[ih] principles of the internet

[Noel Chiappa]

    > From: Alex McKenzie <amckenzie3 at yahoo.com>

    > I disagree with John's definition of what it means to be a datagram
    > network. In my opinion, all that is required is the independent routing
    > of packets.

He'd probably call that a packet network... :-) But I do think he has a bit
of a point, though, that the _service interface_ offered to the user is
important.

For example, you could, today, build a network that was POTS user interface,
but independently routed packets inside. (Nobody would bother to do such a
crazy thing, I agree, but it's technically possible! :-) But I wouldn't
really call the result a 'datagram network'....


    > the ARPANET did go to great lengths to insure that messages, once
    > accepted, were correctly delivered to the recipient with high
    > probability. ARPANET also kept messages between a given pair of Hosts
    > in order. These two design decisions put a great deal of complication
    > into the IMPs.
    > It should be remembered, though, that the original concept of the
    > ARPANET was that each Host would contain a program to do all the
    > store-and-forward functions. It was Wes Clark's idea that a
    > minicomputer should sit next to each Host to do all the hard jobs
    > ... so that each Host did not have to write programs to get these jobs
    > done. Larry Roberts was enthusiastic about this idea because it
    > provided a more cost-effective way of getting the programming done,
    > done on time, and done correctly. So it was a design decision that the
    > complexity SHOULD all go in the IMPs.

Excellent point.

	Noel