[ih] Origination date for the Internet

[Guy Almes]

John,
   My question was really about the original PSI/ UUnet/ CERFnet design 
and, I guess to make it interesting, you'd have to posit a 4th member, 
just say FOOnet.
   Suppose PSI and UUnet each have routes to a given destination D that 
does not involve going through the CIX router.
   Suppose CERFnet and FOOnet connect to the CIX router and need to get 
to D.  Suppose, further, that CERFnet would prefer to get to D via PSI 
and that FOOnet would prefer to get to D via UUnet.
   What would be the routing table entry in the CIX router for D?
   How would "bilateral" agreements help?
   This has puzzled me for almost 20 years,
	-- Guy

On 10/28/10 8:45 PM, John Curran wrote:
> Guy -
>
>    Routing policies between peers over the CIX were agreed to on
>    a bilateral basis, just as most peering is done today. The only
>    exception I know of was due to the CIX/ANS interconnection and
>    combits quandary, which resulted in ANS being a transit network
>    for select NSF regional network who joined the CIX.  Paul Vixie
>    was the network engineer configuring the CIX router over most of
>    its operational life, and could supply the specific details...
>
> /John
>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Guy Almes wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>   Right.
>>   The original CIX was in 1991 and, interestingly, done as a router rather than a switch.  And with a T1 circuit coming from each participant.  I always wondered how PSI, UUnet, and CERFnet agreed on routing policies.
>>    -- Guy
>>
>> On 10/28/10 7:37 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
>>> 3Com was founded way back in '79, but it took Ron Crane a while to
>>> figure out the black brick; I think their Multibus adapter was about
>>> '81. The first single-chip Ethernet controller, the SEEQ 8001, didn't go
>>> into production until '83.
>>>
>>> BTW, as far as I can tell, the first CIX was a Cisco 7500 that connected
>>> PSI, UUNET, and Cerfnet somewhere around McLean, VA in 1991. It was
>>> moved to Palo Alto shortly afterward.
>>>
>>> PAIX came long in 1996 as a carrier-neutral NAP alternative.
>>>
>>> RB
>>>
>>> On 10/28/2010 3:25 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>>> beats me - 3COM was in operation by then and Berkeley BSD 4.x had also
>>>> been released, right?
>>>>
>>>> v
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Guy Almes<galmes at tamu.edu>  wrote:
>>>>> Vint et al.,
>>>>> I wonder about how many (mostly departmental) LANs were running
>>>>> TCP/IP and
>>>>> connected to the ARPAnet by 1-Jan-83?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Guy
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/28/10 4:44 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>>>>> actually ISI tracked TCP/IP capability during 1982; the primary
>>>>>> regular use was from Europe, especially the UK, prior to january 1983;
>>>>>> by then there LANS connecting to the ARPANET by way of gateways
>>>>>> (Proteon was around with its rings - Noel Chiappa is that correct?).
>>>>>> Then came Cisco but i guess after 1984.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course during 1982 many ARPANET sites came up on TCP/IP in parallel
>>>>>> with NCP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Miles Fidelman
>>>>>> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>  wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Hinden wrote:
>>>>>>>> I still have my "I Survived the TCP Transition 1/1/83" red button.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my view this was the time when the Internet became operational as
>>>>>>>> people starting using it for their day to day work, instead of a
>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>> researchers. Conception and birth occurred earlier :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, that raises another interesting question: At what point,
>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> 1/1/83, if any, was there a minimal set of networks, gateways, and end
>>>>>>> systems that were passing IP packets on an ongoing basis - as
>>>>>>> opposed to
>>>>>>> being cobbled together to run some experiment or other, and then
>>>>>>> brought
>>>>>>> back down? Can we isolate a date when IP packets started flowing and
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> stopped?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Miles
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>>>>> In<fnord>  practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>