[ih] principles of the internet

[John Day]

Don't get me wrong.  The ARPANET was huge in terms of proving that 
Baran's ideas would work and over provisioning made sure that we were 
able to try some pretty advanced stuff and make it work.  When I tell 
students that we had a PC with a touch screen accessing distributed 
databases over the Net in 1975, they think I am pulling their leg.

In terms of conceptual advances, first there was packet switching and 
then the refinement datagrams.  CYCLADES wasn't as influential as it 
should have been because Louis ran afoul of the French PTT.  That is 
something else I have thought was significant. The ARPANET had the 
DOD as a protector even if ATT didn't occupy the same political 
position as the PTT, whereas IRIA hand no where near the political 
clout to protect CYCLADES.

We were very lucky.

At 15:18 -0400 2010/06/02, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>     > From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>
>     > Strictly speaking there is always some form of "call setup" even if it
>     > is by "ad-hoc" means, i.e. some code it in or a management system
>     > configures it. Something must ensure there is something that expects
>     > the packet on the other end.
>
>I thought we were talking about the network, not the applications? There's
>clearly a big difference _in the network_ if it has some sort of call setup,
>or if it's pure datagram (send packets to anywhere, anytime, no prior
>anything).
>
>     > the paradigm shift was not a step function. Baran starts it, the
>     > ARPANET takes a few more steps, but conceptually it is CYCLADES that
>     > first puts all the elements together.
>     > ...
>     > Continental drift got people to look at the problem which lead to
>     > further insights. Plate tectonics refined the concept One was not
>     > possible without the other.
>
>Ah, got it. Yes, I think we agree - but I think we have been all along, we've
>only been arguing about how big the various steps are in relationship to each
>other... :-)
>
>
>     > The thing that saved our bacon was that it was the DoD who did and was
>     > willing to spend like crazy on it. Because otherwise it wouldn't have
>     > looked as good as it did.
>
>Not just DoD, but DARPA specifically. Remember the story about how some part
>of DoD was about to be dragooned into doing packets, and Baran pulled the
>plug because he knew they'd screw it up, and he knew that that would taint
>packet switching for a long time, so it was better to can the effort before
>it did that.
>
>Too lazy to go look it up (don't recall exactly where I read it, so it might
>take a while to find), but it shows great smarts on his part, IMO.
>
>	Noel