[ih] Origination date for the Internet

[Vint Cerf]

Guy,

so I learned from Randy Bush about the Cisco 7500 (and maybe AGS before).

now I gotta go draw some diagrams!

v


On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Guy Almes <galmes at tamu.edu> wrote:
> Vint,
>  That's the odd thing: it *was* a single (Cisco 7xxx) router.  Hence the
> obvious problem I noted.
>  With Paul Vixie configuring the router, I suspect that what could be done
> was done.  But I am note aware of any early-90s router technology that would
> fix the problem I noted.
>  I'd be interested to hear from Paul or anyone else on what the CIX founders
> planned to do about this problem.  Several of them were technically very
> savvy and would have anticipated the situation/problem.
>
>  This contrasts, of course, with the 1995-era Chicago NAP -- implemented
> with an Ameritech ATM switch.  In that case, using ATM PVCs, they were able
> to do layer-2 switching with both local and long-distance circuits.
>
>  By the way, your note shows that you are now having a reaction similar to
> the one I had back in '91.
>        -- Guy
>
> On 10/29/10 2:20 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>
>> Guy,
>>
>> You are making an interesting assumption I think. The way I understood
>> CIX is that it was an ethernet with three routers, one each operated
>> by PSI, UUnet and CERFnet. There isn't a unique "CIX router". There
>> are three of them. Does that help?
>>
>> v
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Guy Almes<galmes at tamu.edu>  wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>