATNET, presumably >>>> particularly so in the context of the Mansfield Amendment --- were >>>> there other important reasons? >>>> >>>> The sequence for SATNET as I understand it is >>>> >>>> ------------------ >>>> Background events re seismic data.... >>>> 1957 - 'Rainier', US first underground nuclear test, detected by >>>> seismic instruments across the globe >>>> 1963, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 116 nations commit to underground >>>> testing >>>> 1970, US starts recieving seismic data from NORSAR at Kjeller, >>>> Norway >>>> (seismic data went by cable from Norway to UK and then by >>>> satellite to >>>> US). >>>> 1972, seismic data goes to US through Sweden by Satellite >>>> >>>> ------------------- >>>> 1973, ARPANET connects by satellite to UCL and University of Hawaii >>>> 1975, SATNET initiated - US link to UK (British Post Office and >>>> UCL) >>>> using Intelisat IV >>>> 1977, Norweigan Defense Establishment link by satellite >>>> >>>> Does this sound right? >>>> >>>> Johnny >>>> >>>> -- >>>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>> >>> >> From vint at google.com Sat Aug 15 02:50:21 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:50:21 -0400 Subject: [ih] AT&T, carterfone, the 103, and why didnt BBSs start earlier? In-Reply-To: <4A85F15E.8010405@udel.edu> References: <9dd8c4d80908131208u1bf57a24g85460b042520acae@mail.gmail.com> <4A85F15E.8010405@udel.edu> Message-ID: <97408184-31CE-469E-9CDC-3CDCE3A65825@google.com> i was probably thinking about the 303's that produced 50 Kb/s v On Aug 14, 2009, at 7:21 PM, David Mills wrote: > Vint, > > I recall that 103s were $25 per month; that's when a POTS line was > $7.50. I used an accoustic coupler anyway. After the FCC Carterfone > decision AT&T began offering Data Access Arrangements and offbrand > 103s became available. I had the first DAA installation in Michigan. > Ma Bell sent literally a fleet of cars, trucks and installers to > light up the thing. The installers ignored my ham radio phone patch, > which technically was illegal, but the installers didn't care. Upon > returning to the US in 1972 I called to order a DAA and the operator > asked what color I wanted. True story. > > Dave > > Vint Cerf wrote: > >> I thought the bell modems were pretty expensive for residential >> users? >> >> v >> >> On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> This is my first posting to this list. It's a question about the >>> Bell >>> 103 modem in 1962 and Carterfone >>> >>> If AT&T sold modems commercially since 1962 (the 103 modem), why was >>> the carterfone decision so important? I understand that the >>> introduction of the Hayes modem prompted Christensen to write XMODEM >>> and set the scene for the BBSs - but does anybody recall why these >>> things could not have happened with the Bell 103 from1962 on? Was >>> the >>> 103 just intended for subscribers of expensive leased lines such as >>> corporations or universities? >>> >>> Best wishes to you all, >>> >>> Johnny >>> >>> >>> -- >>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net- >>> history-2010/ >> >> > From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 05:32:44 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:32:44 +0100 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) In-Reply-To: <82AB68C9-4A69-4D9D-A0DB-7D645195300C@google.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> <8E915B14-C8AE-493A-AD68-505BBE146004@google.com> <9dd8c4d80908141451h7466f991h86b2b32803501e9d@mail.gmail.com> <9dd8c4d80908141842u5df7458dgf4008e1788d98244@mail.gmail.com> <82AB68C9-4A69-4D9D-A0DB-7D645195300C@google.com> Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908150532w49e56177ie62bb4341d08c992@mail.gmail.com> I have been confused by the distinction between A) the link to NORSAR and UCL from 1973 and B) the SATNET links to same from September 1975 and late 1977. This is particularly confusing since the NORSAR link seems to have gone via the satellite earth station at Tanum in both cases (pre and during SATNET). Johnny -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > bob's paper will help. Larry Roberts initiated the program, Bob insisted > that the network be separable from ARPANET and that was part of his very > significant effort to develop the concept of "open" networking. We needed > packet satellite to serve ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore data communications > (in our conceptual model of using packet networking to aid in computer-based > command and control). Packet Radio was needed for ground and air mobile. > ARPANET was the prototype for wireline, land-based command and control. > These three networks, plus the ethernet invented at Xerox PARC formed the > basis for much of the Internet's architecture. > > vint > > > On Aug 14, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > >> please ignore my last re Kahn's paper (found it here >> >> http://ia300230.us.archive.org/3/items/TheIntroductionOfPacketSatelliteCommunication/) >> >> >> -- >> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Johnny RYAN >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Vint, >>> I had better examine this more to understand the reasoning behind SATNET >>> any pointers or source suggestions would be very welcome! >>> ( I cant find a text online for R.E. Kahn, "The Introduction of Packet >>> Satellite Communications," National Telecommunications Conference, >>> Nov. 1979, referenced in your RFC 829 ) >>> Johnny >>> >>> -- >>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>> >>>> well not exactly. the seismic stuff had its own dedicated circuit. Bob >>>> Kahn >>>> successfully argued that we could provide higher speed service by >>>> sharing >>>> the satellite capacity between the seismic data and the internet data >>>> and >>>> splitting the costs. But the seismic data itself was not necessarily a >>>> driver of packet satellite as a technology. >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> On Aug 14, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks you for your responses on Carterfone. But if I may be so bold, >>>>> one other... >>>>> >>>>>> From papers of Peter Kirsten and Robert Kahn, it looks like seismic >>>>> >>>>> data transfer was an important reason to pursue SATNET, presumably >>>>> particularly so in the context of the Mansfield Amendment --- were >>>>> there other important reasons? >>>>> >>>>> The sequence for SATNET as I understand it is >>>>> >>>>> ------------------ >>>>> Background events re seismic data.... >>>>> 1957 - 'Rainier', US first underground nuclear test, detected by >>>>> seismic instruments across the globe >>>>> 1963, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 116 nations commit to underground >>>>> testing >>>>> 1970, US starts recieving seismic data from NORSAR at Kjeller, Norway >>>>> (seismic data went by cable from Norway to UK and then by satellite to >>>>> US). >>>>> 1972, seismic data goes to US through Sweden by Satellite >>>>> >>>>> ------------------- >>>>> 1973, ARPANET connects by satellite to UCL and University of Hawaii >>>>> 1975, SATNET initiated - US link to UK (British Post Office and UCL) >>>>> using Intelisat IV >>>>> 1977, Norweigan Defense Establishment link by satellite >>>>> >>>>> Does this sound right? >>>>> >>>>> Johnny >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>>> >>>> >>> > > From vint at google.com Sat Aug 15 05:46:07 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:46:07 -0400 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908150532w49e56177ie62bb4341d08c992@mail.gmail.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> <8E915B14-C8AE-493A-AD68-505BBE146004@google.com> <9dd8c4d80908141451h7466f991h86b2b32803501e9d@mail.gmail.com> <9dd8c4d80908141842u5df7458dgf4008e1788d98244@mail.gmail.com> <82AB68C9-4A69-4D9D-A0DB-7D645195300C@google.com> <9dd8c4d80908150532w49e56177ie62bb4341d08c992@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: we piggy-backed on the original NORSAR satellite link. before UCL was put up on the ARPANET, only the NORSAR facility was connected by satellite. Bob Kahn worked out an arrangement to increase the total capacity of the system and also arrange for UCL to be connected to the ARPANET. initially NORSAR was connected to the ARPANET by a dedicated satellite connection. The capacity was increased and UCL was connected to NORSAR by land line. The satellite ground station was at Tanum, Sweden I think. Later, the Packet Satellite system was fielded via INTELSAT IVA and UCL was connected to the SATNET and the land line to NORSAR was removed. UCL was connected to the SATNET through a ground station at Goonhilly Downs, UK. NORSAR/NDRE was re-connected to the ARPANET by way of SATNET which also used a ground station at TANUM. On Aug 15, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > I have been confused by the distinction between A) the link to NORSAR > and UCL from 1973 and B) the SATNET links to same from September 1975 > and late 1977. This is particularly confusing since the NORSAR link > seems to have gone via the satellite earth station at Tanum in both > cases (pre and during SATNET). > > Johnny > > -- > My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net- > history-2010/ > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> bob's paper will help. Larry Roberts initiated the program, Bob >> insisted >> that the network be separable from ARPANET and that was part of his >> very >> significant effort to develop the concept of "open" networking. We >> needed >> packet satellite to serve ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore data >> communications >> (in our conceptual model of using packet networking to aid in >> computer-based >> command and control). Packet Radio was needed for ground and air >> mobile. >> ARPANET was the prototype for wireline, land-based command and >> control. >> These three networks, plus the ethernet invented at Xerox PARC >> formed the >> basis for much of the Internet's architecture. >> >> vint >> >> >> On Aug 14, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >> >>> please ignore my last re Kahn's paper (found it here >>> >>> http://ia300230.us.archive.org/3/items/TheIntroductionOfPacketSatelliteCommunication/) >>> >>> >>> -- >>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Johnny RYAN >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Vint, >>>> I had better examine this more to understand the reasoning behind >>>> SATNET >>>> any pointers or source suggestions would be very welcome! >>>> ( I cant find a text online for R.E. Kahn, "The Introduction of >>>> Packet >>>> Satellite Communications," National Telecommunications Conference, >>>> Nov. 1979, referenced in your RFC 829 ) >>>> Johnny >>>> >>>> -- >>>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> well not exactly. the seismic stuff had its own dedicated >>>>> circuit. Bob >>>>> Kahn >>>>> successfully argued that we could provide higher speed service by >>>>> sharing >>>>> the satellite capacity between the seismic data and the internet >>>>> data >>>>> and >>>>> splitting the costs. But the seismic data itself was not >>>>> necessarily a >>>>> driver of packet satellite as a technology. >>>>> >>>>> v >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 14, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks you for your responses on Carterfone. But if I may be so >>>>>> bold, >>>>>> one other... >>>>>> >>>>>>> From papers of Peter Kirsten and Robert Kahn, it looks like >>>>>>> seismic >>>>>> >>>>>> data transfer was an important reason to pursue SATNET, >>>>>> presumably >>>>>> particularly so in the context of the Mansfield Amendment --- >>>>>> were >>>>>> there other important reasons? >>>>>> >>>>>> The sequence for SATNET as I understand it is >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------ >>>>>> Background events re seismic data.... >>>>>> 1957 - 'Rainier', US first underground nuclear test, detected by >>>>>> seismic instruments across the globe >>>>>> 1963, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 116 nations commit to underground >>>>>> testing >>>>>> 1970, US starts recieving seismic data from NORSAR at Kjeller, >>>>>> Norway >>>>>> (seismic data went by cable from Norway to UK and then by >>>>>> satellite to >>>>>> US). >>>>>> 1972, seismic data goes to US through Sweden by Satellite >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------- >>>>>> 1973, ARPANET connects by satellite to UCL and University of >>>>>> Hawaii >>>>>> 1975, SATNET initiated - US link to UK (British Post Office and >>>>>> UCL) >>>>>> using Intelisat IV >>>>>> 1977, Norweigan Defense Establishment link by satellite >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this sound right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Johnny >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 06:13:07 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:13:07 +0100 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> <8E915B14-C8AE-493A-AD68-505BBE146004@google.com> <9dd8c4d80908141451h7466f991h86b2b32803501e9d@mail.gmail.com> <9dd8c4d80908141842u5df7458dgf4008e1788d98244@mail.gmail.com> <82AB68C9-4A69-4D9D-A0DB-7D645195300C@google.com> <9dd8c4d80908150532w49e56177ie62bb4341d08c992@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908150613w1a3e6bckdbb551abc8ca8469@mail.gmail.com> That is exactly the information I wanted. Thank you! -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > we piggy-backed on the original NORSAR satellite link. > > before UCL was put up on the ARPANET, only the NORSAR facility was connected > by satellite. > > Bob Kahn worked out an arrangement to increase the total capacity of the > system and also arrange for UCL to be connected to the ARPANET. > > initially NORSAR was connected to the ARPANET by a dedicated satellite > connection. The capacity was increased and UCL was connected to NORSAR by > land line. > The satellite ground station was at Tanum, Sweden I think. > > Later, the Packet Satellite system was fielded via INTELSAT IVA and UCL was > connected to the SATNET and the land line to NORSAR was removed. UCL was > connected to the SATNET through a ground station at Goonhilly Downs, UK. > NORSAR/NDRE was re-connected to the ARPANET by way of SATNET which also used > a ground station at TANUM. > > > > > On Aug 15, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > >> I have been confused by the distinction between A) the link to NORSAR >> and UCL from 1973 and B) the SATNET links to same from September 1975 >> and late 1977. This is particularly confusing since the NORSAR link >> seems to have gone via the satellite earth station at Tanum in both >> cases (pre and during SATNET). >> >> Johnny >> >> -- >> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> >>> bob's paper will help. Larry Roberts initiated the program, Bob insisted >>> that the network be separable from ARPANET and that was part of his very >>> significant effort to develop the concept of "open" networking. We needed >>> packet satellite to serve ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore data >>> communications >>> (in our conceptual model of using packet networking to aid in >>> computer-based >>> command and control). Packet Radio was needed for ground and air mobile. >>> ARPANET was the prototype for wireline, land-based command and control. >>> These three networks, plus the ethernet invented at Xerox PARC formed the >>> basis for much of the Internet's architecture. >>> >>> vint >>> >>> >>> On Aug 14, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >>> >>>> please ignore my last re Kahn's paper (found it here >>>> >>>> >>>> http://ia300230.us.archive.org/3/items/TheIntroductionOfPacketSatelliteCommunication/) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Johnny RYAN >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Vint, >>>>> I had better examine this more to understand the reasoning behind >>>>> SATNET >>>>> any pointers or source suggestions would be very welcome! >>>>> ( I cant find a text online for R.E. Kahn, "The Introduction of Packet >>>>> Satellite Communications," National Telecommunications Conference, >>>>> Nov. 1979, referenced in your RFC 829 ) >>>>> Johnny >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> well not exactly. the seismic stuff had its own dedicated circuit. Bob >>>>>> Kahn >>>>>> successfully argued that we could provide higher speed service by >>>>>> sharing >>>>>> the satellite capacity between the seismic data and the internet data >>>>>> and >>>>>> splitting the costs. But the seismic data itself was not necessarily a >>>>>> driver of packet satellite as a technology. >>>>>> >>>>>> v >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks you for your responses on Carterfone. But if I may be so bold, >>>>>>> one other... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From papers of Peter Kirsten and Robert Kahn, it looks like seismic >>>>>>> >>>>>>> data transfer was an important reason to pursue SATNET, presumably >>>>>>> particularly so in the context of the Mansfield Amendment --- were >>>>>>> there other important reasons? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The sequence for SATNET as I understand it is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------ >>>>>>> Background events re seismic data.... >>>>>>> 1957 - 'Rainier', US first underground nuclear test, detected by >>>>>>> seismic instruments across the globe >>>>>>> 1963, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 116 nations commit to underground >>>>>>> testing >>>>>>> 1970, US starts recieving seismic data from NORSAR at Kjeller, Norway >>>>>>> (seismic data went by cable from Norway to UK and then by satellite >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> US). >>>>>>> 1972, seismic data goes to US through Sweden by Satellite >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------- >>>>>>> 1973, ARPANET connects by satellite to UCL and University of Hawaii >>>>>>> 1975, SATNET initiated - US link to UK (British Post Office and UCL) >>>>>>> using Intelisat IV >>>>>>> 1977, Norweigan Defense Establishment link by satellite >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does this sound right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Johnny >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> My Next Book... >>>>>>> http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sat Aug 15 07:00:52 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:00:52 -0700 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) In-Reply-To: <82AB68C9-4A69-4D9D-A0DB-7D645195300C@google.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908141303r7725bd40u827d925b23f26819@mail.gmail.com> <8E915B14-C8AE-493A-AD68-505BBE146004@google.com> <9dd8c4d80908141451h7466f991h86b2b32803501e9d@mail.gmail.com> <9dd8c4d80908141842u5df7458dgf4008e1788d98244@mail.gmail.com> <82AB68C9-4A69-4D9D-A0DB-7D645195300C@google.com> Message-ID: <4A86BF94.3040403@dcrocker.net> Vint Cerf wrote: > bob's paper will help. Larry Roberts initiated the program, Bob insisted > that the network be separable from ARPANET and that was part of his very > significant effort to develop the concept of "open" networking. Vint, My understanding of the original Internet work was that openness meant independent technology (and administration) for the individual leaf networks, but that only one backbone -- now called default free zone -- could initially be supported. I believe there were some manually-configured alternate backbones, but that easy addition of more than one had to wait until NSFNet was started and that that finally forced creating BGP, to support multiple backbones. Does this view at all mesh with reality? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From vint at google.com Sat Aug 15 07:56:38 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:56:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) Message-ID: The design contemplated multiple networks and alternate paths from the start. The configuration of the 3 net test artificially forced traffic from PRNET to ARPANET toSATNET to ARPANET again. The routing protocol in ginny strazisar's gateways was distance vector and I believe would handle multiple paths and backbones. V ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave CROCKER To: Vint Cerf Cc: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com ; internet-history at postel.org Sent: Sat Aug 15 10:00:52 2009 Subject: Re: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) Vint Cerf wrote: > bob's paper will help. Larry Roberts initiated the program, Bob insisted > that the network be separable from ARPANET and that was part of his very > significant effort to develop the concept of "open" networking. Vint, My understanding of the original Internet work was that openness meant independent technology (and administration) for the individual leaf networks, but that only one backbone -- now called default free zone -- could initially be supported. I believe there were some manually-configured alternate backbones, but that easy addition of more than one had to wait until NSFNet was started and that that finally forced creating BGP, to support multiple backbones. Does this view at all mesh with reality? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Tue Aug 18 09:57:15 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:57:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] EGP vs. BGP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A8ADD6B.3030700@dcrocker.net> Vint Cerf wrote: > The design contemplated multiple networks and alternate paths from the > start. The configuration of the 3 net test artificially forced traffic from > PRNET to ARPANET toSATNET to ARPANET again. The routing protocol in ginny > strazisar's gateways was distance vector and I believe would handle multiple > paths and backbones. V OK. So, did EGP reflect this flexibility? (I am remembering the anecdote of Bob Bradent's working from UCL back to ISI over a satellite link, having it freeze when the line go down, go off to have lunch or dinner, and return to a resumed connection; TCP doesn't have timeouts and it was only later that o/s implementations made them common. I am wondering whether the constraint to a single backbone for the Internet was an implementation choice, rather than being mandated by the standard routing protocol.) Hence, what were the incremental benefits provided by BGP? d/ ps. This list is -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From mills at udel.edu Tue Aug 18 12:31:45 2009 From: mills at udel.edu (David Mills) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:31:45 +0000 Subject: [ih] EGP vs. BGP In-Reply-To: <4A8ADD6B.3030700@dcrocker.net> References: <4A8ADD6B.3030700@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4A8B01A1.8080303@udel.edu> Dave, The EGP specification rfc904 includes a hop count field, but not how to use it. The Fuzzball implemented a Bellman-Ford routing algorihtm with split horizon and hold down. Late in life it connected about 1500 networks and the ARPAnet implementation. The major change with BGP was a serious approach to loop prevention. The Fuzzballs had a weaker approach to loop prevention using crafted metric transformations between the RIP, GGP, EGP and Hello routing protocols. Dave Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Vint Cerf wrote: > >> The design contemplated multiple networks and alternate paths from the >> start. The configuration of the 3 net test artificially forced >> traffic from >> PRNET to ARPANET toSATNET to ARPANET again. The routing protocol in >> ginny >> strazisar's gateways was distance vector and I believe would handle >> multiple >> paths and backbones. V > > > > OK. > > So, did EGP reflect this flexibility? > > (I am remembering the anecdote of Bob Bradent's working from UCL back > to ISI over a satellite link, having it freeze when the line go down, > go off to have lunch or dinner, and return to a resumed connection; > TCP doesn't have timeouts and it was only later that o/s > implementations made them common. I am wondering whether the > constraint to a single backbone for the Internet was an implementation > choice, rather than being mandated by the standard routing protocol.) > > Hence, what were the incremental benefits provided by BGP? > > d/ > > ps. This list is From louie at transsys.com Tue Aug 18 13:21:28 2009 From: louie at transsys.com (Louis Mamakos) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:21:28 -0400 Subject: [ih] EGP vs. BGP In-Reply-To: <4A8B01A1.8080303@udel.edu> References: <4A8ADD6B.3030700@dcrocker.net> <4A8B01A1.8080303@udel.edu> Message-ID: <20090818202128.GA16457@ringworld.transsys.com> BGP also carries around explicit policy information for each of the routes being announced. Previously, an EGP peer might attempt to apply policy based on the peer from which the route was announced, but more complex topologies become problematic. Consider that at the time with the emergence of the NSFNET and some other agency networks, there were upcoming acceptable use policies and other related politics to attempt to control what networks would provide transit for what others. EGP hadn't the tools available to pursue this in a direct way, not having really anticipated the problem. The other significant difference is that BGP is run within a network, as well as between peer networks. EGP was an routing domain edge protocol, and a network operator loss whatever policy information that he might have gleaned (e.g., I learned this route from the NSFNET) when the route was injected into the IGP. Thus, the heroic efforts that Dave mentioned with transforming metrics between the EGP and the IGP to at least avoid generating routing loops. However, the policy information was lost. BGP would allow this policy information to be propagated from edge-to-edge of a transit routing domain and enable more interesting network topologies (like multiple "backbones") to be built and operated. >From a technological view, the EGP transport was such that a complete EGP announcement of routes was contained within an IP datagram. As the Internet grew in size, the announcement had to be fragmented to fit over the available link MTU and there was a concern on the maximum size datagram that could be transmited, fragemented and then reassembled at the EGP peer. Of course, loss of a single fragment would likely cause the loss of the entire multi-fragement update. There was work on an new version of EGP to address some of the transport issues, but that was overtaken by BGP and the greater toolset available to operators therein. Too bad we hadn't the foresight to include classes route prefix announcements in BGP; that would have saved some very exciting transition work some years later. I wonder if we could do another major transition, like EGP to BGP, on the Internet system today? I recall the joke at one time that whatever came after BGP would still be BGP. Looking at that protocol, there is extensive accomodation for incremental new feature deployment. Can't just schedule a flag day. Louis Mamakos On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:31:45PM +0000, David Mills wrote: > Dave, > > The EGP specification rfc904 includes a hop count field, but not how to > use it. The Fuzzball implemented a Bellman-Ford routing algorihtm with > split horizon and hold down. Late in life it connected about 1500 > networks and the ARPAnet implementation. The major change with BGP was a > serious approach to loop prevention. The Fuzzballs had a weaker approach > to loop prevention using crafted metric transformations between the RIP, > GGP, EGP and Hello routing protocols. > > Dave > > Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > > > > > Vint Cerf wrote: > > > >> The design contemplated multiple networks and alternate paths from the > >> start. The configuration of the 3 net test artificially forced > >> traffic from > >> PRNET to ARPANET toSATNET to ARPANET again. The routing protocol in > >> ginny > >> strazisar's gateways was distance vector and I believe would handle > >> multiple > >> paths and backbones. V > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > So, did EGP reflect this flexibility? > > > > (I am remembering the anecdote of Bob Bradent's working from UCL back > > to ISI over a satellite link, having it freeze when the line go down, > > go off to have lunch or dinner, and return to a resumed connection; > > TCP doesn't have timeouts and it was only later that o/s > > implementations made them common. I am wondering whether the > > constraint to a single backbone for the Internet was an implementation > > choice, rather than being mandated by the standard routing protocol.) > > > > Hence, what were the incremental benefits provided by BGP? > > > > d/ > > > > ps. This list is > > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Aug 18 13:50:53 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:50:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) Message-ID: <20090818205053.CF4866BE5CE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Vint Cerf > The configuration of the 3 net test artificially forced traffic from u > PRNET to ARPANET toSATNET to ARPANET again. The routing protocol in > ginny strazisar's gateways was distance vector and I believe would > handle multiple paths and backbones. Yes, but I don't think GGP would handle that particular configuration (using the ARPANet as both a transit network _and_ the destination). As long as the routing thinks a given destination network is not bifurcated (the routing world has a 'term of art' for that, but I can't recall it), it routes to the destination network, and once there, thinks its job is done. (I recall this problem with great clarity, because we wanted to do the same thing with the later high-speed satellite network, when there was going to be a ground-station for it at BBN - send IP packets from MIT to BBN over the ARPANet, then over the high-speed network to California, and then over the ARPANet to the final destination. Wouldn't work. :-) Maybe there was some hack I didn't know about (e.g tunneling ARPANet traffic over a SATNET link), but are you sure of that configuration? Was it maybe just PRNET to ARPANET to SATNET, or something like that? Noel From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Aug 18 13:56:52 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] EGP vs. BGP Message-ID: <20090818205652.52F5F6BE5CE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Dave CROCKER > did EGP reflect this flexibility? In the original versions, no. Rosen's original concept for it was that it was only supposed to handle topologies which did not have cycles (i.e. alternate paths). That limitation got to be a real hassle... > what were the incremental benefits provided by BGP? Which version of BGP? (This is all from memory, should be checked against the relevant RFCs...) IIRC, the original version (versions?) of BGP only relaxed the cycles constraint, by using EI-N loop detection. Then there was some more stuff I don't remember, then masks got added to support CIDR, and since then there has been even more stuff (e.g. communities). Noel From braden at ISI.EDU Tue Aug 18 13:59:19 2009 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:59:19 -0700 Subject: [ih] BGP vs EGP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A8B1627.3000500@isi.edu> Please repeat after me (and I am paraphrasing Dave Mills' oft-repeated mantra): EGP was NOT a routing protocol, it was only a REACHABILITY protocol. For inter-domain routing, Internet used essentially static routing modulated by reachability information from EGP. Early efforts by Mills and others to extend EGP into an inter-domain routing protocol failed. There was an effort to design a global link-state routing protocol, but Eric Rosen (BBN) turned out a hard-to-read but ultimately convincing note about why this would not work. The advent of NSFnet forced the community to solve the problem of inter-domain routing. Yakov Rekhter came up with the idea of path vector roting, which solved the looping problem, and BGP was born. Bob Braden PS: The anecdote is completely correct. From vint at google.com Tue Aug 18 15:27:38 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:27:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) Message-ID: <19a6801ca2053$177c31b0$46749510$@com> The routing tables must have been artificially hacked otherwise traffic would have gone directly to usc-isi from the prnet/arpanet gateway. V ----- Original Message ----- From: Noel Chiappa To: internet-history at postel.org ; johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sent: Tue Aug 18 16:50:53 2009 Subject: Re: [ih] SATNET (seismic data, Norway, UK) > From: Vint Cerf > The configuration of the 3 net test artificially forced traffic from u > PRNET to ARPANET toSATNET to ARPANET again. The routing protocol in > ginny strazisar's gateways was distance vector and I believe would > handle multiple paths and backbones. Yes, but I don't think GGP would handle that particular configuration (using the ARPANet as both a transit network _and_ the destination). As long as the routing thinks a given destination network is not bifurcated (the routing world has a 'term of art' for that, but I can't recall it), it routes to the destination network, and once there, thinks its job is done. (I recall this problem with great clarity, because we wanted to do the same thing with the later high-speed satellite network, when there was going to be a ground-station for it at BBN - send IP packets from MIT to BBN over the ARPANet, then over the high-speed network to California, and then over the ARPANet to the final destination. Wouldn't work. :-) Maybe there was some hack I didn't know about (e.g tunneling ARPANet traffic over a SATNET link), but are you sure of that configuration? Was it maybe just PRNET to ARPANET to SATNET, or something like that? Noel From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Aug 18 16:02:27 2009 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:02:27 +0000 Subject: [ih] BGP vs EGP In-Reply-To: <4A8B1627.3000500@isi.edu> References: <4A8B1627.3000500@isi.edu> Message-ID: <1250636547.4610.40.camel@localhost> Bob's recollections agree with mine. At the time, we had the problem that the infant Internet was being pulled by two conflicting goals: operating as a high-reliability communications service, and providing a platform on which new approaches could be tried as new issues and needs surfaced. EGP was created based on Bob Kahn's guidance that the Internet had to develop a technology which allowed the Internet to evolve into a system where the pieces were designed, constructed, deployed, operated, and managed by many different organizations. An Internet composed of equipment which was all from one vendor, operated by one organization, owned by one payer-of-the-bills, was not the goal. An Arpanet-style network, with all hardware/software/operations by BBN or any other single organization, was not acceptable as a model for the Internet. Eric had been deeply involved with the Arpanet operations, and in particular knew lots about the kinds of things that could, and did, happen in the operational environment to wreak havoc with routing mechanisms and other such internals. I spent many hours learning from him why it wouldn't work, and that we didn't know how to create an Internet with diverse equipment, software, programmers, etc. We especially didn't know how to go about developing such a network and also keep it highly reliable at the same time. There was also a perennial list of to-be-solved problems, like the "expressway routing" and "type-of-service routing" scenarios, which would need new mechanisms and need experimental runtime. Reliability and experimental don't mix. EGP was defined specifically to enable different groups to try different approaches to the different problems, each implementing a fragment of Internet, interconnected so that it was likely possible to communicate across boundaries. It was an "internet of internets" technology. As Bob says, EGP did not attempt to be a routing protocol. It was more of a simple connectivity protocol, with a list of caveats - e.g., if you interconnect in such a way to create loops (which implies routing decisions), the result is undefined (but would be fascinating...) EGP was also intentionally minimal, in order to make it easier to actually get it into use and most likely to not cause problems. In addition to basic connectivity, it's other main function was to allow individual "autonomous systems" to protect themselves internally from outside influences to whatever extent they desired. In particular, one system didn't have to believe the information it got from outside, if it had good reason to be suspicious. This connectivity approach permitted the separate development of a variety of technologies for different goals - e.g., NSFNets policy rules. But they all could be interconnected and with care basic functions were reliable, e.g., email. I think BGP was in a sense EGP 2.0 - based on experience gained in the various internetwork fragments, BGP added more functionality to provide better service for the particular problems that were most important, and that had been figured out. EGP was an enabling technology that established the architecture and fostered the invention of BGP. When I was involved in Oracle's internal internet in the early 90s, we used an all-Cisco approach. There was a single (DS3) interconnection to "the Internet", probably using BGP (can't remember). It was the obvious, most likely to work, approach. It had its ugly side - e.g., an employee in Europe could exchange email with a customer who might be in the same building, but all the traffic went through California. As I remember, a lot of customers' networks were similar "homogeneous" configurations. I wonder if that's what the overall Internet looks like - a single-vendor system with different islands interconnected by single paths. And if so, is that because the general multi-player, rich interconnection research isn't done yet, or showed it was too hard, or ??? /Jack Haverty Point Arena, CA On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 13:59 -0700, Bob Braden wrote: > Please repeat after me (and I am paraphrasing Dave Mills' oft-repeated > mantra): EGP was NOT a routing protocol, it was only a REACHABILITY > protocol. For inter-domain routing, Internet used essentially static > routing modulated by reachability information from EGP. > > Early efforts by Mills and others to extend EGP into an inter-domain > routing protocol failed. There was an effort to design a global > link-state routing protocol, but Eric Rosen (BBN) turned out a > hard-to-read but ultimately convincing note about why this would not work. > > The advent of NSFnet forced the community to solve the problem of > inter-domain routing. Yakov Rekhter came up with the idea of path vector > roting, which solved the looping problem, and BGP was born. > > Bob Braden > > PS: The anecdote is completely correct. > > > > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Aug 18 19:26:41 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] BGP vs EGP Message-ID: <20090819022641.48B636BE5CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Bob Braden > Early efforts by Mills and others to extend EGP into an inter-domain > routing protocol failed. I recall this vaguely - it was not just Dave, IIRC, I think there was a whole group set up - I was there, I seem to recall Martha, and I'm pretty sure I remember Mike St John, but there were others too. I don't think there's anything online about it, but I probably have some hardcopy upstairs somewhere if anyone really cares. It was called EGP3, if memory serves. I don't recall exactly why it never went anywhere - I think it was a combo of it being pretty complicated (a touch of 'second system' disease), of some of us going off of the whole destination vector approach anyway, but maybe there were other factors too. > There was an effort to design a global link-state routing protocol Two, actually (or maybe three or four, depending on how you count). There was an abortive effort by a group centered around Proteon to define a simple link-state protocol to replace EGP - that effort was nixed by (IIRC) Dave Clark because he thought it would be a diversion for Proteon and/or outside their skill set. That effort was just as the EGP3 thing was clearly grinding to a halt, IIRC. I have this vague memory that it was called FGP (in the tradition of B, C, etc). Then there was IDPR, based on the output of the Open Routing Working Group (see RFC-1126), which was sort of a pre-Nimrod (it had a lot in common with Nimrod, but was an EGP only - I wanted a routing system that ran routing from the hardware, all the way up). Then there was Unified, by Yakov and Deborah Estrin, which tried to give the best features of both link-state and destination-vector by a combo of both. And finally there was Nimrod. (Note that IDPR != IDRP - the later was a BGP variant/proposed-successor that handled both IPv4 and NSAPs, IIRC. A lot of its ideas wound up in later versions of BGP, IIRC.) > but Eric Rosen (BBN) turned out a hard-to-read but ultimately > convincing note about why this would not work. I don't recall that? When was this, if you recall? Noel From braden at ISI.EDU Wed Aug 19 09:33:14 2009 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:33:14 -0700 Subject: [ih] BGP vs EGP In-Reply-To: <20090819022641.48B636BE5CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20090819022641.48B636BE5CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A8C294A.6070301@isi.edu> > > > > but Eric Rosen (BBN) turned out a hard-to-read but ultimately > > convincing note about why this would not work. > > I don't recall that? When was this, if you recall? > > Noel My best guess is ~1982, but memory is smokey after 27 years. Bob Braden From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Tue Aug 25 08:16:04 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:16:04 -0700 Subject: [ih] BGP vs EGP In-Reply-To: <1250636547.4610.40.camel@localhost> References: <4A8B1627.3000500@isi.edu> <1250636547.4610.40.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <4A940034.4050907@dcrocker.net> Jack Haverty wrote: > Bob's recollections agree with mine. Thanks, folks. This detail has been helpful. Glad it's now part of this list's archive. Just to summarize what I think got said: I had understood that the operational net could only support one backbone. What I am now understanding is that the issue was manual vs. automated addition of backbone /routes/ and that BGP made the latter possible. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From mills at udel.edu Tue Aug 25 08:47:18 2009 From: mills at udel.edu (David Mills) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:47:18 +0000 Subject: [ih] BGP vs EGP In-Reply-To: <4A940034.4050907@dcrocker.net> References: <4A8B1627.3000500@isi.edu> <1250636547.4610.40.camel@localhost> <4A940034.4050907@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4A940786.9000206@udel.edu> Dave, The switch to BGP had nothing to do with manual/automatic addition of backbones or local nets. New backbones and local nets happened all the time with EGP. Nobody asked anybody, just fired up EGP and/or RIP and/or Hello and announced their presence. The routing protocols took care of spanning trees automatically as best they could. There were about 1500 nets at the time BGP lit up. Yes, this broke the third-party rules, but there was no way nor no need at the time to stop newcomers. The only thing BGP added to the mix was a rigid administrative control and the resulting loop prevention.This issue was discussed in depth at the Technical History of the Internet Symposium at Harvard some years ago. My briefing slides used at the symposium are at www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/colloq.html. Dave Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Jack Haverty wrote: > >> Bob's recollections agree with mine. > > > > > Thanks, folks. This detail has been helpful. Glad it's now part of > this list's archive. > > Just to summarize what I think got said: I had understood that the > operational net could only support one backbone. What I am now > understanding is that the issue was manual vs. automated addition of > backbone /routes/ and that BGP made the latter possible. > > d/ > From vint at google.com Tue Aug 25 12:00:36 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:00:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] BGP vs EGP In-Reply-To: <4A940034.4050907@dcrocker.net> References: <4A8B1627.3000500@isi.edu> <1250636547.4610.40.camel@localhost> <4A940034.4050907@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <6505C78C-F783-45C2-9046-31212C439CE5@google.com> that is my understanding also, dave. On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Jack Haverty wrote: >> Bob's recollections agree with mine. > > > > Thanks, folks. This detail has been helpful. Glad it's now part of > this list's archive. > > Just to summarize what I think got said: I had understood that the > operational net could only support one backbone. What I am now > understanding is that the issue was manual vs. automated addition of > backbone /routes/ and that BGP made the latter possible. > > d/ > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 07:18:27 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:18:27 +0100 Subject: [ih] IANA Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, I'd to make sure I have the chronology and causality right in the development of ICANN >From 1968 onward, Jon Postel volunteered to keep track of the addresses of host machines on ARPANET and then Internet. In 1983, the same year as Mockapetris developed the DNS, Postel setup the IANA to manage the addresses and domain names 1992, NSF issues solicitation for bidders to perform network information service management 1993-1998, Network Solutions contracted to perform domain name registration service - working with / under (unclear here) the IANA 1995, controversy arises when Network Solutions proposes a fee for registering domains - the fee was apparently envisaged by NSF at the outset, and the Dec 1994 review of Network Solutions work recommended the fee. Controversy however came from the hesitancy on the part of some about Network Solutions having a monopoly and the prospect of their having no oversight from 1998 onward 1997, prompted by Ira Magaziner, Clinton administration commits to privitization in its 'Framework for Global Electronic Commerce' 1998, January, US Department of Commerce Green Paper 'A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses' proposes a private, not for profit corporation to coordinate DNS 1998, US Department of Commerce publishes statement of policy on Internet names and addresses and announces the beginning of a transition of DNS functions to the new corporation, following a period of further study and consultation. November 1998, ICANN signs memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Commerce to undertake joint study of the future for DNS management that would be operated by the private sector. December 1998, ICANN signs a transition agreement with the University of Southern California in which it assumed the functions previously fulfilled by the IANA. If this chronology is accurate, then the next problem I have is understanding where the controversy from 2005 came from... I hope all of you are well, any input would be much appreciated. Johnny -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 From vint at google.com Sat Aug 29 07:51:18 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:51:18 -0400 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > Dear All, > > I'd to make sure I have the chronology and causality right in the > development of ICANN > >> From 1968 onward, Jon Postel volunteered to keep track of the no, more like 1969 - when the RFCs were started (April). Steve Crocker would know of course whether Jon volunteered sooner than that. >> > addresses of host machines on ARPANET and then Internet. > In 1983, the same year as Mockapetris developed the DNS, Postel setup > the IANA to manage the addresses and domain names > 1992, NSF issues solicitation for bidders to perform network > information service management > 1993-1998, Network Solutions contracted to perform domain name > registration service - working with / under (unclear here) the IANA > 1995, controversy arises when Network Solutions proposes a fee for > registering domains - the fee was apparently envisaged by NSF at the > outset, no, it think the fee matter arose as the registration rate increased and NSF concluded that spending research $ on what was evidently a commercial activity did not make sense. It authorized $50/year with a two year minimum per domain name at first. This became very controversial. > and the Dec 1994 review of Network Solutions work recommended > the fee. Controversy however came from the hesitancy on the part of > some about Network Solutions having a monopoly and the prospect of > their having no oversight from 1998 onward you seem to leave out a two year period when the community tried to self organize. An Ah Hoc committee was formed but did not converge entirely. As I recall, Jon initiated discussion about 1996 on the matter of institutionalizing IANA functions in part because USC was unwilling to provide legal protection for potential controversies over rights to register particular domain names, etc. The attempt to self-organize led to a proposed Geneva-based entity but this ignited a firestorm among some members of Congress (who somehow thought that the US still "controlled" the Internet) and led to Ira Magaziner's involvement with the support of (or maybe at the request of?) then President Bill Clinton. > > 1997, prompted by Ira Magaziner, Clinton administration commits to > privitization in its 'Framework for Global Electronic Commerce' > 1998, January, US Department of Commerce Green Paper 'A Proposal to > Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses' > proposes a private, not for profit corporation to coordinate DNS > 1998, US Department of Commerce publishes statement of policy on > Internet names and addresses and announces the beginning of a > transition of DNS functions to the new corporation, following a period > of further study and consultation. October 1998, Jon Postel dies - he would have served as the CTO of ICANN. > > November 1998, ICANN signs memorandum of understanding with the US > Department of Commerce to undertake joint study of the future for DNS > management that would be operated by the private sector. > December 1998, ICANN signs a transition agreement with the University > of Southern California in which it assumed the functions previously > fulfilled by the IANA. > > If this chronology is accurate, then the next problem I have is > understanding where the controversy from 2005 came from... > > I hope all of you are well, any input would be much appreciated. > > Johnny > > > -- > My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net- > history-2010/ > > Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 From cls at rkey.com Sat Aug 29 08:35:54 2009 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:35:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A994ADA.6090601@rkey.com> You might want to have a look at my Ph.D. dissertation. http://www.rkey.com/essays/diss.pdf Johnny RYAN wrote: > Dear All, > > I'd to make sure I have the chronology and causality right in the > development of ICANN > From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 09:43:14 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:43:14 +0100 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: <4A994ADA.6090601@rkey.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> <4A994ADA.6090601@rkey.com> Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908290943x5b1e17c1kc3634b18264b9775@mail.gmail.com> Thanks - I will ask Steve and hunt for info on the self organization effort and Magaziner's entry to the scene. Re subsequent controversy, further chronology... 17 September 2003, the US Department of Commerce agreed an extension of the memorandum of understanding with ICANN until September 2006. On 30 June 2005, the NTIA issued a statement of principles on the Internet?s domain name and addressing system that says 'The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System. ? and will therefore maintain its historical role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file. December 2003, UN held a World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva establishes working group on internet governance 2005, working group reports back that Internet governance should be the preserve of no single government and mooted various mechanisms whereby ICANN would come under the authority of an intergovernmental body. Tunis, 2005. This is due to be discussed, US is isolated in opposition (after EU shift in position) to intergovernmental body's control. The establishment of a five-year Internet Governance Forum is agreed at the meeting to debate the issue. -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Craig Simon wrote: > You might want to have a look at my Ph.D. dissertation. > > http://www.rkey.com/essays/diss.pdf > > > Johnny RYAN wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I'd to make sure I have the chronology and causality right in the >> development of ICANN >> > From johnnyryan1 at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 09:49:10 2009 From: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com (Johnny RYAN) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:49:10 +0100 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9dd8c4d80908290949s1e71b176mb75cffbf03e9c3bf@mail.gmail.com> Dear Steve, I'm checking the chronology regarding IANA, the governance of DNS etc., and I wonder if you could clarify when Jon Postel started the task of keeping track of the addresses of the host machines on the ARPANET? Vint Cerf suggests that it may have been when the RFCs started in April 1969 but that you would know best. Does that sound right? Johnny -- My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I'd to make sure I have the chronology and causality right in the >> development of ICANN >> >>> From 1968 onward, Jon Postel volunteered to keep track of the > > no, more like 1969 - when the RFCs were started (April). Steve Crocker > would know of course whether Jon volunteered sooner than that. >>> >> addresses of host machines on ARPANET and then Internet. >> In 1983, the same year as Mockapetris developed the DNS, Postel setup >> the IANA to manage the addresses and domain names >> 1992, NSF issues solicitation for bidders to perform network >> information service management >> 1993-1998, Network Solutions contracted to perform domain name >> registration service - working with / under (unclear here) the IANA >> 1995, controversy arises when Network Solutions proposes a fee for >> registering domains - the fee was apparently envisaged by NSF at the >> outset, > > no, it think the fee matter arose as the registration rate increased and > NSF concluded that spending research $ on what was evidently a > commercial activity did not make sense. It authorized $50/year with > a two year minimum per domain name at first. This became very controversial. > >> and the Dec 1994 review of Network Solutions work recommended >> the fee. Controversy however came from the hesitancy on the part of >> some about Network Solutions having a monopoly and the prospect of >> their having no oversight from 1998 onward > > you seem to leave out a two year period when the community tried to > self organize. An Ah Hoc committee was formed but did not converge > entirely. As I recall, Jon initiated discussion about 1996 on the matter > of institutionalizing IANA functions in part because USC was unwilling > to provide legal protection for potential controversies over rights to > register particular domain names, etc. The attempt to self-organize > led to a proposed Geneva-based entity but this ignited a firestorm > among some members of Congress (who somehow thought that > the US still "controlled" the Internet) and led to Ira Magaziner's > involvement with the support of (or maybe at the request of?) > then President Bill Clinton. >> >> 1997, prompted by Ira Magaziner, Clinton administration commits to >> privitization in its 'Framework for Global Electronic Commerce' >> 1998, January, US Department of Commerce Green Paper 'A Proposal to >> Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses' >> proposes a private, not for profit corporation to coordinate DNS >> 1998, US Department of Commerce publishes statement of policy on >> Internet names and addresses and announces the beginning of a >> transition of DNS functions to the new corporation, following a period >> of further study and consultation. > > October 1998, Jon Postel dies - he would have served as the CTO of > ICANN. >> >> November 1998, ICANN signs memorandum of understanding with the US >> Department of Commerce to undertake joint study of the future for DNS >> management that would be operated by the private sector. >> December 1998, ICANN signs a transition agreement with the University >> of Southern California in which it assumed the functions previously >> fulfilled by the IANA. >> >> If this chronology is accurate, then the next problem I have is >> understanding where the controversy from 2005 came from... >> >> I hope all of you are well, any input would be much appreciated. >> >> Johnny >> >> >> -- >> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >> >> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 > > From vint at google.com Sat Aug 29 10:23:26 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:23:26 -0400 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: <2F6B578D-9002-47BD-AEBC-47718BEDA8D3@shinkuro.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> <9dd8c4d80908290949s1e71b176mb75cffbf03e9c3bf@mail.gmail.com> <2F6B578D-9002-47BD-AEBC-47718BEDA8D3@shinkuro.com> Message-ID: <120F1C54-E8F5-487A-B412-80AF0437EEEC@google.com> Steve, thanks for trying to get this straight. It's amazing how much we've forgotten. Jake, when did Jon come to SRI? Did the NIC maintain the host.txt file initially (that sounds right to me)? vint On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > Johnny, > > I don't think this quite right. The addresses for machines in the > Arpanet were formed two numbers. One number was the address of the > IMP. The other was from the particular interface on the IMP that > connected to the host. The IMPs were numbered from 1 to 63. The > interfaces were numbered from 0 to 3. The host address was the IMP > address plus 64 times the interface. UCLA had IMP number 1. The > first host attached to it was addressed as host 1. The second > host's address was 65. Etc. > > IMP numbers were assigned by BBN in the order they were installed. > Host interfaces were used pretty much in order at each institution. > > I don't remember who precisely kept track of the overall list. It > wasn't at UCLA and it wasn't in the early RFCs. I believe SRI took > on this job, and eventually distributed the information in the form > of the host table. Pretty early in the process we started using > names for the hosts, e.g. "UCLA" for host number 1, "SRI" for host > number 2, and then longer names to distinguish between hosts at each > institution, e.g. "UCLA-CCN" (I think) host 65. > > My memory of this is probably not 100% perfect, so I apologize in > advance if some details are wrong. Please do cross check. > > Bob Braden can probably tell you much more, and perhaps ex SRI > people can fill in some blanks. Check with Jake Feinler. I have > cc'd Bob and Jake as well as Vint. > > Cheers, > > Steve > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: > >> Dear Steve, >> >> I'm checking the chronology regarding IANA, the governance of DNS >> etc., and I wonder if you could clarify when Jon Postel started the >> task of keeping track of the addresses of the host machines on the >> ARPANET? Vint Cerf suggests that it may have been when the RFCs >> started in April 1969 but that you would know best. >> >> Does that sound right? >> >> Johnny >> >> -- >> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >> >> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> I'd to make sure I have the chronology and causality right in the >>>> development of ICANN >>>> >>>>> From 1968 onward, Jon Postel volunteered to keep track of the >>> >>> no, more like 1969 - when the RFCs were started (April). Steve >>> Crocker >>> would know of course whether Jon volunteered sooner than that. >>>>> >>>> addresses of host machines on ARPANET and then Internet. >>>> In 1983, the same year as Mockapetris developed the DNS, Postel >>>> setup >>>> the IANA to manage the addresses and domain names >>>> 1992, NSF issues solicitation for bidders to perform network >>>> information service management >>>> 1993-1998, Network Solutions contracted to perform domain name >>>> registration service - working with / under (unclear here) the IANA >>>> 1995, controversy arises when Network Solutions proposes a fee for >>>> registering domains - the fee was apparently envisaged by NSF at >>>> the >>>> outset, >>> >>> no, it think the fee matter arose as the registration rate >>> increased and >>> NSF concluded that spending research $ on what was evidently a >>> commercial activity did not make sense. It authorized $50/year with >>> a two year minimum per domain name at first. This became very >>> controversial. >>> >>>> and the Dec 1994 review of Network Solutions work recommended >>>> the fee. Controversy however came from the hesitancy on the part of >>>> some about Network Solutions having a monopoly and the prospect of >>>> their having no oversight from 1998 onward >>> >>> you seem to leave out a two year period when the community tried to >>> self organize. An Ah Hoc committee was formed but did not converge >>> entirely. As I recall, Jon initiated discussion about 1996 on the >>> matter >>> of institutionalizing IANA functions in part because USC was >>> unwilling >>> to provide legal protection for potential controversies over >>> rights to >>> register particular domain names, etc. The attempt to self-organize >>> led to a proposed Geneva-based entity but this ignited a firestorm >>> among some members of Congress (who somehow thought that >>> the US still "controlled" the Internet) and led to Ira Magaziner's >>> involvement with the support of (or maybe at the request of?) >>> then President Bill Clinton. >>>> >>>> 1997, prompted by Ira Magaziner, Clinton administration commits to >>>> privitization in its 'Framework for Global Electronic Commerce' >>>> 1998, January, US Department of Commerce Green Paper 'A Proposal to >>>> Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses' >>>> proposes a private, not for profit corporation to coordinate DNS >>>> 1998, US Department of Commerce publishes statement of policy on >>>> Internet names and addresses and announces the beginning of a >>>> transition of DNS functions to the new corporation, following a >>>> period >>>> of further study and consultation. >>> >>> October 1998, Jon Postel dies - he would have served as the CTO of >>> ICANN. >>>> >>>> November 1998, ICANN signs memorandum of understanding with the US >>>> Department of Commerce to undertake joint study of the future for >>>> DNS >>>> management that would be operated by the private sector. >>>> December 1998, ICANN signs a transition agreement with the >>>> University >>>> of Southern California in which it assumed the functions previously >>>> fulfilled by the IANA. >>>> >>>> If this chronology is accurate, then the next problem I have is >>>> understanding where the controversy from 2005 came from... >>>> >>>> I hope all of you are well, any input would be much appreciated. >>>> >>>> Johnny >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>>> >>>> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 >>> >>> > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sat Aug 29 11:20:58 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] IANA Message-ID: <20090829182058.3254E6BE563@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Before something which is not complete gets into the online record: > On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > The IMPs were numbered from 1 to 63. The interfaces were numbered from > 0 to 3. That was of course in the original (32-bit?) header. In the new, 96-bit, headers, the 'host' (interface) number was 8 bits (i.e. 0-255, with 252-255 being used for virtual 'fake' hosts in the IMP itself), and the IMP number was 16 bits (0-65,535). > The host address was the IMP address plus 64 times the interface. That was for the 32-bit header I assume (I can't my old copy of 1822, only the new one, which dropped the 32-bit header description). It was stored in different ways in different headers; e.g. in the 96-bit header, the host was the low byte of the third 16-bit word, and the IMP was in the fourth word. Just for grins, in the IP header, the host was stored in the high byte of the 'rest', a 'logical host' (for Port Expanders) in the middle byte, and an _8-bit_ IMP number in the low byte. Noel From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sat Aug 29 12:12:36 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:12:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A997DA4.1030101@dcrocker.net> Vint Cerf wrote: > you seem to leave out a two year period when the community tried to > self organize. An Ah Hoc committee was formed but did not converge > entirely. As I recall, Jon initiated discussion about 1996 on the matter > of institutionalizing IANA functions in part because USC was unwilling > to provide legal protection for potential controversies over rights to > register particular domain names, etc. The attempt to self-organize > led to a proposed Geneva-based entity but this ignited a firestorm > among some members of Congress (who somehow thought that > the US still "controlled" the Internet) and led to Ira Magaziner's > involvement with the support of (or maybe at the request of?) > then President Bill Clinton. Small quibble: The IAHC work, itself, actually converged quite well. My own view was that there was very substantial industry support for its proposal, and very substantial organizing effort towards its implementation, with CORE as the prime exemplar. Since Jon supported it and since the root server operators were explicit that they simply took direction from Jon, the proposal would have gone live, absent governmental intervention. However there also was a very well-organized industry lobbying effort against it, including major companies with professional lobbying skills. Ultimately, the only reason it was not implemented was that Magaziner vetoed it. A point that is typically confused, including in Craig Simon's generally diligent and detailed thesis, is that the IAHC's scope was strictly limited to new gTLDs and never, ever had anything to do with the larger matters of the root or IANA continuity or authority. The IAHC model was simple: Authority rested with IANA. (Don Heath at ISOC was the only member of the IAHC who remained confused about this. That some of us contemporaneously commented on that larger matter is a different matter, mostly having to do with clarifying the authority /under which/ the IAHC was operating. (Small side note: Folks should look at the specific recommendations in the IAHC proposal and consider how many of them eventually were implemented...) >> 1997, prompted by Ira Magaziner, Clinton administration commits to >> privitization in its 'Framework for Global Electronic Commerce' >> 1998, January, US Department of Commerce Green Paper 'A Proposal to >> Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses' >> proposes a private, not for profit corporation to coordinate DNS >> 1998, US Department of Commerce publishes statement of policy on >> Internet names and addresses and announces the beginning of a >> transition of DNS functions to the new corporation, following a period >> of further study and consultation. From an historical standpoint, although this was perhaps a side-effect rather than a goal, I believe that the Green Paper officially terminated IANA's long-standing authority to do it's job (on its own.) > Vint Cerf wrote: >> Jake, when did Jon come to SRI? Did the NIC maintain the host.txt file >> initially (that sounds right to me)? This matches my recollection. SRI's doing the host table pre-dated Jon's arrival at SRI, but he then took the task with him when he moved down to ISI. Did the SRI task pre-date even Jake's involvement? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From braden at ISI.EDU Sat Aug 29 13:39:14 2009 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:39:14 -0700 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: <120F1C54-E8F5-487A-B412-80AF0437EEEC@google.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> <9dd8c4d80908290949s1e71b176mb75cffbf03e9c3bf@mail.gmail.com> <2F6B578D-9002-47BD-AEBC-47718BEDA8D3@shinkuro.com> <120F1C54-E8F5-487A-B412-80AF0437EEEC@google.com> Message-ID: <4A9991F2.7030301@isi.edu> Vint Cerf wrote: > Steve, > > thanks for trying to get this straight. It's amazing how much we've > forgotten. > > Jake, when did Jon come to SRI? Did the NIC maintain the host.txt file > initially (that sounds right to me)? > > vint I suspect that the very first host.txt file came out of BBN and was informally circulated. But I believe that the NIC first formalized its format and distribution. Bob Braden From kent at icann.org Sat Aug 29 22:23:04 2009 From: kent at icann.org (kent) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:23:04 -0700 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: <4A997DA4.1030101@dcrocker.net> References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> <4A997DA4.1030101@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <20090830052304.GU5116@lark.songbird.com> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:12:36PM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: [...] > A point that is typically confused, including in Craig Simon's generally > diligent and detailed thesis, is that the IAHC's scope was strictly > limited to new gTLDs and never, ever had anything to do with the larger > matters of the root or IANA continuity or authority. The IAHC model was > simple: Authority rested with IANA. (Don Heath at ISOC was the only > member of the IAHC who remained confused about this. And this is where I think the IAHC failed, to tell you the truth. In the final analysis, everything was founded on the larger matters of the root and IANA's authority, and without those questions being resolved, the IAHC report was resting on sand that quickly washed away. > That some of us contemporaneously commented on that larger matter is a > different matter, mostly having to do with clarifying the authority > /under which/ the IAHC was operating. I recall that the basic argument was that IAHC was operating under IANA's authority. But under close inspection IANA's authority always seemed rather vague. > (Small side note: Folks should look at the specific recommendations in > the IAHC proposal and consider how many of them eventually were > implemented...) Interesting thing to think about. >>> 1997, prompted by Ira Magaziner, Clinton administration commits to >>> privitization in its 'Framework for Global Electronic Commerce' >>> 1998, January, US Department of Commerce Green Paper 'A Proposal to >>> Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses' >>> proposes a private, not for profit corporation to coordinate DNS >>> 1998, US Department of Commerce publishes statement of policy on >>> Internet names and addresses and announces the beginning of a >>> transition of DNS functions to the new corporation, following a period >>> of further study and consultation. > > From an historical standpoint, although this was perhaps a side-effect > rather than a goal, I believe that the Green Paper officially terminated > IANA's long-standing authority to do it's job (on its own.) Perhaps. I'm not sure how well founded that authority was, though -- well founded in the sense of being robust in the face of lawsuits and other legal problems. Jon was very concerned about how IANA could be shielded from liability and anti-trust issues; the IAHC didn't address these concerns. Kent From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Aug 30 07:37:00 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:37:00 -0700 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: <20090830052304.GU5116@lark.songbird.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> <4A997DA4.1030101@dcrocker.net> <20090830052304.GU5116@lark.songbird.com> Message-ID: <4A9A8E8C.3030405@dcrocker.net> kent wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:12:36PM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Authority rested with IANA. (Don Heath at ISOC was the only >> member of the IAHC who remained confused about this. > > And this is where I think the IAHC failed, to tell you the truth. In the > final analysis, everything was founded on the larger matters of the root and > IANA's authority, and without those questions being resolved, the IAHC > report was resting on sand that quickly washed away. Well, that's certainly the way things played out. When the IAHC started, there was a great deal of controversy about the addition of new gTLDs, but I didn't see serious, visible challenge to IANA's authority. (To be fair, I wasn't looking and hadn't been tracking this area closely beforehand. So it might have already been there.) In any event within abouot 6 months, of the IAHC being formed, things completely changed. Besides having no mandate to deal with this larger IANA foundation issue, our group certainly had no skillset to pursue it. As we unfortunately demonstrated. >> That some of us contemporaneously commented on that larger matter is a >> different matter, mostly having to do with clarifying the authority >> /under which/ the IAHC was operating. > > I recall that the basic argument was that IAHC was operating under IANA's > authority. But under close inspection IANA's authority always seemed rather > vague. It wasn't vague at all, from an operational standpoint. The problem was that this had unstable /legal/ legs to stand on. (That might be what you were saying.) It's not so much that the authority was vague; it's that it was too easy to change. So as soon as it became a legal game, rather than an operational one, it was easy to obscure the operational clarity. Ultimately, things hinged on having conducted IANA do business a certain way for a long time and then having the foundation for that way being fundamentally changed too quickly for smooth adaptation. There were 3 separate forces that attacked IANA. The first was a rather pure independence movement. It created alternate roots but was never a serious threat. The second was financial, started by NSF's creating the registration fee windfall for NSI and thereby incentivizing others to look for revenue opportunities. The third was trademark. It's plausible -- and I'd have to guess likely -- that even without the first two, this third one would have been plenty to politicize and undermine IANA in the way that developed. Officially, the IAHC had very solid trademark industry participation and buy-in. Two of the group's members were from that world and were very constructive participants. However sub-rosa, some major trademark-owning companies provided the most effective professional lobbying against it. I don't know what early decision points could reasonably have been expected to be made differently, to better effect. Other than the NSF windfall to NSI. Though I had no direct information, I was under the impression that there was some earlier effort to spin IANA off, but that it was not pursued vigorously. It's of course plausible that doing the spinoff prior to things becoming an international, politicized pressure cooker would have been better. And international character sets. And authenticated email. And... woulda coulda shoulda. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From feinler at earthlink.net Sun Aug 30 11:32:52 2009 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:32:52 -0700 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: <120F1C54-E8F5-487A-B412-80AF0437EEEC@google.com> References: <9dd8c4d80908290718r610435a8g67b7b878225cb9dd@mail.gmail.com> <9dd8c4d80908290949s1e71b176mb75cffbf03e9c3bf@mail.gmail.com> <2F6B578D-9002-47BD-AEBC-47718BEDA8D3@shinkuro.com> <120F1C54-E8F5-487A-B412-80AF0437EEEC@google.com> Message-ID: <29435F94-8625-4441-AB04-8097B2DCB283@earthlink.net> Vint, Steve, et al, My recollection was that Jon came to SRI about 1973 and left to join USC-ISI when Engelbart's group was planning to spin off to TimeShare - about 1976. If you want the exact dates for your records, I can check with Personnel at SRI. Jon never maintained any host tables, even when he was at SRI. That was always done by the NIC. In the early days BBN informed the NIC when a new IMP was added to the network. BBN provided us with any contacts they had, and the NIC followed up to get a host name, Technical Liaison, etc. Peggy Karp was the first keeper of the host table. Jeanne North (Reddy Dively) under Dick Watson took over for a short time, then, when I joined the NIC in 1972 it became my job. Mike Kudlick and I formulated some rules early on to help formalize the host table. The NIC maintained both the "flat" table and then the DNS host table until the NIC project left SRI in 1991. Mary Stahl and Sue Romano were in charge of this effort. In the early days folks refreshed their host tables from ours. Soon that created a bottle neck, so we distributed the table every night to several other sites that could help with the "refresh". (ISI was one of those "refresher" sites. ). Then the NIC provided host information under the WHOIS and NAMSER servers, and also came up with the TLD naming scheme that is still in use today, i.e., .com, .gov, .mil, .org, .edu. We coordinated the group called Host Administrators who had authority over host matters at the various sites. Jon (by this time at ISI) and Joyce Reynolds maintained the Assigned Numbers list until the mid eighties (can't remember exact date, but can look it up if anyone is interested). At that time the NIC took over the maintenance of Assignd Numbers as well. The split between Assigned Numbers and Host Tables was always a little odd (one was DCA funded the other ARPA funded) so we all kept in close contact with each other at all times. For several years I kept Jon as a consultant on my contract to advise the NIC and keep things in synch. This was especially useful when we switched to the DNS. Hope this helps. Regards, Jake On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > Steve, > > thanks for trying to get this straight. It's amazing how much we've > forgotten. > > Jake, when did Jon come to SRI? Did the NIC maintain the host.txt > file initially (that sounds right to me)? > > vint > > On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > >> Johnny, >> >> I don't think this quite right. The addresses for machines in the >> Arpanet were formed two numbers. One number was the address of the >> IMP. The other was from the particular interface on the IMP that >> connected to the host. The IMPs were numbered from 1 to 63. The >> interfaces were numbered from 0 to 3. The host address was the IMP >> address plus 64 times the interface. UCLA had IMP number 1. The >> first host attached to it was addressed as host 1. The second >> host's address was 65. Etc. >> >> IMP numbers were assigned by BBN in the order they were installed. >> Host interfaces were used pretty much in order at each institution. >> >> I don't remember who precisely kept track of the overall list. It >> wasn't at UCLA and it wasn't in the early RFCs. I believe SRI took >> on this job, and eventually distributed the information in the form >> of the host table. Pretty early in the process we started using >> names for the hosts, e.g. "UCLA" for host number 1, "SRI" for host >> number 2, and then longer names to distinguish between hosts at >> each institution, e.g. "UCLA-CCN" (I think) host 65. >> >> My memory of this is probably not 100% perfect, so I apologize in >> advance if some details are wrong. Please do cross check. >> >> Bob Braden can probably tell you much more, and perhaps ex SRI >> people can fill in some blanks. Check with Jake Feinler. I have >> cc'd Bob and Jake as well as Vint. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 29, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >> >>> Dear Steve, >>> >>> I'm checking the chronology regarding IANA, the governance of DNS >>> etc., and I wonder if you could clarify when Jon Postel started the >>> task of keeping track of the addresses of the host machines on the >>> ARPANET? Vint Cerf suggests that it may have been when the RFCs >>> started in April 1969 but that you would know best. >>> >>> Does that sound right? >>> >>> Johnny >>> >>> -- >>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>> >>> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> I'd to make sure I have the chronology and causality right in the >>>>> development of ICANN >>>>> >>>>>> From 1968 onward, Jon Postel volunteered to keep track of the >>>> >>>> no, more like 1969 - when the RFCs were started (April). Steve >>>> Crocker >>>> would know of course whether Jon volunteered sooner than that. >>>>>> >>>>> addresses of host machines on ARPANET and then Internet. >>>>> In 1983, the same year as Mockapetris developed the DNS, Postel >>>>> setup >>>>> the IANA to manage the addresses and domain names >>>>> 1992, NSF issues solicitation for bidders to perform network >>>>> information service management >>>>> 1993-1998, Network Solutions contracted to perform domain name >>>>> registration service - working with / under (unclear here) the >>>>> IANA >>>>> 1995, controversy arises when Network Solutions proposes a fee for >>>>> registering domains - the fee was apparently envisaged by NSF at >>>>> the >>>>> outset, >>>> >>>> no, it think the fee matter arose as the registration rate >>>> increased and >>>> NSF concluded that spending research $ on what was evidently a >>>> commercial activity did not make sense. It authorized $50/year with >>>> a two year minimum per domain name at first. This became very >>>> controversial. >>>> >>>>> and the Dec 1994 review of Network Solutions work recommended >>>>> the fee. Controversy however came from the hesitancy on the part >>>>> of >>>>> some about Network Solutions having a monopoly and the prospect of >>>>> their having no oversight from 1998 onward >>>> >>>> you seem to leave out a two year period when the community tried to >>>> self organize. An Ah Hoc committee was formed but did not converge >>>> entirely. As I recall, Jon initiated discussion about 1996 on the >>>> matter >>>> of institutionalizing IANA functions in part because USC was >>>> unwilling >>>> to provide legal protection for potential controversies over >>>> rights to >>>> register particular domain names, etc. The attempt to self-organize >>>> led to a proposed Geneva-based entity but this ignited a firestorm >>>> among some members of Congress (who somehow thought that >>>> the US still "controlled" the Internet) and led to Ira Magaziner's >>>> involvement with the support of (or maybe at the request of?) >>>> then President Bill Clinton. >>>>> >>>>> 1997, prompted by Ira Magaziner, Clinton administration commits to >>>>> privitization in its 'Framework for Global Electronic Commerce' >>>>> 1998, January, US Department of Commerce Green Paper 'A Proposal >>>>> to >>>>> Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses' >>>>> proposes a private, not for profit corporation to coordinate DNS >>>>> 1998, US Department of Commerce publishes statement of policy on >>>>> Internet names and addresses and announces the beginning of a >>>>> transition of DNS functions to the new corporation, following a >>>>> period >>>>> of further study and consultation. >>>> >>>> October 1998, Jon Postel dies - he would have served as the CTO of >>>> ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> November 1998, ICANN signs memorandum of understanding with the US >>>>> Department of Commerce to undertake joint study of the future >>>>> for DNS >>>>> management that would be operated by the private sector. >>>>> December 1998, ICANN signs a transition agreement with the >>>>> University >>>>> of Southern California in which it assumed the functions >>>>> previously >>>>> fulfilled by the IANA. >>>>> >>>>> If this chronology is accurate, then the next problem I have is >>>>> understanding where the controversy from 2005 came from... >>>>> >>>>> I hope all of you are well, any input would be much appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> Johnny >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>>>> >>>>> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 >>>> >>>> >> > From vint at google.com Sun Aug 30 12:11:42 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:11:42 -0400 Subject: [ih] IANA Message-ID: <4194601ca29a5$b5649150$202db3f0$@com> Thanks jake! ----- Original Message ----- From: Elizabeth Feinler To: Vint Cerf Cc: Steve Crocker ; johnnyryan1 at gmail.com ; internet-history at postel.org ; Bob Braden Sent: Sun Aug 30 14:32:52 2009 Subject: Re: [ih] IANA Vint, Steve, et al, My recollection was that Jon came to SRI about 1973 and left to join USC-ISI when Engelbart's group was planning to spin off to TimeShare - about 1976. If you want the exact dates for your records, I can check with Personnel at SRI. Jon never maintained any host tables, even when he was at SRI. That was always done by the NIC. In the early days BBN informed the NIC when a new IMP was added to the network. BBN provided us with any contacts they had, and the NIC followed up to get a host name, Technical Liaison, etc. Peggy Karp was the first keeper of the host table. Jeanne North (Reddy Dively) under Dick Watson took over for a short time, then, when I joined the NIC in 1972 it became my job. Mike Kudlick and I formulated some rules early on to help formalize the host table. The NIC maintained both the "flat" table and then the DNS host table until the NIC project left SRI in 1991. Mary Stahl and Sue Romano were in charge of this effort. In the early days folks refreshed their host tables from ours. Soon that created a bottle neck, so we distributed the table every night to several other sites that could help with the "refresh". (ISI was one of those "refresher" sites. ). Then the NIC provided host information under the WHOIS and NAMSER servers, and also came up with the TLD naming scheme that is still in use today, i.e., .com, .gov, .mil, .org, .edu. We coordinated the group called Host Administrators who had authority over host matters at the various sites. Jon (by this time at ISI) and Joyce Reynolds maintained the Assigned Numbers list until the mid eighties (can't remember exact date, but can look it up if anyone is interested). At that time the NIC took over the maintenance of Assignd Numbers as well. The split between Assigned Numbers and Host Tables was always a little odd (one was DCA funded the other ARPA funded) so we all kept in close contact with each other at all times. For several years I kept Jon as a consultant on my contract to advise the NIC and keep things in synch. This was especially useful when we switched to the DNS. Hope this helps. Regards, Jake On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > Steve, > > thanks for trying to get this straight. It's amazing how much we've > forgotten. > > Jake, when did Jon come to SRI? Did the NIC maintain the host.txt > file initially (that sounds right to me)? > > vint > > On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > >> Johnny, >> >> I don't think this quite right. The addresses for machines in the >> Arpanet were formed two numbers. One number was the address of the >> IMP. The other was from the particular interface on the IMP that >> connected to the host. The IMPs were numbered from 1 to 63. The >> interfaces were numbered from 0 to 3. The host address was the IMP >> address plus 64 times the interface. UCLA had IMP number 1. The >> first host attached to it was addressed as host 1. The second >> host's address was 65. Etc. >> >> IMP numbers were assigned by BBN in the order they were installed. >> Host interfaces were used pretty much in order at each institution. >> >> I don't remember who precisely kept track of the overall list. It >> wasn't at UCLA and it wasn't in the early RFCs. I believe SRI took >> on this job, and eventually distributed the information in the form >> of the host table. Pretty early in the process we started using >> names for the hosts, e.g. "UCLA" for host number 1, "SRI" for host >> number 2, and then longer names to distinguish between hosts at >> each institution, e.g. "UCLA-CCN" (I think) host 65. >> >> My memory of this is probably not 100% perfect, so I apologize in >> advance if some details are wrong. Please do cross check. >> >> Bob Braden can probably tell you much more, and perhaps ex SRI >> people can fill in some blanks. Check with Jake Feinler. I have >> cc'd Bob and Jake as well as Vint. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 29, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >> >>> Dear Steve, >>> >>> I'm checking the chronology regarding IANA, the governance of DNS >>> etc., and I wonder if you could clarify when Jon Postel started the >>> task of keeping track of the addresses of the host machines on the >>> ARPANET? Vint Cerf suggests that it may have been when the RFCs >>> started in April 1969 but that you would know best. >>> >>> Does that sound right? >>> >>> Johnny >>> >>> -- >>> My Next Book... http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>> >>> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Johnny RYAN wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> I'd to make sure I have the chronology and causality right in the >>>>> development of ICANN >>>>> >>>>>> From 1968 onward, Jon Postel volunteered to keep track of the >>>> >>>> no, more like 1969 - when the RFCs were started (April). Steve >>>> Crocker >>>> would know of course whether Jon volunteered sooner than that. >>>>>> >>>>> addresses of host machines on ARPANET and then Internet. >>>>> In 1983, the same year as Mockapetris developed the DNS, Postel >>>>> setup >>>>> the IANA to manage the addresses and domain names >>>>> 1992, NSF issues solicitation for bidders to perform network >>>>> information service management >>>>> 1993-1998, Network Solutions contracted to perform domain name >>>>> registration service - working with / under (unclear here) the >>>>> IANA >>>>> 1995, controversy arises when Network Solutions proposes a fee for >>>>> registering domains - the fee was apparently envisaged by NSF at >>>>> the >>>>> outset, >>>> >>>> no, it think the fee matter arose as the registration rate >>>> increased and >>>> NSF concluded that spending research $ on what was evidently a >>>> commercial activity did not make sense. It authorized $50/year with >>>> a two year minimum per domain name at first. This became very >>>> controversial. >>>> >>>>> and the Dec 1994 review of Network Solutions work recommended >>>>> the fee. Controversy however came from the hesitancy on the part >>>>> of >>>>> some about Network Solutions having a monopoly and the prospect of >>>>> their having no oversight from 1998 onward >>>> >>>> you seem to leave out a two year period when the community tried to >>>> self organize. An Ah Hoc committee was formed but did not converge >>>> entirely. As I recall, Jon initiated discussion about 1996 on the >>>> matter >>>> of institutionalizing IANA functions in part because USC was >>>> unwilling >>>> to provide legal protection for potential controversies over >>>> rights to >>>> register particular domain names, etc. The attempt to self-organize >>>> led to a proposed Geneva-based entity but this ignited a firestorm >>>> among some members of Congress (who somehow thought that >>>> the US still "controlled" the Internet) and led to Ira Magaziner's >>>> involvement with the support of (or maybe at the request of?) >>>> then President Bill Clinton. >>>>> >>>>> 1997, prompted by Ira Magaziner, Clinton administration commits to >>>>> privitization in its 'Framework for Global Electronic Commerce' >>>>> 1998, January, US Department of Commerce Green Paper 'A Proposal >>>>> to >>>>> Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses' >>>>> proposes a private, not for profit corporation to coordinate DNS >>>>> 1998, US Department of Commerce publishes statement of policy on >>>>> Internet names and addresses and announces the beginning of a >>>>> transition of DNS functions to the new corporation, following a >>>>> period >>>>> of further study and consultation. >>>> >>>> October 1998, Jon Postel dies - he would have served as the CTO of >>>> ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> November 1998, ICANN signs memorandum of understanding with the US >>>>> Department of Commerce to undertake joint study of the future >>>>> for DNS >>>>> management that would be operated by the private sector. >>>>> December 1998, ICANN signs a transition agreement with the >>>>> University >>>>> of Southern California in which it assumed the functions >>>>> previously >>>>> fulfilled by the IANA. >>>>> >>>>> If this chronology is accurate, then the next problem I have is >>>>> understanding where the controversy from 2005 came from... >>>>> >>>>> I hope all of you are well, any input would be much appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> Johnny >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> My Next Book... >>>>> http://johnnyryan.wordpress.com/books/net-history-2010/ >>>>> >>>>> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnyryan1 >>>> >>>> >> > From nickolas.adam at gmail.com Mon Aug 31 14:16:43 2009 From: nickolas.adam at gmail.com (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:16:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] IANA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A9C3DBB.2020903@gmail.com> Hi all, first intervention on this august list. > Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:12:36 -0700 > From: Dave CROCKER > Subject: Re: [ih] IANA > To: internet-history at postel.org > Cc: johnnyryan1 at gmail.com > Message-ID: <4A997DA4.1030101 at dcrocker.net> > > > Small quibble: The IAHC work, itself, actually converged quite well. > > My own view was that there was very substantial industry support for its > proposal, and very substantial organizing effort towards its implementation, > with CORE as the prime exemplar. Since Jon supported it and since the root > server operators were explicit that they simply took direction from Jon, the > proposal would have gone live, absent governmental intervention. > > However there also was a very well-organized industry lobbying effort against > it, including major companies with professional lobbying skills. Ultimately, > the only reason it was not implemented was that Magaziner vetoed it. > > A point that is typically confused, including in Craig Simon's generally > diligent and detailed thesis, is that the IAHC's scope was strictly limited to > new gTLDs and never, ever had anything to do with the larger matters of the root > or IANA continuity or authority. The IAHC model was simple: Authority rested > with IANA. (Don Heath at ISOC was the only member of the IAHC who remained > confused about this. > Dave: I think that Craig's point is that the larger matters were /implied/ in the ongoing war actions. (On second thought, this might not have been Craig's point at all, but it definitely is mine: conflict here might resolve around intentionality in his version of constructivist rule-making) As Kent said, this local/technical-issues framing might have played against the very real ? though implied ? normative prescriptions propagated by the IAHC, which suggests that it was nonetheless part of the struggle on those larger matters. I'm not sure i agree with Kent, as the attempt at signing an international convention gave definite "contingence" (pragmatic, as per Craig's) to the us gov to assert its authority in the sovereignty-framed debate it had unfortunately found itself back in. Then again ... > That some of us contemporaneously commented on that larger matter is a different > matter, mostly having to do with clarifying the authority /under which/ the IAHC > was operating. > The source of authority is that which was inescapably implied in all "moves" in this "war", it seems to me. On that token, sometimes some agents may have acted against their best interests for an institutionalized outcome. For example, Garrin's (Name.Space) antitrust lawsuit (1997) elicited responses from NSI, USC and NSF, which boosted their pragmatic authority (again Simon's parlance: this only means that it gave their [speech] actions greater symbolic/political capital than they might have otherwise had) to assert their own claims to authority (or to weight-in on some perceived friendly claims of authority) in a manner that was to be ultimately against (what i take to have been) Garrin's interests. This is what Roni & Roni calls "authority by announcement", but supplemented by a contingent-friendly environment (a social setting which enhanced these claims). ====== again from Dave: It wasn't vague at all, from an operational standpoint. The problem was that this had unstable /legal/ legs to stand on. (That might be what you were saying.) It's not so much that the authority was vague; it's that it was too easy to change. So as soon as it became a legal game, rather than an operational one, it was easy to obscure the operational clarity. Ultimately, things hinged on having conducted IANA do business a certain way for a long time and then having the foundation for that way being fundamentally changed too quickly for smooth adaptation. I think that, as the intuitions (that had to be) behind the root redirection "test" indicates, everything relied in the final analysis on the operational authority, which gave the most pragmatic power to any claims of authority. These intuitions were also present in Vixie's "ultimatum". By the way, reading about the redirection never fails to bring tears to my eyes, call me sensible if you will. Still, it is also an event that was a failure because it was only meant as a bravado and the deployment of power it conveyed, when twarthed, gave the counter-deployer that much more symbolic/political capital. ========= >From Dave: I don't know what early decision points could reasonably have been expected to be made differently, to better effect. Other than the NSF windfall to NSI. Though I had no direct information, I was under the impression that there was some earlier effort to spin IANA off, but that it was not pursued vigorously. It's of course plausible that doing the spinoff prior to things becoming an international, politicized pressure cooker would have been better. And international character sets. And authenticated email. And... woulda coulda shoulda. I think that the redirection ending could have been spun in a much better light (read Goldsmith and Wu for the effect of the reverse). Please know that we (the next generation) will always be grateful for the fights that you've putten, as well as the fights that y'all continuing to pull. Also, for all our self-proclaim after-the-fact cleaverness, social scientists are rarely more astute at social engineering than the agents in the story we are trying to systematize. Analyzing a "politicized pressure cooker" after the fact is much more comfortable, i take it. Furthermore, as Craig puts it and i agree, the authority for those larger matter at play here is in no way settled. ICANN could very much evolve to be a different creature in a decade's time. Users groups and non-commercial constituencies may take on a greater role, for instance, and at-large could eventually be re-introduced, just to name some well-known options (that bear on the normative-representational side of things, but there are of course other sides to these larger matters). JPA's "authority" on those larger matter is directly the result of the way the "dns [political] war" played itself out. There are still many arenas of contestation where alternative normative prescriptions/worldviews can be reinforced. In all those arenas, i suspect that the normative legacy of Postel's efforts will be brought to bear by the "deployer of power" (as Craig puts it) or by the "norm settlers" (as Brousseau puts it) as the fight for "Internet governance" continues. As the definition of reality is always one of the most political of things, let me ask you a question that is very much political, if you don't mind: what do you all think was the normative edifice behind IAHC/ISOC's moves in this institutionalization war (implied also counts). As Craig puts it (and i had that impression also), Mueller's account borders on making the "technical priesthood" into vilains. That is no doubt due to his view that the namespace was better off coordinated by a rationalistic approach to common-pool resources, but it seemed a bit disingenuous with regard to 1) the windfall gain of NSI, and, more problematic still, 2) the prospect of monopoly and its related spill-over leveraging that said "technical priesthood" *seemed* to have been fighting against, amongst other things. (Then again, reading Mueller's "Universal service" suggests he might have more sympathy for monopolies that i first thought possible when i read "Ruling the Root") Hence the question: what were those things that you would say you were fighting against? and what were those things that you would say you were fighting for? I'm very interested in any account that would speak for Jon Postel's vision. Anything more substantial than his "service to [both] communities"? Thx Nick Adam From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 31 17:40:31 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:40:31 -0700 Subject: [ih] DNS root redirection test In-Reply-To: <4A9C3DBB.2020903@gmail.com> References: <4A9C3DBB.2020903@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A9C6D7F.7040609@dcrocker.net> Nicolas Adam wrote: > By the way, reading about the redirection never fails to bring tears to my > eyes, call me sensible if you will. Still, it is also an event that was a > failure because it was only meant as a bravado and No bravado was involved, though it is an oft-asserted myth. Jon didn't do bravado. He didn't do games. For a long time, I thought he didn't understand them, but it eventually became clear that, being a bright guy, the issue was not comprehension but rather a choice not to indulge. Because of my IAHC participation, I was chatting with Jon periodically, about things DNS, including perhaps a week before the event and a week after. I wasn't privy to any of his planning but his tone before and after, and his explanation after were entirely consistent with how he seemed to generally do things. Jon had long-standing responsibility (and authority) for administration of the root of the DNS. The best demonstration of this was the oft-repeated statement by the root operators that they simply did what Jon told them to do. At the time of the event, NSI had been in the midst of doing quite a bit of posturing, including rumors of going rogue. That is, declaring independence of IANA and the established DNS control structure, since they had the master copy of the root. That wasn't innuendo. That was the direct, vigorous tone and language from NSI spokesfolk. Since they were running the machine that contained the master copy of the root, this constituted a real and present danger, in the eyes of anyone who felt concern for maintaining continuity over the DNS root. When doing line management, a threat of operational failure requires developing -- and testing -- a contingency plan for continuity, in case the threat is realized. That's what Jon did. He developed and tested a plan for routing around NSI, should it have decided to declare independence. The event in question tested the feasibility of that plan. Jon seemed frankly surprised that Ira Magaziner was upset and that Magaziner had somehow thought that Jon needed to consult with Magaziner before making operations decisions. > I think that the redirection ending could have been spun in a much Jon was very clear about explaining what he did and why. The "spinning" was done by other folk who chose not to believe him and insisted that he had a different agenda. They had no evidence for this, however. > let me ask you a question that is very much political, if you don't mind: > what do you all think was the normative edifice behind IAHC/ISOC's moves in > this institutionalization war (implied also counts). As Craig puts it (and i > 1. I don't know what "normative edifice" means. 2. The IAHC was a child of IANA. It was staffed by appointments from multiple sources, but the authority for any use of the IAHC's report belonged to IANA. (As I said earlier, ISOC's Don Heath was initially confused about this.) ISOC had nothing to do with the line of authority, since ISOC had nothing to do with DNS administration, operations or funding. 3. Perhaps the biggest reason the IAHC project failed was that it never acted politically. It was commissioned as merely one more Internet effort to design a solution to a problem with some competing constraints. It was an extended group effort. Not nearly as personality-driven as some folks tend to portrary. It developed plenty of community support, although yes also community resistance. It met with whoever would talk with it. But it never calculated real political thinking for any of this, during my time with it, nor that I could see evidence of afterwards. > had that impression also), Mueller's account borders on making the "technical > priesthood" into vilains. That is no doubt due to his view Milton's rather creative analysis and even more creative use of citations was the subject of my review: I still find it curious that there wasn't an ethics review of his citations. > that the namespace was better off coordinated by a rationalistic approach to > common-pool resources, but it seemed a bit disingenuous with regard to 1) the > windfall gain of NSI, and, more problematic still, 2) He had an oddly blind eye about NSI problems. > the prospect of monopoly and its related spill-over leveraging that said > "technical priesthood" *seemed* to have been fighting against, amongst other > things. (Then again, reading Mueller's "Universal service" suggests he might > have more sympathy for monopolies that i first thought possible when i read > "Ruling the Root") > > Hence the question: what were those things that you would say you were > fighting against? I listed the 3 forces I saw, in an earlier posting. > and what were those things that you would say you were > fighting for? I'm very interested in any account that would speak for Jon > Postel's vision. I don't recall talking about such things with Jon. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net