From casner at acm.org Wed Feb 6 13:10:25 2019 From: casner at acm.org (Stephen Casner) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:10:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] Run TENEX in emulation? Message-ID: This message is addressed primarily to the BBN alumni out there. The simh platform supports various PDP10 emulations (ITS, TOPS-10, TOPS-20), but from what I have been able to determine so far, there is no TENEX emuation. I was told that an emulation of the TENEX pager hardware was implemented but not much tested at this point. Do any of you know whether an archive of TENEX software has been saved? If so, do you know whether it could be made available to experimenters (considering any licensing restrictions that might still be in force, etc.)? My motivation for this is one step removed. I've been working on using the simh emulation of the PDP11 to run the EPOS operating system for the PDP11 that we developed at ISI to support the ARPANET packet speech work. The EPOS system and application software was developed on the TENEX systems at ISI. Going a step further in the search, if there is an archive of software from the BBN systems, I wonder whether that archive might include the MACN11 and LINK11 programs that we used for the EPOS development. I know those programs were used at BBN because I worked with Ray Tomlinson on extending the functionality of LINK11, which was written in SAIL. I have one binary build of EPOS that I have succeeded in running, and I do have sources for EPOS, but no build tools. Sadly, when I left ISI I did not personally save as many files as I now wish I would have, and ISI has not kept this history, either. -- Steve From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 14:01:20 2019 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (David Walden) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 17:01:20 -0500 Subject: [ih] Run TENEX in emulation? Message-ID: Does Dan Murphy's TENEX website have anything useful? http://tenex.opost.com/ On February 6, 2019, at 4:15 PM, Stephen Casner wrote: This message is addressed primarily to the BBN alumni out there. The simh platform supports various PDP10 emulations (ITS, TOPS-10, TOPS-20), but from what I have been able to determine so far, there is no TENEX emuation. I was told that an emulation of the TENEX pager hardware was implemented but not much tested at this point. Do any of you know whether an archive of TENEX software has been saved? If so, do you know whether it could be made available to experimenters (considering any licensing restrictions that might still be in force, etc.)? My motivation for this is one step removed. I've been working on using the simh emulation of the PDP11 to run the EPOS operating system for the PDP11 that we developed at ISI to support the ARPANET packet speech work. The EPOS system and application software was developed on the TENEX systems at ISI. Going a step further in the search, if there is an archive of software from the BBN systems, I wonder whether that archive might include the MACN11 and LINK11 programs that we used for the EPOS development. I know those programs were used at BBN because I worked with Ray Tomlinson on extending the functionality of LINK11, which was written in SAIL. I have one binary build of EPOS that I have succeeded in running, and I do have sources for EPOS, but no build tools. Sadly, when I left ISI I did not personally save as many files as I now wish I would have, and ISI has not kept this history, either. -- Steve _______ internet-history mailing list internet-history at postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From vint at google.com Wed Feb 6 14:30:17 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:30:17 -0500 Subject: [ih] Run TENEX in emulation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: CompuServe had a sargasso sea of pdp 10s and 20s and Foonlys V On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, 17:24 David Walden Does Dan Murphy's TENEX website have anything useful? > http://tenex.opost.com/ > > On February 6, 2019, at 4:15 PM, Stephen Casner wrote: > > This message is addressed primarily to the BBN alumni out there. > > The simh platform supports various PDP10 emulations (ITS, TOPS-10, > TOPS-20), but from what I have been able to determine so far, there is > no TENEX emuation. I was told that an emulation of the TENEX pager > hardware was implemented but not much tested at this point. > > Do any of you know whether an archive of TENEX software has been > saved? If so, do you know whether it could be made available to > experimenters (considering any licensing restrictions that might still > be in force, etc.)? > > My motivation for this is one step removed. I've been working on > using the simh emulation of the PDP11 to run the EPOS operating system > for the PDP11 that we developed at ISI to support the ARPANET packet > speech work. The EPOS system and application software was developed > on the TENEX systems at ISI. > > Going a step further in the search, if there is an archive of software > from the BBN systems, I wonder whether that archive might include the > MACN11 and LINK11 programs that we used for the EPOS development. I > know those programs were used at BBN because I worked with Ray > Tomlinson on extending the functionality of LINK11, which was written > in SAIL. > > I have one binary build of EPOS that I have succeeded in running, and > I do have sources for EPOS, but no build tools. Sadly, when I left > ISI I did not personally save as many files as I now wish I would > have, and ISI has not kept this history, either. > > -- Steve > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 6 15:39:33 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:39:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] Run TENEX in emulation? Message-ID: <20190206233933.8738218C07B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Stephen Casner > My motivation for this is one step removed. I've been working on > ... the EPOS operating system for the PDP11 that we developed at ISI to > support the ARPANET packet speech work. The EPOS system and application > software was developed on the TENEX systems at ISI. > ... > I wonder whether that archive might include the MACN11 and LINK11 > programs that we used for the EPOS development. If you can't find them, there may be another way. When we first got the Port Expander software from SRI at MIT, we were using what I assume were the tools SRI had been using to build systems - they ran on the TOPS-20 machine, MIT-XX. (So they might be somewhere on an MIT dump tape, but I have no idea how to get them.) The things you mention above sound like the same tools? What we eventually did was move MOS (don't recall about the rest of it, without looking) to our Unix V6 system. Ward's group on the 4th floor had gotten MACRO-11 running under UNIX quite some time before; it's actually DEC's source code, tweaked for Unix, and seemed to do everything in the MACRO-11 manual. We didn't have a lot of trouble getting MOS to assemble under it, as I recall. They had also written a linker ('bind', in BCPL) that understood DEC's output format, and supported multiple CSECT's, etc. So we were able to build systems on the Unix machine. (We later decided we wanted to be able to write code in C to run under MOS, using Unix's existing C compiler. Phase 1 was to convert Unix a.out files to the DEC object format, and use 'bind' to build systems; later we went the other way, and converted to using a.out format, and the stock Unix linker, 'ld'.) Anyway, if all your EPOS code is in MACRO-11, with no HLL, if you can't find the original TENEX tools, maybe using UNIX would work for you too. Noel From lars at nocrew.org Wed Feb 6 22:10:46 2019 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 06:10:46 +0000 Subject: [ih] Run TENEX in emulation? In-Reply-To: (Vint Cerf's message of "Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:30:17 -0500") References: Message-ID: <7wy36sku1l.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Vint Cerf wrote: > CompuServe had a sargasso sea of pdp 10s and 20s and Foonlys >From what I heard, Tymshare gobbled up most of the Foonlies, and CompuServe was a heavy Systems Concepts customer. (One of the CompuServe SC-40s will be on display at the Seattle VCF.) From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Feb 7 02:31:28 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:31:28 +0000 Subject: [ih] Run TENEX in emulation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8686DC-B711-4DB1-8268-11C710361C6F@strayalpha.com> Fwiw... > On Feb 6, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Stephen Casner wrote: > > Sadly, when I left > ISI I did not personally save as many files as I now wish I would > have, I saved quite a bit, but even then it was a static save. It?s not like I can run old NeXT code. > and ISI has not kept this history, either. They?re legendary in their loss of archives, eg when they closed their tech lib and tossed all the tech reports instead of shipping them to campus, not to mention recent permanent losses of both email and files. And backups were only on-site and only within months at best unless we managed them ourselves. But we never received support to archive as we went. Nobody does. Even escrowing data sets over the currently required periods can be problematic. I?m not sure there is a workable solution as long as those who reap revenue off tech don?t have to pay royalties back in for such archives. Joe From casner at acm.org Thu Feb 7 23:50:52 2019 From: casner at acm.org (Stephen Casner) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:50:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] Run TENEX in emulation? In-Reply-To: <20190206233933.8738218C07B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20190206233933.8738218C07B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Noel, Thanks for your suggestions regarding UNIX-based development tools as an alternative to the TENEX-based ones we used in the 1970's. I do have a MACRO-11 running on my MacBook, but it does not implement the extensions to the macro capabilities that we used widely in the EPOS sources and it does not produce relocatable output. I also can use the UNIX V6 tools (running on a simh PDP11) for assembly or C code and then convert to LDA binary format with a program named atolda, similar to what your group did. That was how the folks at Lincoln Lab developed EPOS-based gateway software for the Wideband Satellite Network. I could also make an a.out loader for EPOS as an alternative like your group later did. The most sorely missed piece is the Link11 linker. It allowed configuration of PSECTs into multiple address spaces. It also produced symbol tables in an exended format for out debugger. In theory I could reimplement such a linker from scratch, and perhaps in less time than it would take to search for the original tools, but I don't have a spec for it. -- Steve From casner at acm.org Thu Feb 7 23:53:18 2019 From: casner at acm.org (Stephen Casner) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:53:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] Run TENEX in emulation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, David Walden wrote: > Does Dan Murphy's TENEX website have anything useful? > http://tenex.opost.com/ Good papers and photos, but I did not see software. -- Steve From clemc at ccc.com Fri Feb 8 09:20:43 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 12:20:43 -0500 Subject: [ih] Run TENEX in emulation? In-Reply-To: References: <20190206233933.8738218C07B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Check out the directory: historic1/brl.pdp11/usr/src/macro11 On Kirk's latest CD. It seems to be the DEC tools made to run on V6. There is a modified version of the DEC Linker. The only issue, of course, is that these are in PDP-11 assembler, so you'll need to run them on simh or the like. I'm not sure the relationship between these are the ones we ran in the old days; but I do remember that we had a linker that knew about the DEC style PSECTS. I'll keep looking when I get back to see what I have in my archives from those days. But I bet this version is close too if not the same as what I we had, Clem ? On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:25 AM Stephen Casner wrote: > Noel, > > Thanks for your suggestions regarding UNIX-based development tools as > an alternative to the TENEX-based ones we used in the 1970's. I do > have a MACRO-11 running on my MacBook, but it does not implement the > extensions to the macro capabilities that we used widely in the EPOS > sources and it does not produce relocatable output. I also can use > the UNIX V6 tools (running on a simh PDP11) for assembly or C code and > then convert to LDA binary format with a program named atolda, similar > to what your group did. That was how the folks at Lincoln Lab > developed EPOS-based gateway software for the Wideband Satellite > Network. I could also make an a.out loader for EPOS as an > alternative like your group later did. > > The most sorely missed piece is the Link11 linker. It allowed > configuration of PSECTs into multiple address spaces. It also > produced symbol tables in an exended format for out debugger. In > theory I could reimplement such a linker from scratch, and perhaps in > less time than it would take to search for the original tools, but I > don't have a spec for it. > > -- Steve > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From craig at tereschau.net Sun Feb 10 14:04:49 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:04:49 -0700 Subject: [ih] Mario Gerla has passed away Message-ID: Various posts on Facebook that Mario Gerla has passed away from cancer. As I understand Mario's career, he started out as a grad student in Len Kleinrock's lab, doing analyses of the ARPANET performance. Later as a professor at UCLA, he also made significant contributions to wireless and sensor networking (among other areas). I knew him as an extremely gracious and insightful colleague. Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Sun Feb 10 15:13:00 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:13:00 -0500 Subject: [ih] Mario Gerla has passed away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indeed he was, Craig - we were grad students at UCLA together (along with Steve Crocker among many others). I had the pleasure of working now and then with Mario on networking analyses and product development. A real loss of a friend and a valued member of our community. Too young. v On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 5:30 PM Craig Partridge wrote: > Various posts on Facebook that Mario Gerla has passed away from cancer. > > As I understand Mario's career, he started out as a grad student in Len > Kleinrock's lab, doing analyses of the ARPANET performance. Later as a > professor at UCLA, he also made significant contributions to wireless and > sensor networking (among other areas). > > I knew him as an extremely gracious and insightful colleague. > > Craig > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and > mailing lists. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at taht.net Mon Feb 11 12:21:09 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:21:09 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? Message-ID: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> Brian Carpenter just turned me onto this list. As part of an upcoming internet draft, I'd wanted to be able to coherently discuss the origin and original use cases of the "this" network "0" in Arpanet to early ipv4 transition days, and thus far I haven't found much information on it. I'm curious if there is a reference on it somewhere? From agmalis at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 13:28:14 2019 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:28:14 -0500 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: Dave, >From RFC 791: "A value of zero in the network field means this network.". Cheers, Andy On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:37 PM Dave Taht wrote: > > Brian Carpenter just turned me onto this list. As part of an upcoming > internet draft, I'd wanted to be able to coherently discuss the origin > and original use cases of the "this" network "0" in Arpanet to early > ipv4 transition days, and thus far I haven't found much information on > it. > > I'm curious if there is a reference on it somewhere? > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at taht.net Mon Feb 11 14:54:47 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:54:47 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: (Andrew G. Malis's message of "Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:28:14 -0500") References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <87pnryvsug.fsf@taht.net> "Andrew G. Malis" writes: > Dave, > > From RFC 791: "A value of zero in the network field means this > network.". A bit short, don't ya think? :) the full ref expounded with. "This is only used in certain ICMP messages. " Which ones? Did the 0 mean that on a shared local lan, it was represented as 0 there, and transmitted as something else elsewhere? Or vice versa? > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:37 PM Dave Taht wrote: > > Brian Carpenter just turned me onto this list. As part of an > upcoming > internet draft, I'd wanted to be able to coherently discuss the > origin > and original use cases of the "this" network "0" in Arpanet to > early > ipv4 transition days, and thus far I haven't found much > information on > it. > > I'm curious if there is a reference on it somewhere? > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From agmalis at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 15:31:13 2019 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:31:13 -0500 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <87pnryvsug.fsf@taht.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <87pnryvsug.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: Dave, The answer is in RFC 792, of course (the ICMP spec). In a quick scan, I see zero in the network field on page 19. It was a way for a host on a LAN to query its router to find out its network number. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:55 PM Dave Taht wrote: > "Andrew G. Malis" writes: > > > Dave, > > > > From RFC 791: "A value of zero in the network field means this > > network.". > > > A bit short, don't ya think? :) the full ref expounded with. > > "This is only used in certain ICMP messages. " > > Which ones? > > > Did the 0 mean that on a shared local lan, it was represented as 0 there, > and transmitted as something else elsewhere? Or vice versa? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:37 PM Dave Taht wrote: > > > > Brian Carpenter just turned me onto this list. As part of an > > upcoming > > internet draft, I'd wanted to be able to coherently discuss the > > origin > > and original use cases of the "this" network "0" in Arpanet to > > early > > ipv4 transition days, and thus far I haven't found much > > information on > > it. > > > > I'm curious if there is a reference on it somewhere? > > > > _______ > > internet-history mailing list > > internet-history at postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Mon Feb 11 17:42:51 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 01:42:51 +0000 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <87pnryvsug.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <8F4A8E5C-304A-43ED-8065-DEA3C5CF4021@strayalpha.com> https://www.ultratools.com/tools/rfcLookup Search for 0.0.0.0 The value is used in several protocols in different ways. But that doesn?t seem to be what?s been asked. I don?t know about it?s use in transitioning or historically. You might search the IENs for that. Joe > On Feb 11, 2019, at 11:31 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Dave, > > The answer is in RFC 792, of course (the ICMP spec). In a quick scan, I see zero in the network field on page 19. It was a way for a host on a LAN to query its router to find out its network number. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:55 PM Dave Taht wrote: >> "Andrew G. Malis" writes: >> >> > Dave, >> > >> > From RFC 791: "A value of zero in the network field means this >> > network.". >> >> >> A bit short, don't ya think? :) the full ref expounded with. >> >> "This is only used in certain ICMP messages. " >> >> Which ones? >> >> >> Did the 0 mean that on a shared local lan, it was represented as 0 there, >> and transmitted as something else elsewhere? Or vice versa? >> >> >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Andy >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:37 PM Dave Taht wrote: >> > >> > Brian Carpenter just turned me onto this list. As part of an >> > upcoming >> > internet draft, I'd wanted to be able to coherently discuss the >> > origin >> > and original use cases of the "this" network "0" in Arpanet to >> > early >> > ipv4 transition days, and thus far I haven't found much >> > information on >> > it. >> > >> > I'm curious if there is a reference on it somewhere? >> > >> > _______ >> > internet-history mailing list >> > internet-history at postel.org >> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Tue Feb 12 08:42:39 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:42:39 -0700 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 2/11/19 1:21 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > As part of an upcoming internet draft, I'd wanted to be able to coherently > discuss the origin and original use cases of the "this" network "0" > in Arpanet to early ipv4 transition days, and thus far I haven't found > much information on it. I have a few comments. Feel free to ignore them. Please correct me if you can. I'd love to learn from someone else's work. - To me, "0.0.0.0" represents and as such implies IPv4. So "early IPv4 transition days" sounds like the transition /to/ IPv4. Yet 0.0.0.0 is an IPv4 address to me. So what are we transitioning from and to? Admittedly I'm not familiar with the addressing that was used on ARPAnet prior to IPv4. But I suspect that it's addressing did not take the form of 0.0.0.0. Aside: Perhaps it's time to go back and re-read Where Wizards Stay Up Late again, but this time from the eyes of an amateur network engineer instead of a history student. - I guess there is some difference in the single IP address of 0.0.0.0 and any of the 16,777,215 other IPv4 address in the 0/8 network. - It's my understanding that zero is frequently used when the proper value is unknown. - As such, the zero network (0/8) is used when the proper network address is unknown. - Similarly, the zero host address is used when the proper host address is unknown. - Thus combining the zero network and zero host, you get 0.0.0.0 as the IPv4 address. - I think it's important to distinguish sending /from/ and sending /to/ the 0.0.0.0 address or network. (That being said, I don't recall anything that sends /to/ the 0.0.0.0 address.) - It's important to distinguish things, like ARP, that use the 0.0.0.0 address as part of their payload, which has nothing to do with the L2 broadcast addressing. (I.e. ARP using broadcast Ethernet frames.) - To me (and others that I talk to) the zeroth address has a high collision (at least in reused concepts) with subnetting. - How does the first and last address within a subnet become special? - How does the first and last subnetwork within a network become special? - I would be very interested in learning more about how 0.0.0.0, or the zeroth IP was apparently also used as a broadcast address. But after recent discussions with friends and colleagues, I realized that I can't satisfactorily explain (at least to myself) what the network (or zeroth) address is. I think I had always taken it for granted that the network and broadcast were to be not used by client devices as they had special meaning to the network. I can satisfactorily (at least to myself) explain what the broadcast (last) address is and what it's used for. But the network (or zeroth) address is more difficult. I know that (older?) BSD network stacks could overload the network and broadcast IPs. Why was using separate network and broadcast address preferred over the older BSD method of using a single address for both. Sorry if this has turned into a ramble. There have been a lot of scattered thoughts that have sort of collided together over the last few months and aggregate around the zeroth / first IP in a subnet, and they all seem related in some way that I can't satisfactorily explain. > I'm curious if there is a reference on it somewhere? I too would like to find and read the origination (or references there to). Please share what you find, or let us know where we will be able to find your work when you're finished. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From dave at taht.net Tue Feb 12 10:23:42 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:23:42 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> (Grant Taylor's message of "Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:42:39 -0700") References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> Grant Taylor writes: > On 2/11/19 1:21 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> As part of an upcoming internet draft, I'd wanted to be able to coherently >> discuss the origin and original use cases of the "this" network "0" >> in Arpanet to early ipv4 transition days, and thus far I haven't found >> much information on it. > > I have a few comments. Feel free to ignore them. Please correct me if > you can. I'd love to learn from someone else's work. > > - To me, "0.0.0.0" represents and as such implies IPv4. So "early > IPv4 transition days" sounds like the transition /to/ IPv4. Yet 0.0.0.0 > is an IPv4 address to me. So what are we transitioning from and to? > > Admittedly I'm not familiar with the addressing that was used on ARPAnet > prior to IPv4. But I suspect that it's addressing did not take the form > of 0.0.0.0. > > Aside: Perhaps it's time to go back and re-read Where Wizards Stay Up > Late again, but this time from the eyes of an amateur network engineer > instead of a history student. I loved that book. It needs a sequel. Multiple sequels. One tidbit from that book I'd love to track down - it said paul buran wrote 11?13? 14? - can't remember- *books* about packet processing, and yet these have vanished from the internet. Whenever I struggle on something - like the whol bufferbloat thing - I fantasize that scribbled in the margin of book 13 was the answer to my problem. > > - I guess there is some difference in the single IP address of 0.0.0.0 > and any of the 16,777,215 other IPv4 address in the 0/8 network. > > - It's my understanding that zero is frequently used when the proper > value is unknown. > > - As such, the zero network (0/8) is used when the proper network > address is unknown. What we see nowadays is 0.0.0.0/32 is used for useful stuff. 0.0.0.0/8, by history and by extension (including the 4.2 BSD broadcast gaff), is unused. However, 0.0.0.1 - 0.255.255.254 *does work* as a real address with a very simple patch to linux. static inline bool ipv4_is_local_multicast(__be32 addr) @@ -67,7 +71,7 @@ static inline bool ipv4_is_all_snoopers(__be32 addr) static inline bool ipv4_is_zeronet(__be32 addr) { - return (addr & htonl(0xff000000)) == htonl(0x00000000); + return (addr == 0); } Boom. arp works, address assignement via dhcp works, it works as an address on everything patched. So trying to find the cases where that address range wouldn't work is on my mind. Clearly 0.0.0.0/32 is special, but... > > - Similarly, the zero host address is used when the proper host > address is unknown. > > - Thus combining the zero network and zero host, you get 0.0.0.0 as > the IPv4 address. > > - I think it's important to distinguish sending /from/ and sending > /to/ the 0.0.0.0 address or network. (That being said, I don't recall > anything that sends /to/ the 0.0.0.0 address.) > > - It's important to distinguish things, like ARP, that use the 0.0.0.0 > address as part of their payload, which has nothing to do with the L2 > broadcast addressing. (I.e. ARP using broadcast Ethernet frames.) > > - To me (and others that I talk to) the zeroth address has a high > collision (at least in reused concepts) with subnetting. The zeroth address is another long standing problem. Since cidr, and 4.2BSD's retirement, zeroth should be a usable address. > > - How does the first and last address within a subnet become special? Explicit checks in the OS. > > - How does the first and last subnetwork within a network become special? > > - I would be very interested in learning more about how 0.0.0.0, or > the zeroth IP was apparently also used as a broadcast address. > > But after recent discussions with friends and colleagues, I realized > that I can't satisfactorily explain (at least to myself) what the > network (or zeroth) address is. I think I had always taken it for > granted that the network and broadcast were to be not used by client > devices as they had special meaning to the network. > > I can satisfactorily (at least to myself) explain what the broadcast > (last) address is and what it's used for. But the network (or zeroth) > address is more difficult. > > I know that (older?) BSD network stacks could overload the network and > broadcast IPs. Why was using separate network and broadcast address > preferred over the older BSD method of using a single address for both. Good question. But the issue died with BSD 4.2 > > Sorry if this has turned into a ramble. There have been a lot of > scattered thoughts that have sort of collided together over the last few > months and aggregate around the zeroth / first IP in a subnet, and they > all seem related in some way that I can't satisfactorily explain. > >> I'm curious if there is a reference on it somewhere? > > I too would like to find and read the origination (or references there > to). Please share what you find, or let us know where we will be able > to find your work when you're finished. From michael at kjorling.se Tue Feb 12 10:55:59 2019 From: michael at kjorling.se (Michael =?utf-8?B?S2rDtnJsaW5n?=) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:55:59 +0000 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> On 12 Feb 2019 09:42 -0700, from internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor): > - To me, "0.0.0.0" represents and as such implies IPv4. So "early > IPv4 transition days" sounds like the transition /to/ IPv4. Yet 0.0.0.0 > is an IPv4 address to me. So what are we transitioning from and to? NCP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Control_Program The final transition from NCP to TCP/IP was in January 1983. RFC 801 may be of interest. > Admittedly I'm not familiar with the addressing that was used on ARPAnet > prior to IPv4. But I suspect that it's addressing did not take the form > of 0.0.0.0. I wasn't around at the time, but the January 1970 RFC 33 says on page 6 that NCP addressing was 24 bits of "user number" plus 8 bits of "host number" plus 8 bits of "another eight-bit number", 7 of which seem like they function largely as what we today refer to as "ports"; one end of a connection was therefore identified by a total of 48 bits, 8 of which describe the host. I don't see anything obvious actually specifying a format for how these addresses would be entered by or displayed to a user, only hints that hexadecimal notation may have been common. This format allowed up to 2^8 hosts on the network, each with 2^24 users, each with 2^7 simultaneous active bidirectional connections. Note that "port" in NCP seems to have been a very different concept from "port" in TCP. My understanding is that NCP "ports" refer more to the physical links than to a logical property of a data connection. -- Michael Kj?rling ? https://michael.kjorling.se ? michael at kjorling.se ?The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person is to think you know what you?re doing.? (Bret Victor) From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Tue Feb 12 11:03:13 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:03:13 -0700 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 02/12/2019 11:23 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > I loved that book. It needs a sequel. Multiple sequels. Agreed!!! > One tidbit from that book I'd love to track down - it said paul buran > wrote 11?13? 14? - can't remember- *books* about packet processing, > and yet these have vanished from the internet. Whenever I struggle on > something - like the whol bufferbloat thing - I fantasize that scribbled > in the margin of book 13 was the answer to my problem. Hum. I'll have to look for that in context when I next re-read the book and then start researching things. }:-) > What we see nowadays is 0.0.0.0/32 is used for useful stuff. 0.0.0.0/8, > by history and by extension (including the 4.2 BSD broadcast gaff), > is unused. > > However, 0.0.0.1 - 0.255.255.254 *does work* as a real address with a > very simple patch to linux. ~chuckle~ Why do I now want to use this as something akin to 169.254/16 link-local IP addresses. }:-) > Boom. arp works, address assignement via dhcp works, it works as an > address on everything patched. :-) > So trying to find the cases where that address range wouldn't work is > on my mind. Clearly 0.0.0.0/32 is special, but... 0.0.0.0/32 is special. But that doesn't directly translate to the zeroth address in a subnet. I don't recall at the moment where 0.0.0.0/32 is used as a /destination/ address. I'm sure there is something, but I don't recall it at the moment. > The zeroth address is another long standing problem. Since cidr, and > 4.2BSD's retirement, zeroth should be a usable address. The best I've found is that the zeroth address / subnet can be misconstrued when addressing the (sub)network. Does 192.168.0.0 sans netmask address the 192.168.0.0/16 network, or the 192.168.0.0/24 sub-network, or one of the 14 other sub-networks? As I think about it, I guess the broadcast (all ones host) address could suffer from the same problem. But the broadcast address is already special and unused by hosts. > Explicit checks in the OS. Sorry, I was asking about what the reasoning was for them to be special, not the code used to enforce / protect their special nature. Asked another way, what is the reasoning behind the zeroth (all zeros host) address special and in need of protection to prevent it's use by normal hosts? > Good question. But the issue died with BSD 4.2 Indeed. I had (what I think is) another one come to mind last night. What, if any, security / specialness do people still ascribe to ports below 1024? If it's a throwback to thinking that it requires root on a host to be able to source traffic from ports below 1024.... Well, I don't trust the remote host across the Internet at all. So, I don't personally ascribe any security to the port number. But I don't know if I'm strange in that. I personally (in my current naive state of mind) would like to see daemons daemons source traffic from any of the other 65,535 ports excluding than the destination port as a possible source port. Aside: Why is port 0 special? }:-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 12 11:09:48 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:09:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? Message-ID: <20190212190948.B12D218C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Dave Taht > One tidbit from that book I'd love to track down - it said paul buran > wrote 11?13? 14? - can't remember- *books* about packet processing, and > yet these have vanished from the internet. Err, no: https://www.rand.org/about/history/baran-list.html > Whenever I struggle on something - like the whol bufferbloat thing - I > fantasize that scribbled in the margin of book 13 was the answer to my > problem. Sadly, probably not. He had the basic concepts right, but in a number of areas - e.g. routing, and congestion control - there were depths he didn't plumb. We have come a _long_ way in those areas since his work. Noel From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Tue Feb 12 11:37:21 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:37:21 -0700 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> Message-ID: <4eca59e7-0700-b95b-d48b-f3da57aa7b78@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 02/12/2019 11:55 AM, Michael Kj?rling wrote: > NCP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Control_Program > > The final transition from NCP to TCP/IP was in January 1983. RFC 801 > may be of interest. I'm aware of NCP and the transition that you are referring to. However, what I'm not sure of is what sort of addressing NCP used. What little I've been able to find is that NCP addresses were different enough from IPv4. So I am taking Dave's "0.0.0.0" to represent an IPv4 address. Perhaps I don't know enough about NCP to safely take that stance. > I wasn't around at the time, but the January 1970 RFC 33 says on page > 6 that NCP addressing was 24 bits of "user number" plus 8 bits of > "host number" plus 8 bits of "another eight-bit number", 7 of which > seem like they function largely as what we today refer to as "ports"; > one end of a connection was therefore identified by a total of 48 > bits, 8 of which describe the host. I don't see anything obvious > actually specifying a format for how these addresses would be entered > by or displayed to a user, only hints that hexadecimal notation may > have been common. That sounds decidedly not dotted quad format. I guess depending on the values, there could be some overlap with other formats of an IPv4 address. But I still think that Dave's "0.0.0.0/8" had in his subject is tantamount to IPv4. Hence my train of logic. ;-) > This format allowed up to 2^8 hosts on the network, each with 2^24 > users, each with 2^7 simultaneous active bidirectional connections. > > Note that "port" in NCP seems to have been a very different concept > from "port" in TCP. My understanding is that NCP "ports" refer more to > the physical links than to a logical property of a data connection. ACK -- Grant. . . . unix || die From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Feb 12 12:20:37 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:20:37 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <4aefbb25-42e9-cfa4-20e3-22f6fe9ee888@3kitty.org> On 2/12/19 8:42 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 2/11/19 1:21 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> As part of an upcoming internet draft, I'd wanted to be able to coherently >> discuss the origin and original use cases of the "this" network "0" >> in Arpanet to early ipv4 transition days, and thus far I haven't found >> much information on it. >> >> Admittedly I'm not familiar with the addressing that was used on ARPAnet >> prior to IPv4. But I suspect that it's addressing did not take the form >> of 0.0.0.0. Well, I was there during the transition from ARPANET to TCP version 2.x to version 4, and I remember some of the issues and reasoning.? You probably won't find any of this written down in IENs or RFCs. In the beginning, ... there was the ARPANET, the Packet Radio Net(s), and SATNET.?? All of these had their own addressing scheme, e.g., in the ARPANET it was a concatenation of IMP# and Host# on that IMP (An IMP was a packet switch to which phone lines and cables to "host computers" were attached. The IP address, expressed in x.x.x.x notation, could be used to specify both a particular network and a Host address on that network.? There were several different classes of IP address, each having different numbers of bits allocated for the network # and address within that network.? Class A networks used 8 bits for network# and allowed 24 bits for address-on-that-network.? The ARPANET addresses could be encoded into 24 bits.? So, for ARPANET (and some of its clones), an IP address like 10.2.0.5 would mean network #10, Host #2 on IMP #5.? Host #2 identified a specific physical connector on the back of the IMP cabinet. Routers (then known as gateways), hosts, and anybody else could take an IP address, and figure out the network address on that particular network by simple algorithm. This worked for ARPANET, SATNET, and PRNETs. LANs broke this scheme.? In particular, Ethernet addresses were too big to be stuffed into even the 24 bits of a class-A IP address.? So algorithmic translations were not possible with those types of networks.? That led to the creation of ARP, and the use of broadcast capabilities of Ethernets, to implement a mechanism for doing translations. I recall discussions of this in the ICCB/IAB, the Internet Meetings, the hotel bars, etc.?? The goal of the Internet was to be able to integrate any type of network into the network as long as it met the very basic requirements of being able to carry packets.? (We even mused about a "network" based on carrier pigeons). The unsolved problem (at the time) was how to deal with networks that had addresses too big to fit in IP addresses, and that also did not have any broadcast capability.? I can't remember specifically, but that might have come up while we implemented the "VAN Gateway", which used the public X.25 network to interconnect between the US ARPANET and University College London in Europe.? IIRC, we could manually configure the two gateways at either end of the X.25 path to know each others addresses and be able to use the X.25 path to carry IP traffic between routers.? But that didn't provide any mechanism for a Host computer to interact with the gateway, using the X.25 network as a "LAN" of sorts.? So the entire public X.25 network was a network within the Internet, but we didn't have any way to connect "host computers" on that network. Another unsolved problem was how host computers would find out basic information that they needed to know how to use the Internet - e.g., the address of the gateway(s) on their net, their network number, etc.? Manual configuration wasn't too bad when there were only large computers on the ARPANET, but with the advent of workstations, the administration became unwieldy.? That led to DHCP. There was a lot of other experimental work going on, e.g., in handling of voice and video, and the use of multicast capabilities, which led to implementations such as MBone.? Lots of problems to be solved there. I don't remember any specific discussions about 0.x.x.x, but I suspect it was reserved as a placeholder for future use - i.e., don't assign any network as network #0 - it may be useful when someone figures out how to approach the problems above. Remember, the Internet was always an Experiment (hence the IENs), so lots of stuff in the Internet technology was there to help create an experimental platform. All of the above occurred in the 1978-1982 or so timeframe.?? I assume that the 0.x.x.x "hook" got used later as the Internet evolved. /Jack Haverty From aamsendonly396 at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 12:37:15 2019 From: aamsendonly396 at gmail.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:37:15 -0500 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> Message-ID: If you want to know about NCP, see RFC # 6529. The NCP spec was not originally an RFC, since it was a specification, not a "request" for comments. RFC # 6529 moved the spec into the RFC series about 40 years after the spec was published. Cheers, Alex On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Michael Kj?rling wrote: > On 12 Feb 2019 09:42 -0700, from > internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor): > > - To me, "0.0.0.0" represents and as such implies IPv4. So "early > > IPv4 transition days" sounds like the transition /to/ IPv4. Yet 0.0.0.0 > > is an IPv4 address to me. So what are we transitioning from and to? > > NCP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Control_Program > > The final transition from NCP to TCP/IP was in January 1983. RFC 801 > may be of interest. > > > > Admittedly I'm not familiar with the addressing that was used on ARPAnet > > prior to IPv4. But I suspect that it's addressing did not take the form > > of 0.0.0.0. > > I wasn't around at the time, but the January 1970 RFC 33 says on page > 6 that NCP addressing was 24 bits of "user number" plus 8 bits of > "host number" plus 8 bits of "another eight-bit number", 7 of which > seem like they function largely as what we today refer to as "ports"; > one end of a connection was therefore identified by a total of 48 > bits, 8 of which describe the host. I don't see anything obvious > actually specifying a format for how these addresses would be entered > by or displayed to a user, only hints that hexadecimal notation may > have been common. > > This format allowed up to 2^8 hosts on the network, each with 2^24 > users, each with 2^7 simultaneous active bidirectional connections. > > Note that "port" in NCP seems to have been a very different concept > from "port" in TCP. My understanding is that NCP "ports" refer more to > the physical links than to a logical property of a data connection. > > -- > Michael Kj?rling ? https://michael.kjorling.se ? michael at kjorling.se > ?The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person > is to think you know what you?re doing.? (Bret Victor) > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Tue Feb 12 13:48:11 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:48:11 -0700 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <4aefbb25-42e9-cfa4-20e3-22f6fe9ee888@3kitty.org> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4aefbb25-42e9-cfa4-20e3-22f6fe9ee888@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <5ef807b7-7928-f257-c492-ae381f66745b@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 02/12/2019 01:20 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > Well, I was there during the transition from ARPANET to TCP version > 2.x to version 4, and I remember some of the issues and reasoning. > You probably won't find any of this written down in IENs or RFCs. I hadn't even thought about TCP/IP prior to version 4. That sounds like you went through two transitions. Or was TCP/IP (?) version 2 used in parallel with ARPANET protocols. (Memory is failing if ARPANET used it's own protocols between IMPs / TIPs / Hosts.) > In the beginning, ... there was the ARPANET, the Packet Radio Net(s), > and SATNET. All of these had their own addressing scheme, e.g., in > the ARPANET it was a concatenation of IMP# and Host# on that IMP (An IMP > was a packet switch to which phone lines and cables to "host computers" > were attached. ACK How were those IMP# & Host# typically written down or spoken between people? > The IP address, expressed in x.x.x.x notation, could be used to specify > both a particular network and a Host address on that network. ? The > ARPANET addresses could be encoded into 24 bits. So, for ARPANET (and > some of its clones), an IP address like 10.2.0.5 would mean network #10, > Host #2 on IMP #5. Host #2 identified a specific physical connector on > the back of the IMP cabinet. Did "network #10" have meaning on the ARPANET? Or was network #10 the representation of ARPANET vs PRNs / SATNET / etc? I find the Host #2 on IMP #5 a bit odd thinking about the structure of an IPv4 address as we use them today. I would have expected IMP #2 and Host #5. At least if using a form of hierarchal routing. If not, I'd be afraid that you would end up with a site having the following IP addresses: - 10.1.0.5 - host #1 on IMP #5 - 10.2.0.5 - host #2 on IMP #5 - 10.3.0.5 - host #3 on IMP #5 I feel like that wouldn't scale and route nearly as well as: - 10.5.0.1 - host #1 on IMP #5 - 10.5.0.2 - host #2 on IMP #5 - 10.5.0.3 - host #3 on IMP #5 Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. > Routers (then known as gateways), hosts, and anybody else could take > an IP address, and figure out the network address on that particular > network by simple algorithm. This worked for ARPANET, SATNET, and PRNETs. Yep. I get that. It makes sense to me. I occasionally ask interview candidates why the "default gateway" is called "default" and "gateway". Occasionally, a candidate surprises me and gets it correct. :-) > LANs broke this scheme. In particular, Ethernet addresses were too big to > be stuffed into even the 24 bits of a class-A IP address. So algorithmic > translations were not possible with those types of networks. That led to > the creation of ARP, and the use of broadcast capabilities of Ethernets, > to implement a mechanism for doing translations. Then there were things like DECnet Phase IV where the MAC address gets modified to match the protocol address. I think I've heard of other protocols doing this too. But not TCP/IP. > I recall discussions of this in the ICCB/IAB, the Internet Meetings, the > hotel bars, etc. The goal of the Internet was to be able to integrate > any type of network into the network as long as it met the very basic > requirements of being able to carry packets. (We even mused about a > "network" based on carrier pigeons). I think I've read stories where people have actually made such things work as a Proof of Concept. TCP/IP over Bongo Drums comes to mind. I've also heard people use UUCP, admittedly not TCP/IP, via avian carriers (read: homing pigeons) with USB flash drives containing bag files. }:-) It's not practical, but it does work. > The unsolved problem (at the time) was how to deal with networks that > had addresses too big to fit in IP addresses, and that also did not have > any broadcast capability. Ew. I guess things like ATM qualify there. Needing some sort of out of band mapping. > I can't remember specifically, but that might have come up while we > implemented the "VAN Gateway", which used the public X.25 network to > interconnect between the US ARPANET and University College London in > Europe. I guess X.25 qualifies there too. > IIRC, we could manually configure the two gateways at either end of the > X.25 path to know each others addresses and be able to use the X.25 path > to carry IP traffic between routers. It's my understanding that X.25 is (was) largely a switched serial circuit network. Meaning that you had some management, similar to dialing a modem, which would establish a virtual circuit between X.25 endpoints and then provide an end to end serial path, much like a (null) modem cable. I'm guessing that the TCP/IP to X.25 gateways collective looked like a single hop in a TCP/IP traceroute. > But that didn't provide any mechanism for a Host computer to interact > with the gateway, using the X.25 network as a "LAN" of sorts. So the > entire public X.25 network was a network within the Internet, but we > didn't have any way to connect "host computers" on that network. Yep. Similar to how IPv4 can carry IPv6, or vice versa between endpoints. But hosts on either side of the gateways (outer IPv{6,4} vs middle IPv{4,6}) don't have a (good) way to communicate directly with each other. Such is the nature of bridged / tunneled / encapsulated traffic. > Another unsolved problem was how host computers would find out basic > information that they needed to know how to use the Internet - e.g., > the address of the gateway(s) on their net, their network number, etc. > Manual configuration wasn't too bad when there were only large computers > on the ARPANET, but with the advent of workstations, the administration > became unwieldy. That led to DHCP. ACK I remember when DHCP was a thing that big networks would set up. Early in my career, many of the networks that I worked on didn't have DHCP yet. Or they were IPX or NetBIOS. > There was a lot of other experimental work going on, e.g., in handling > of voice and video, and the use of multicast capabilities, which led to > implementations such as MBone. Lots of problems to be solved there. > > I don't remember any specific discussions about 0.x.x.x, but I suspect > it was reserved as a placeholder for future use - i.e., don't assign > any network as network #0 - it may be useful when someone figures out > how to approach the problems above. Was that same mentality extended to include the zeroth (all zero bit) host address? Or was that something else? > Remember, the Internet was always an Experiment (hence the IENs), so > lots of stuff in the Internet technology was there to help create an > experimental platform. Yep. > All of the above occurred in the 1978-1982 or so timeframe. I assume > that the 0.x.x.x "hook" got used later as the Internet evolved. ACK -- Grant. . . . unix || die From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 12 14:30:08 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:30:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? Message-ID: <20190212223008.E622418C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Michael Kjorling > the January 1970 RFC 33 says on page 6 I'm too lazy to go check, but that may be a bit too early to be the final form of NCP (the protocol applications ran on). > NCP addressing was 24 bits of "user number" plus 8 bits of "host number" > plus 8 bits of "another eight-bit number", 7 of which seem like they > function largely as what we today refer to as "ports"; one end of a > connection was therefore identified by a total of 48 bits, 8 of which > describe the host. This doesn't ring any bells for me. Here's what the addressing in NCP looked like (from BBN report 1822, and the 'Host-Host Protocol' from the NIC): It started with the host's ARPANET address, which was the concatenation of its IMP number, and its Host number on that IMP. These were originally 6 bits and 2 bits long, respectively, used with the so-called '32-bit leader' (basically, the IMP<->Host header), but that soon became too small, and they were expanded to 16 bits and 8 bits, respectively (as part of the replacement '96-bit leader'). The application<->application 'connection' specified a 'socket' at each end; sockets were 32 bits long. However, these did not appear in packets; instead, 'link's were used. In the original 32-bit leader, there was an 8-bit link field; in the later 96-bit leader, there was a 12-bit field called the 'message ID', and the link field was the high 8 bits of this. Anyway, when a connection was set up, between one host/socket to another, it used a particular link, and no other connection could use that link until the connection was closed. Links were kind of like Virtual Circuits in their properties, in that packets sent on one were received reliably (although there was an error message when that didn't happen) and in order at the other end of the link, but thay had no open/close - a host just started using a link. One link, 0, was special - it was the 'control link'. All messages involved in opening and closing a connection were sent over the control link - only data messages belonging to a connection went over a connection's link. > I don't see anything obvious actually specifying a format for how these > addresses would be entered by or displayed to a user, only hints that > hexadecimal notation may have been common. Not that I am aware of. In the old HOSTS file, I see three different formats: H/I (both in octal), H*64+I (in decimal), and H*0100+I (in octal). I don't recall what was used for the socket. > Note that "port" in NCP seems to have been a very different concept > from "port" in TCP. Yeah, the NCP equivalent for TCP 'port' was the 'socket'. 'Port' was IIRC used a lot for the host number on the IMP, usually a physical port (but VDH hosts made things more complex). Noel From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 12 14:39:01 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:39:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? Message-ID: <20190212223901.7BD9718C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Jack Haverty > There were several different classes of IP address That was later, after the rise of LANs. Originally (back when there were mostly WANs), there was only what was later named class A. > The unsolved problem (at the time) was how to deal with networks that > had addresses too big to fit in IP addresses, and that also did not have > any broadcast capability. That led to all sorts of contortions, including Roki's 'super-netting' (I think it was called), which (much) later re-appeared as CIDR. > That led to DHCP. Again, _much_ later. Noel From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Feb 12 14:59:28 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:59:28 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <4aefbb25-42e9-cfa4-20e3-22f6fe9ee888@3kitty.org> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4aefbb25-42e9-cfa4-20e3-22f6fe9ee888@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <15d0945c-844a-d62b-83c4-3e0672963191@dcrocker.net> On 2/12/2019 12:20 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > There > were several different classes of IP address, each having different > numbers of bits allocated for the network # and address within that > network. Since I wasn't involved with this work then, I wondered when classes were introduced. And I found: RFC 760, 1980: > Source Address: 32 bits > > The source address. The first octet is the Source Network, and the > following three octets are the Source Local Address. RFC 791, 1981 > There are three formats or classes of internet > addresses: Since the Internet went into production use in 1983, that counts classes as in from the start, IMO. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Feb 12 15:04:35 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:04:35 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> Message-ID: <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> On 2/12/2019 12:37 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: > If you want to know about NCP, see RFC # 6529.? The NCP spec was not > originally an RFC, since it was a specification, not a "request" for > comments. Lots of early RFCs were specifications. FTP and Telnet, for example. And NCP was developed by the same community, wasn't it? And there are 3 sub-100 RFCs talking about NCP. So it's interesting the the protocol itself didn't make it into the series back then. Methinks there might be something interesting to explore, to improve the general sense of activities amongst that community back then. (I do not for a moment expect this to have a political aspect, but suspect there might be some group dynamic to understand, or just plain happenstance.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Feb 12 15:14:13 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:14:13 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <5ef807b7-7928-f257-c492-ae381f66745b@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4aefbb25-42e9-cfa4-20e3-22f6fe9ee888@3kitty.org> <5ef807b7-7928-f257-c492-ae381f66745b@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 2/12/19 1:48 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 02/12/2019 01:20 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> Well, I was there during the transition from ARPANET to TCP version >> 2.x to version 4, and I remember some of the issues and reasoning. >> You probably won't find any of this written down in IENs or RFCs. > I hadn't even thought about TCP/IP prior to version 4. That sounds like > you went through two transitions. Or was TCP/IP (?) version 2 used in > parallel with ARPANET protocols. (Memory is failing if ARPANET used > it's own protocols between IMPs / TIPs / Hosts.) ARPANET existed for about a decade before TCP appeared, with its own protocols for doing remote login, file transfer, and electronic mail.? The Internet was built "on top of" the ARPANET, with gateways interconnecting ARPANET, SATNET, PRNETs, and a few other networks in the early days.?? TCP was essentially another "user-level" protocol that used the ARPANET, just as the Telnet, FTP, and Mail (SMTP) did.?? IP-capable hosts and gateways established connections through the ARPANET to each other as needed.? Each such connection was essentially a virtual circuit (reliable, sequenced delivery).? Where a Telnet connection would carry ascii streams to and from a terminal, IP connections would carry IP packets.? The ARPANET didn't treat them any differently. TCP V2 had a single packet header with the whole Internet address.? There were quite a few versions as we sorted out issues and tried different ideas.? I remember for example TCP V2.5,V2.5+epsilon, V2.5+2epsilon, etc.? There were a lot of such transitions, but there were only a handful of people involved in implementing TCP on a handful of hosts, so transitions were easy. TCP V4 made major structural changes to the TCP V2 world, in particular splitting the header into separate TCP and IP headers.? This was done for many reasons, e.g., to enable the use of non-reliable datagrams for experiments with packet voice, video, etc. (There was a TCP V3 but it lasted only long enough for one implementation, which had no one to talk to....) There was a great push to standardize TCP as a DoD standard, which would then be mandatory for all DoD computer procurements.? That was what drove the documentation of TCP/IP V4.? Standardization is like casting something in concrete, so transitions then got much more difficult. For several years, the Internet was essentially in a "fuzzy peach" mode, where the ARPANET was the peach, and all of the LANs that were popping up represented the fuzz.? At some point along the way, we observed that a very basic primitive network type was simply a wire, which had only two addresses - "this end" and "the other end".? That allowed us to replace the linkages between gateways, which had been ARPANET connections, with a physical wire connection.? You could even use the same circuit from the phone company, unplugging it from the IMP and plugging it directly into a gateway. So there were many transitions.? The Internet was one big Erector Set.? (Google it) >> In the beginning, ... there was the ARPANET, the Packet Radio Net(s), >> and SATNET. All of these had their own addressing scheme, e.g., in >> the ARPANET it was a concatenation of IMP# and Host# on that IMP (An IMP >> was a packet switch to which phone lines and cables to "host computers" >> were attached. > ACK > > How were those IMP# & Host# typically written down or spoken between people? > >> The IP address, expressed in x.x.x.x notation, could be used to specify >> both a particular network and a Host address on that network. ? The >> ARPANET addresses could be encoded into 24 bits. So, for ARPANET (and >> some of its clones), an IP address like 10.2.0.5 would mean network #10, >> Host #2 on IMP #5. Host #2 identified a specific physical connector on >> the back of the IMP cabinet. > Did "network #10" have meaning on the ARPANET? Or was network #10 the > representation of ARPANET vs PRNs / SATNET / etc? Network #10 (or any specific number) identified a particular physical network.? E.g., one of the clones of the ARPANET was used inside of BBN, and it was assigned as network #3. ? So 10.2.0.5 was a computer attached to ARPANET IMP 5, while 3.2.0.5 was a different computer, attached to IMP 5 on the BBN internal net. Every physical network had its own network number.? One of the neat features of the IP world was that a particular physical network could have several network numbers.? Essentially, you could create different parts of the Internet on top of the same physical network.? E.g., while debugging new code, we could bring up gateways attached to the ARPANET but not as net #10.? A gateway might be on IMP5 as host 2, but with an IP address of 11.2.0.5, and operate totally disjoint from the rest of the Internet.? This was very useful for implementing transitions, since you could operate the "new" system simultaneously with the "old" system, but using the same physical network underneath. The Internet components (gateways and IP code in hosts) didn't have any knowledge of, or way to influence, the underlying network's addresses.? Those bits were just a "black box" to the IP world, intended for the underlying network's switches to understand. > > I find the Host #2 on IMP #5 a bit odd thinking about the structure of > an IPv4 address as we use them today. I would have expected IMP #2 and > Host #5. At least if using a form of hierarchal routing. > > If not, I'd be afraid that you would end up with a site having the > following IP addresses: > > - 10.1.0.5 - host #1 on IMP #5 > - 10.2.0.5 - host #2 on IMP #5 > - 10.3.0.5 - host #3 on IMP #5 > > I feel like that wouldn't scale and route nearly as well as: > > - 10.5.0.1 - host #1 on IMP #5 > - 10.5.0.2 - host #2 on IMP #5 > - 10.5.0.3 - host #3 on IMP #5 > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. It could have been done either way.? There was no hierarchical routing across address boundaries. The "network part" (e.g., 10) identified a specific network, but that network did not know or care about that number.? The "host part" was defined for the specific type of underlying network in whatever way made sense on that network.? So ARPANETs used Host.0.IMP but it could have been IMP.0.Host.? But the IP software didn't know or care about that structure. > >> Routers (then known as gateways), hosts, and anybody else could take >> an IP address, and figure out the network address on that particular >> network by simple algorithm. This worked for ARPANET, SATNET, and PRNETs. > Yep. I get that. It makes sense to me. > > I occasionally ask interview candidates why the "default gateway" is > called "default" and "gateway". Occasionally, a candidate surprises me > and gets it correct. :-) Ask them what PING stands for...? Spoiler: Packet InterNet Groper, as told to me by Dave Mills way back when. > >> LANs broke this scheme. In particular, Ethernet addresses were too big to >> be stuffed into even the 24 bits of a class-A IP address. So algorithmic >> translations were not possible with those types of networks. That led to >> the creation of ARP, and the use of broadcast capabilities of Ethernets, >> to implement a mechanism for doing translations. > Then there were things like DECnet Phase IV where the MAC address gets > modified to match the protocol address. I think I've heard of other > protocols doing this too. But not TCP/IP. > >> I recall discussions of this in the ICCB/IAB, the Internet Meetings, the >> hotel bars, etc. The goal of the Internet was to be able to integrate >> any type of network into the network as long as it met the very basic >> requirements of being able to carry packets. (We even mused about a >> "network" based on carrier pigeons). > I think I've read stories where people have actually made such things > work as a Proof of Concept. TCP/IP over Bongo Drums comes to mind. > > I've also heard people use UUCP, admittedly not TCP/IP, via avian > carriers (read: homing pigeons) with USB flash drives containing bag > files. }:-) It's not practical, but it does work. > >> The unsolved problem (at the time) was how to deal with networks that >> had addresses too big to fit in IP addresses, and that also did not have >> any broadcast capability. > Ew. > > I guess things like ATM qualify there. Needing some sort of out of band > mapping. > >> I can't remember specifically, but that might have come up while we >> implemented the "VAN Gateway", which used the public X.25 network to >> interconnect between the US ARPANET and University College London in >> Europe. > I guess X.25 qualifies there too. > >> IIRC, we could manually configure the two gateways at either end of the >> X.25 path to know each others addresses and be able to use the X.25 path >> to carry IP traffic between routers. > It's my understanding that X.25 is (was) largely a switched serial > circuit network. Meaning that you had some management, similar to > dialing a modem, which would establish a virtual circuit between X.25 > endpoints and then provide an end to end serial path, much like a (null) > modem cable. > > I'm guessing that the TCP/IP to X.25 gateways collective looked like a > single hop in a TCP/IP traceroute. Yep, the entire public X.25 infrastructure was a single hop to IP.? The ARPANET operated internally as a virtual circuit kind of network; later in its lifetime, IMPs supported X.25 as a way of attaching a host computer to the network. > >> But that didn't provide any mechanism for a Host computer to interact >> with the gateway, using the X.25 network as a "LAN" of sorts. So the >> entire public X.25 network was a network within the Internet, but we >> didn't have any way to connect "host computers" on that network. > Yep. Similar to how IPv4 can carry IPv6, or vice versa between > endpoints. But hosts on either side of the gateways (outer IPv{6,4} vs > middle IPv{4,6}) don't have a (good) way to communicate directly with > each other. Such is the nature of bridged / tunneled / encapsulated > traffic. > >> Another unsolved problem was how host computers would find out basic >> information that they needed to know how to use the Internet - e.g., >> the address of the gateway(s) on their net, their network number, etc. >> Manual configuration wasn't too bad when there were only large computers >> on the ARPANET, but with the advent of workstations, the administration >> became unwieldy. That led to DHCP. > ACK > > I remember when DHCP was a thing that big networks would set up. Early > in my career, many of the networks that I worked on didn't have DHCP > yet. Or they were IPX or NetBIOS. > >> There was a lot of other experimental work going on, e.g., in handling >> of voice and video, and the use of multicast capabilities, which led to >> implementations such as MBone. Lots of problems to be solved there. >> >> I don't remember any specific discussions about 0.x.x.x, but I suspect >> it was reserved as a placeholder for future use - i.e., don't assign >> any network as network #0 - it may be useful when someone figures out >> how to approach the problems above. > Was that same mentality extended to include the zeroth (all zero bit) > host address? Or was that something else? I don't remember anything about that specifically.? There were some special cases like reserving 255 for broadcast and multicast.? Typically all-zero would have been reserved because an all-zero address most likely would be caused by a bug somewhere, so having it be illegal limited the carnage such a bug might cause. > >> Remember, the Internet was always an Experiment (hence the IENs), so >> lots of stuff in the Internet technology was there to help create an >> experimental platform. > Yep. > >> All of the above occurred in the 1978-1982 or so timeframe. I assume >> that the 0.x.x.x "hook" got used later as the Internet evolved. > ACK > > > From mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu Tue Feb 12 15:58:06 2019 From: mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu (Michael Greenwald) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:58:06 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> On 2019-02-12 15:04, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/12/2019 12:37 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: >> If you want to know about NCP, see RFC # 6529.? The NCP spec was not >> originally an RFC, since it was a specification, not a "request" for >> comments. > > Lots of early RFCs were specifications. FTP and Telnet, for example. > And NCP was developed by the same community, wasn't it? > > And there are 3 sub-100 RFCs talking about NCP. So it's interesting > the > the protocol itself didn't make it into the series back then. The NCP protocol spec was always available in the Arpanet Protocol Handbook, which collected protocol specifications equally from both RFC's and NIC's. I am pretty sure NCP was a NIC. I am sure it was in the protocol handbook. The Arpanet Protocol Handbook was available in every office I sat in at MIT in those days, so the relevant NICs and RFCs seemed equally available. So I didn't feel that it not existing in an RFC form was a lack in any way. NIC vs. RFC didn't make much difference to me, then. I imagined that NICs were more "finished" and more "official" than RFCs, and also NICs seemed to apply to the ARPA net, and RFC's to the Internet. Perhaps this is just a reflection of my ignorance. That said, although NCP was easily available, I believe the 1822 spec (Host-Imp protocol) was *not* as easily available (it was also a much bigger specification [if I am remembering correctly] than any other protocol I came across back then --- maybe that's the reason it wasn't included). The Host-Host protocol was, I think, in the protocol handbook. I can't remember why I needed the 1822 spec, but I remember it as the one thing I had trouble getting my hands on. > > Methinks there might be something interesting to explore, to improve > the > general sense of activities amongst that community back then. (I do > not > for a moment expect this to have a political aspect, but suspect there > might be some group dynamic to understand, or just plain happenstance.) > > d/ Totally a guess here: I don't think anything surprising or interesting occurred with this. I think the NICs were just older and more established than the RFCs, and because they were older and not directly relevant to the IP/TCP effort they didn't get copied around online, so were less likely to survive. Take everything above with a big grain of salt. At that time (late 70's) I was working on IP and TCP as an MIT undergraduate, so quite possibly I had a very narrow view of what was going on. From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Feb 12 16:05:55 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:05:55 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4aefbb25-42e9-cfa4-20e3-22f6fe9ee888@3kitty.org> <5ef807b7-7928-f257-c492-ae381f66745b@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <4b155c2e-acb5-c15f-164d-8630396d5cb7@dcrocker.net> On 2/12/2019 3:14 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > The Internet was one big Erector Set. 'was'? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Feb 12 16:18:13 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:18:13 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <4801e852-d357-4925-a819-b6db3d6ae36f@dcrocker.net> On 2/12/2019 3:58 PM, Michael Greenwald wrote: > The Arpanet Protocol Handbook was available in every office I sat in > at MIT I long-ago lost my copy of that. Plus it came a bit late4 The Computer History Museum shows two versions in its archive -- 1976 and 1978 -- but apparently neither has been digitized. sigh. > so the relevant NICs and RFCs seemed equally I'm not sure what you mean by NICs as you are using the term. I'm used to its meaning Network Information Center, which is a group operation, not a document series. My bad memory? > available. So I didn't feel that it not existing in an RFC form was a > lack in any way. NIC vs. RFC didn't make much difference to me, From 1969, work produced by that community got circulated by RFC. It was easy and, I thought, automatic. > That said, although NCP was easily available, I believe the 1822 Well, yeah, the BBN specs were essentially independent of documents produced by the 'network working group'. 0 > spec (Host-Imp protocol) was *not* as easily available (it was also a > much bigger specification [if I am remembering correctly] than any > other protocol I came across back then --- maybe that's the reason it > wasn't included). The Host-Host protocol was, I think, in the NCP and Host-Host were the same thing. (Well, NCP referred to the implementation.) Uh oh. facepalm. That's why 'NCP' doesn't up in the early RFCs. HOST-HOST Communication Protocol in the ARPA Network* https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc33.txt > Totally a guess here: I don't think anything surprising or > interesting occurred with this. I think the NICs were just older and > more established than the RFCs, and because they were older and not > directly relevant to the IP/TCP effort Older than 1969? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Feb 12 16:43:09 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:43:09 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <4b155c2e-acb5-c15f-164d-8630396d5cb7@dcrocker.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4aefbb25-42e9-cfa4-20e3-22f6fe9ee888@3kitty.org> <5ef807b7-7928-f257-c492-ae381f66745b@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4b155c2e-acb5-c15f-164d-8630396d5cb7@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <56c0c868-e589-7d25-eecd-65d96601a669@3kitty.org> One way to look at it is that when TCP/IP V4 was standardized, someone took all the Erector Set parts and welded them together where they stood, making future alterations so much more difficult..... On 2/12/19 4:05 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/12/2019 3:14 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> The Internet was one big Erector Set. > > > 'was'? > > d/ > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 12 17:40:33 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:40:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? Message-ID: <20190213014033.EFDF918C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Dave Crocker > The Computer History Museum shows two versions in its archive ... but > apparently neither has been digitized. Most of the important contents are available; e.g. "Host-to-Host Protocol for the ARPANET" is available here: http://www.cbi.umn.edu/hostedpublications/pdf/McKenzieNCP1972.pdf > I'm not sure what you mean by NICs as you are using the term. I'm used > to its meaning Network Information Center, which is a group operation, > not a document series. They also had a document series. E.g. the above document, in the January '78 edition of the 'ARPANET Protocol Handbook' (itself NIC 7104) is NIC 8246. Noel From greenwald at cis.upenn.edu Tue Feb 12 17:49:10 2019 From: greenwald at cis.upenn.edu (Michael Greenwald) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:49:10 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <4801e852-d357-4925-a819-b6db3d6ae36f@dcrocker.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> <4801e852-d357-4925-a819-b6db3d6ae36f@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On 2019-02-12 16:18, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/12/2019 3:58 PM, Michael Greenwald wrote: >> The Arpanet Protocol Handbook was available in every office I sat in >> at MIT > > I long-ago lost my copy of that. Plus it came a bit late4 > > The Computer History Museum shows two versions in its archive -- 1976 > and 1978 -- but apparently neither has been digitized. sigh. > >> so the relevant NICs and RFCs seemed equally > > I'm not sure what you mean by NICs as you are using the term. I'm > used to its meaning Network Information Center, which is a group > operation, not a document series. My bad memory? Could be *my* bad memory. I thought I recollected that the Arpanet docs were numbered NIC xxxx (where xxxx seemed like a very high number) and the IP/TCP documents were RFC yyy (where yyy seemed much smaller than the NIC numbers). I think maybe several documents had both numbers (but I am really unsure about this): maybe if a NIC (or whatever the real abbreviation was, if I got that wrong) document referred to an RFC it got a NIC number? > >> available. So I didn't feel that it not existing in an RFC form was a >> lack in any way. NIC vs. RFC didn't make much difference to me, > > From 1969, work produced by that community got circulated by RFC. It > was easy and, I thought, automatic. I don't know about 1969, but to the extent that my memory is correct, by 1978 I think there were at least two different series of documents. Someone with more reliable memories than me should respond. But I doubt that I am hallucinating this *entirely*, so I am fairly confident that there's at least a kernel of truth in my recollection. They might not have been called NIC, or perhaps NIC xxxx meant some other series of documents produced by the NIC? I am fairly confident that there were documents with NIC/ numbers that were not RFCs, but were available to people. > >> That said, although NCP was easily available, I believe the 1822 > > Well, yeah, the BBN specs were essentially independent of documents > produced by the 'network working group'. > > 0 >> spec (Host-Imp protocol) was *not* as easily available (it was also a >> much bigger specification [if I am remembering correctly] than any >> other protocol I came across back then --- maybe that's the reason it >> wasn't included). The Host-Host protocol was, I think, in the > > NCP and Host-Host were the same thing. (Well, NCP referred to the > implementation.) > > Uh oh. facepalm. That's why 'NCP' doesn't up in the early RFCs. My bad. You are almost certainly right --- Host-Host protocol and NCP were essentially the same. My brain conflating things -- I was probably confusing NCP with ICP (initial connection protocol) or some other things. > > HOST-HOST Communication Protocol in the ARPA Network* > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc33.txt > > >> Totally a guess here: I don't think anything surprising or >> interesting occurred with this. I think the NICs were just older and >> more established than the RFCs, and because they were older and not >> directly relevant to the IP/TCP effort > > Older than 1969? By older, I just meant that as a group Arpanet documents were older than Internet documents, and that they referred to older technology. Backwards facing, as opposed to forward-facing. So there could have been reason to avoid adding every single Arpanet doc into the Internet series. I just looked at RFC6529 (should have looked before) and it says, about Host-Host Protocol Document No. 1" that: "It was one of a set of such standards maintained as a separate set of documentation by the Network Information Center (NIC) at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). The January 1972 version (NIC 8246) reproduced here also followed that approach. " So NIC 8246 was the numbering I was referring to. > > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From richard at bennett.com Tue Feb 12 18:35:34 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:35:34 -0700 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <4b155c2e-acb5-c15f-164d-8630396d5cb7@dcrocker.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4aefbb25-42e9-cfa4-20e3-22f6fe9ee888@3kitty.org> <5ef807b7-7928-f257-c492-ae381f66745b@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4b155c2e-acb5-c15f-164d-8630396d5cb7@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <45CACFF0-6C3F-4698-AB5B-BA43A921362F@bennett.com> Nowadays it?s one big erection set. > On Feb 12, 2019, at 5:05 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 2/12/2019 3:14 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> The Internet was one big Erector Set. > > > 'was'? > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sob at sobco.com Tue Feb 12 18:42:16 2019 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:42:16 -0500 Subject: [ih] NIC documents (was Re: The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network?) In-Reply-To: References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> <4801e852-d357-4925-a819-b6db3d6ae36f@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <06590F8B-DFC8-4297-A745-65348E37984E@sobco.com> for what its worth - there are over 200 RFCs that list NIC numbers in the upper left corner - e.g. RFC 600 Network Working Group A. Berggreen Request for Comments: 600 COMPUTER SYSTEMS LABORATORY--UCSB NIC: 20884 November 1973 Steve Crocker is listed as the contact on at least NIC 8246 Host/Host Protocol for the ARPA Network (not also an RFC) so maybe he recalls the details www.cbi.umn.edu/hostedpublications/pdf/McKenzieNCP1972.pdf Scott From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 12 18:46:05 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:46:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? Message-ID: <20190213024605.13C1E18C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Dave Crocker > Since the Internet went into production use in 1983 Depends on your definition of 'production'! :-) Yes, that was an important date (when NCP was turned off on the ARPANET). However, some of us were doing real use of the Internet well before that. For instance, I recently mentioned here the line printer on the fifth floor at LCS; it had been connected to a TIP port, and a spooler on MIT-Multics knew how to print things on it. Then it got connected up to the CSR Unix machine, and one had to throw a switch. Once the CSR Unix had 'Internet' access (once the Tech Sq LANs got connected to the ARPANet), the printer moved to the Unix full-time, and MIT-Multics connected to the CSR Unix over the Internet to do people's print requests. Back in 2010, I tried to work out when that happened, since it was one of the earliest real applications run over the Internet at MIT, but was unable to get an exact date, but it was at least a year before 1983. There was also access to the Dover donated by PARC to Tech Sq (at the same time as the CMU and Stanford donations from PARC); the router that connected the 3 Mbit Ethernet in to the existing ring in Tech Sq was sometime in 1980, IIRC. Noel From clemc at ccc.com Tue Feb 12 19:36:22 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clement T. Cole) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:36:22 -0500 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <20190213024605.13C1E18C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20190213024605.13C1E18C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: That is in sync with my memory at CMU. We had the distributed front end which was originally lsi11s and later multi bus systems running a fledgling IP around late ?79/early ?80. This project would morph into what we today would call a router but it was not quite that smart in those days. Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2019, at 9:46 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Dave Crocker > >> Since the Internet went into production use in 1983 > > Depends on your definition of 'production'! :-) Yes, that was an important > date (when NCP was turned off on the ARPANET). However, some of us were doing > real use of the Internet well before that. > > For instance, I recently mentioned here the line printer on the fifth floor at > LCS; it had been connected to a TIP port, and a spooler on MIT-Multics knew > how to print things on it. Then it got connected up to the CSR Unix machine, > and one had to throw a switch. Once the CSR Unix had 'Internet' access (once > the Tech Sq LANs got connected to the ARPANet), the printer moved to the Unix > full-time, and MIT-Multics connected to the CSR Unix over the Internet to do > people's print requests. > > Back in 2010, I tried to work out when that happened, since it was one of the > earliest real applications run over the Internet at MIT, but was unable to get > an exact date, but it was at least a year before 1983. > > There was also access to the Dover donated by PARC to Tech Sq (at the same > time as the CMU and Stanford donations from PARC); the router that connected > the 3 Mbit Ethernet in to the existing ring in Tech Sq was sometime in 1980, > IIRC. > > Noel > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From pnr at planet.nl Wed Feb 13 06:24:31 2019 From: pnr at planet.nl (Paul Ruizendaal) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:24:31 +0100 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <20190213024605.13C1E18C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20190213024605.13C1E18C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <7D36F01E-0E9C-46A6-B7C4-CAEE556ED63F@planet.nl> >> Since the Internet went into production use in 1983 > > Depends on your definition of 'production'! :-) Yes, that was an important > date (when NCP was turned off on the ARPANET). However, some of us were doing > real use of the Internet well before that. On top of that longer history that Noel refers to, it was also a kind of rolling start. According to contemporary messages posted to the tcp/ip digest list: - early october 1982, 47% of traffic was tcp/ip - mid november 1982 it was 62% of traffic - mid december 1982 it was 89% of traffic Following the final switch over, it would seem that things mostly worked with the exception of mail forwarding which seems to have had a fair amount of problems (I may be wrong about this, but it is the impression I get from reading through the digest). Paul TCP/IP digest messages: https://ftp.gnome.org/mirror/archive/ftp.sunet.se/pub/Internet-documents/rfc/museum/tcp-ip-digest/tcp-ip-digest.v1n24.1 https://ftp.gnome.org/mirror/archive/ftp.sunet.se/pub/Internet-documents/rfc/museum/tcp-ip-digest/tcp-ip-digest.v1n26.1 https://ftp.gnome.org/mirror/archive/ftp.sunet.se/pub/Internet-documents/rfc/museum/tcp-ip-digest/tcp-ip-digest.v1n28.1 From aamsendonly396 at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 07:01:26 2019 From: aamsendonly396 at gmail.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:01:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] Host-Host Protocol documentation [Was: The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network?] In-Reply-To: <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Dave, The community was a work in progress. Yes, later specifications were issued as RFCs, by the same people, but we were learning. As I recall, Steve Crocker, Jon Postel, and I decided that since the Host-Host Protocol document was a specification, not a "request". it did not belong in the RFC series. Later we all changed our minds, and other specifications were issued as RFCs. Of course, as the protocols were being discussed and developed, the ideas WERE put forward as RFCs because they truly were seeking comments. Once the Host-Host Protocol spec was published there were plenty more RFCs discussing it and proposing changes. Steve and I decided, 40 years later, that the Host-Host Protocol spec really belonged in the RFC series, which is why RFC # 6529 was issued. Cheers, Alex On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:04 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/12/2019 12:37 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: > > If you want to know about NCP, see RFC # 6529. The NCP spec was not > > originally an RFC, since it was a specification, not a "request" for > > comments. > > Lots of early RFCs were specifications. FTP and Telnet, for example. > And NCP was developed by the same community, wasn't it? > > And there are 3 sub-100 RFCs talking about NCP. So it's interesting the > the protocol itself didn't make it into the series back then. > > Methinks there might be something interesting to explore, to improve the > general sense of activities amongst that community back then. (I do not > for a moment expect this to have a political aspect, but suspect there > might be some group dynamic to understand, or just plain happenstance.) > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aamsendonly396 at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 07:21:19 2019 From: aamsendonly396 at gmail.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:21:19 -0500 Subject: [ih] NIC numbers [Was: The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network?] In-Reply-To: <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: In the late 1960's and early 1970's the NIC was the Network Information Center, run under ARPA contract by Doug Englebart's "Augmentation Research Center" at SCI. The NIC had the task of collecting all the documents discussing the network ARPA was planning and implementing, and making these documents available to the community as appropriate. Every incoming document was given a number - these are the NIC numbers, and the NIC could retrieve documents using this number. When the RFC series was started by Steve Crocker, RFCs were part of the document stream entering the NIC, and therefore they were assigned NIC numbers. Of course, as part of the RFC series, they were also assigned RFC numbers, at first by Steve Crocker, and later by others. Every RFC had both a NIC number (which is rarely mentioned) and an RFC number. Although it was not an RFC, the Host-Host Protocol spec (NCP) did have a NIC number. At the time the ARPAnet was being developed, the NIC distributed all RFCs and certain other documents (including the Host-Host Protocol spec, and later the Protocol Handbook, the ARPAnet Directory, and the Resource Handbook) to all locations designated by ARPA as "ARPAnet sites" by US mail, addressed to the "Site Liaison". The Site Liaison was responsible for internal distribution of the documents (as appropriate) within the site. Cheers, Alex Cheers, Alex On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:58 PM Michael Greenwald wrote: > On 2019-02-12 15:04, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 2/12/2019 12:37 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: > >> If you want to know about NCP, see RFC # 6529. The NCP spec was not > >> originally an RFC, since it was a specification, not a "request" for > >> comments. > > > > Lots of early RFCs were specifications. FTP and Telnet, for example. > > And NCP was developed by the same community, wasn't it? > > > > And there are 3 sub-100 RFCs talking about NCP. So it's interesting > > the > > the protocol itself didn't make it into the series back then. > > The NCP protocol spec was always available in the Arpanet Protocol > Handbook, > which collected protocol specifications equally from both RFC's and > NIC's. > I am pretty sure NCP was a NIC. I am sure it was in the protocol > handbook. > The Arpanet Protocol Handbook was available in every office I sat in at > MIT > in those days, so the relevant NICs and RFCs seemed equally available. > So I didn't feel that it not existing in an RFC form was a lack in any > way. NIC vs. RFC didn't make much difference to me, then. > I imagined that NICs were more "finished" and more "official" than RFCs, > and > also NICs seemed to apply to the ARPA net, and RFC's to the Internet. > Perhaps > this is just a reflection of my ignorance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eric.gade at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 07:54:12 2019 From: eric.gade at gmail.com (Eric Gade) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:54:12 -0500 Subject: [ih] NIC numbers [Was: The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network?] In-Reply-To: References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: Btw there are hard copies of a great number of NIC documents at the Computer History Museum archives as part of Jake Feinler's collection. She kept a lot of stuff! On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 10:39 Alex McKenzie In the late 1960's and early 1970's the NIC was the Network Information > Center, run under ARPA contract by Doug Englebart's "Augmentation Research > Center" at SCI. The NIC had the task of collecting all the documents > discussing the network ARPA was planning and implementing, and making these > documents available to the community as appropriate. Every incoming > document was given a number - these are the NIC numbers, and the NIC could > retrieve documents using this number. When the RFC series was started by > Steve Crocker, RFCs were part of the document stream entering the NIC, and > therefore they were assigned NIC numbers. Of course, as part of the RFC > series, they were also assigned RFC numbers, at first by Steve Crocker, and > later by others. Every RFC had both a NIC number (which is rarely > mentioned) and an RFC number. Although it was not an RFC, the Host-Host > Protocol spec (NCP) did have a NIC number. > > At the time the ARPAnet was being developed, the NIC distributed all RFCs > and certain other documents (including the Host-Host Protocol spec, and > later the Protocol Handbook, the ARPAnet Directory, and the Resource > Handbook) to all locations designated by ARPA as "ARPAnet sites" by US > mail, addressed to the "Site Liaison". The Site Liaison was responsible > for internal distribution of the documents (as appropriate) within the site. > > Cheers, > Alex > > Cheers, > Alex > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:58 PM Michael Greenwald > wrote: > >> On 2019-02-12 15:04, Dave Crocker wrote: >> > On 2/12/2019 12:37 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: >> >> If you want to know about NCP, see RFC # 6529. The NCP spec was not >> >> originally an RFC, since it was a specification, not a "request" for >> >> comments. >> > >> > Lots of early RFCs were specifications. FTP and Telnet, for example. >> > And NCP was developed by the same community, wasn't it? >> > >> > And there are 3 sub-100 RFCs talking about NCP. So it's interesting >> > the >> > the protocol itself didn't make it into the series back then. >> >> The NCP protocol spec was always available in the Arpanet Protocol >> Handbook, >> which collected protocol specifications equally from both RFC's and >> NIC's. >> I am pretty sure NCP was a NIC. I am sure it was in the protocol >> handbook. >> The Arpanet Protocol Handbook was available in every office I sat in at >> MIT >> in those days, so the relevant NICs and RFCs seemed equally available. >> So I didn't feel that it not existing in an RFC form was a lack in any >> way. NIC vs. RFC didn't make much difference to me, then. >> I imagined that NICs were more "finished" and more "official" than RFCs, >> and >> also NICs seemed to apply to the ARPA net, and RFC's to the Internet. >> Perhaps >> this is just a reflection of my ignorance. >> > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Wed Feb 13 08:22:48 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:22:48 -0700 Subject: [ih] NIC numbers [Was: The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network?] In-Reply-To: References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: On 02/13/2019 08:54 AM, Eric Gade wrote: > Btw there are hard copies of a great number of NIC documents at the > Computer History Museum archives as part of Jake Feinler's collection. I would love to see more (what I'm broadly classifying as) "pre Internet" documents digitized to make them more readily accessible. I'd obviously prefer text, but I'm happier to have scanned images than nothing at all. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Feb 13 08:53:34 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:53:34 -0800 Subject: [ih] NIC numbers [Was: The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network?] In-Reply-To: References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20190212185558.xjxalcuz2enagjxd@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <9542f1ef-bb34-e1e7-73c5-ab54398c3748@dcrocker.net> <35143cb704708f1b180b54acdba38eca@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: Fwiw- Send the CHM a check and make it happen, IMO. Museums don?t run on requests. Joe > On Feb 13, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > I would love to see more (what I'm broadly classifying as) "pre > Internet" documents digitized to make them more readily accessible From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 11:08:46 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:08:46 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> (Grant Taylor's message of "Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:03:13 -0700") References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> The 0.0.0.0 thread has been fascinating and I now have more to read than I ever imagined I would. Moving sideways... So, it seems obvious that address size problems plagued the arpanet and earlier versions of IP. When did the writing show up on the wall that the classful design wasn't working, and secondly that 32 bits wasn't enough? As near as I can tell, this netnews exchange https://web.archive.org/web/20030718205943/http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk:80/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8813.mm.www/0178.html ultimately resulted in CIDR and the next message, kicked off IPv6 - for the toasters! https://web.archive.org/web/20030913113707/http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8813.mm.www/0237.html Somewhere also in this fascinating month of internet history (morris worm days) someone suggested starting to use the class-e space, with no replies.... Were there proposals to use this as an extension of some sort? Anyway it seems to me (in retrospect) that everybody *knew* 32 bits wasn't enough even going back as far as 1981 (loved hearing about how tcp went from v2 to v4) ?) but it didn't become recognized as a serious problem til about this era. ? > > I personally (in my current naive state of mind) would like to see > daemons daemons source traffic from any of the other 65,535 ports > excluding than the destination port as a possible source port. IANA suggests a smaller ephemeral port range than what linux uses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeral_port Given the profusion of NAT-like nasty things like CGNs and DS-lite and the rise of QUIC I would favor extending the ephemeral port range as far as possible. > > Aside: Why is port 0 special? }:-) From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 11:19:21 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:19:21 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> (Grant Taylor's message of "Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:03:13 -0700") References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <87ftsr339i.fsf@taht.net> Grant Taylor writes: > On 02/12/2019 11:23 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> I loved that book. It needs a sequel. Multiple sequels. > > Agreed!!! > >> One tidbit from that book I'd love to track down - it said paul buran >> wrote 11?13? 14? - can't remember- *books* about packet processing, >> and yet these have vanished from the internet. Whenever I struggle on >> something - like the whol bufferbloat thing - I fantasize that scribbled >> in the margin of book 13 was the answer to my problem. > > Hum. > > I'll have to look for that in context when I next re-read the book and > then start researching things. }:-) Might have been donald davies, don't remember. > >> What we see nowadays is 0.0.0.0/32 is used for useful stuff. 0.0.0.0/8, >> by history and by extension (including the 4.2 BSD broadcast gaff), >> is unused. >> >> However, 0.0.0.1 - 0.255.255.254 *does work* as a real address with a >> very simple patch to linux. > > ~chuckle~ > > Why do I now want to use this as something akin to 169.254/16 link-local > IP addresses. }:-) > >> Boom. arp works, address assignement via dhcp works, it works as an >> address on everything patched. > > :-) Apply this to linux/include/linux/in.h and recompile. @@ -67,7 +72,7 @@ static inline bool ipv4_is_all_snoopers(__be32 addr) static inline bool ipv4_is_zeronet(__be32 addr) { - return (addr & htonl(0xff000000)) == htonl(0x00000000); + return (addr == 0); } and you too can have 16 million extra IPv4 addresses to play with. >> So trying to find the cases where that address range wouldn't work is >> on my mind. Clearly 0.0.0.0/32 is special, but... > > 0.0.0.0/32 is special. But that doesn't directly translate to the > zeroth address in a subnet. > > I don't recall at the moment where 0.0.0.0/32 is used as a /destination/ > address. I'm sure there is something, but I don't recall it at the moment. > >> The zeroth address is another long standing problem. Since cidr, and >> 4.2BSD's retirement, zeroth should be a usable address. > > The best I've found is that the zeroth address / subnet can be > misconstrued when addressing the (sub)network. > > Does 192.168.0.0 sans netmask address the 192.168.0.0/16 network, or the > 192.168.0.0/24 sub-network, or one of the 14 other sub-networks? > > As I think about it, I guess the broadcast (all ones host) address could > suffer from the same problem. But the broadcast address is already > special and unused by hosts. > >> Explicit checks in the OS. > > Sorry, I was asking about what the reasoning was for them to be special, > not the code used to enforce / protect their special nature. > > Asked another way, what is the reasoning behind the zeroth (all zeros > host) address special and in need of protection to prevent it's use by > normal hosts? I'm not sure there's any reasoning left at all. Just enough vestiges of code and rfcs to make the zeroth address semi-special to make it harder to deploy. Perhaps a new definitive RFC (and patches) mandating zeroth be treated like any other unicast address would help. >> Good question. But the issue died with BSD 4.2 > > Indeed. > > I had (what I think is) another one come to mind last night. > > What, if any, security / specialness do people still ascribe to ports > below 1024? > > If it's a throwback to thinking that it requires root on a host to be > able to source traffic from ports below 1024.... Well, I don't trust > the remote host across the Internet at all. So, I don't personally > ascribe any security to the port number. But I don't know if I'm > strange in that. > > I personally (in my current naive state of mind) would like to see > daemons daemons source traffic from any of the other 65,535 ports > excluding than the destination port as a possible source port. > > Aside: Why is port 0 special? }:-) From sob at sobco.com Wed Feb 13 11:42:44 2019 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:42:44 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> Message-ID: <9D0E17A6-E5AA-4A1F-A5EC-82929F7A92D3@sobco.com> > On Feb 13, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > > The 0.0.0.0 thread has been fascinating and I now have more to read > than I ever imagined I would. Moving sideways... > > So, it seems obvious that address size problems plagued the arpanet > and earlier versions of IP. When did the writing show up on the wall > that the classful design wasn't working, and secondly that 32 bits > wasn't enough? from the proceedings of IETF 18 (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/18.pdf) "Sue Hares and Dale Johnson (MERIT)showed the growth of "configured" networks numbers in the NSFnet routing database. This indicates which networks have per- mission to send traffic across the NSFnet. Sue and Dale were instrumental in helping to define and explain these various "network number concepts", and how MERIT used these concepts in establishing its routing database. Using this information, and information from BBN,Frank Solensky (Racal-Interlan), presented a statistical analysis on the rate of utilization of IP address space. He showedthat the growthis exponential. See the accompanyingslides for his projections whenthe IP address space becomedepleted (assuming continued exponential growth)." Frank?s slides start on page 59 of the proceedings Scott From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Feb 13 11:44:06 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:44:06 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> Message-ID: <40cf37e4-2d4f-199e-91ba-aee43f5031bf@3kitty.org> On 2/13/19 11:08 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > So, it seems obvious that address size problems plagued the arpanet > and earlier versions of IP. When did the writing show up on the wall > that the classful design wasn't working, and secondly that 32 bits > wasn't enough? I don't recall hearing any concerns that the ARPANET address space was too small, other than the time when the "leaders" were expanded from 32 to 96 bits. This was the era when computers were big and expensive, so there weren't many of them.?? What changed was the advent of minicomputers, workstations, and PCs, along with the various kinds of LANs that made computers cheap enough to have millions of them. Despite that evolution, I don't recall much concern about address size in the early IP days.? Remember, at that point the Internet was an Experiment, and it was supposed to eventually go away when the CCITT/ISO/Industry deployed the "real" infrastructure system for computer communications.?? The IPV4 address space was plenty big enough for all the anticipated experiments and early deployments, e.g., by DARPA and NSF, while waiting to transition to the "real" system. Of course that never happened, and the Internet evolved as the only system which you could actually buy, install, and use.? The IPV4 address space only started to be a problem when ISPs started to proliferate, and each needed a block of addresses for its customers. When NAT appeared, IMHO it took a lot of pressure off the address space, since the millions of small LANs could then share the same reserved address spaces like 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x (in memory of the ARPANET which had been retired). /Jack Haverty From agmalis at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 12:09:57 2019 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:09:57 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> Message-ID: Dave, NAT/private address spaces was as important as CIDR to allow the Internet to keep growing. CIDR came first. By mid-to-late 1992, it was clear that we were running out of class A and B network numbers. The resulting CIDR work progressed quite rapidly, and the RFCs were published in September 93. CIDR allowed the allocation of lots of new more appropriately sized network numbers. But that only exacerbated another problem, the explosion of the global routing table size, which was putting a real strain on the backbone routers' memory table size and routing processing capacity. That lead to RFC 1597 in March of 1994, which defined class A, B, and C private address spaces - our now familiar net 10, 192.168.X, and so on (it was later updated and replaced by the more famous RFC 1918). That was quickly followed by NAT (RFC 1631), published that following May. The combination of CIDR, private address spaces, and NAT took a lot of pressure off of the IPv4 address space exhaustion and routing table growth problems. And the rest, as they say, is history. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:17 PM Dave Taht wrote: > > The 0.0.0.0 thread has been fascinating and I now have more to read > than I ever imagined I would. Moving sideways... > > So, it seems obvious that address size problems plagued the arpanet > and earlier versions of IP. When did the writing show up on the wall > that the classful design wasn't working, and secondly that 32 bits > wasn't enough? > > As near as I can tell, this netnews exchange > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20030718205943/http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk:80/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8813.mm.www/0178.html > > ultimately resulted in CIDR and the next message, kicked off IPv6 - for > the toasters! > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20030913113707/http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8813.mm.www/0237.html > > Somewhere also in this fascinating month of internet history (morris > worm days) someone suggested starting to use the class-e space, with no > replies.... Were there proposals to use this as an extension of some sort? > > Anyway it seems to me (in retrospect) that everybody *knew* 32 bits > wasn't enough even going back as far as 1981 (loved hearing about how > tcp went from v2 to v4) ?) but it didn't become > recognized as a serious problem til about this era. ? > > > > > I personally (in my current naive state of mind) would like to see > > daemons daemons source traffic from any of the other 65,535 ports > > excluding than the destination port as a possible source port. > > IANA suggests a smaller ephemeral port range than what linux uses. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeral_port > > Given the profusion of NAT-like nasty things like CGNs and DS-lite and > the rise of QUIC I would favor extending the ephemeral port range as far > as possible. > > > > > Aside: Why is port 0 special? }:-) > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Feb 13 12:34:06 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:34:06 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> Message-ID: Forcing new networks to go to their Tier1 providers was more important. It finally tried to make addresses location-dependent and route-independent. Before this, IP addresses weren?t really addresses. As you say, they were network names. > On Feb 13, 2019, at 15:09, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Dave, > > NAT/private address spaces was as important as CIDR to allow the Internet to keep growing. > > CIDR came first. By mid-to-late 1992, it was clear that we were running out of class A and B network numbers. The resulting CIDR work progressed quite rapidly, and the RFCs were published in September 93. > > CIDR allowed the allocation of lots of new more appropriately sized network numbers. But that only exacerbated another problem, the explosion of the global routing table size, which was putting a real strain on the backbone routers' memory table size and routing processing capacity. > > That lead to RFC 1597 in March of 1994, which defined class A, B, and C private address spaces - our now familiar net 10, 192.168.X, and so on (it was later updated and replaced by the more famous RFC 1918). That was quickly followed by NAT (RFC 1631), published that following May. > > The combination of CIDR, private address spaces, and NAT took a lot of pressure off of the IPv4 address space exhaustion and routing table growth problems. > > And the rest, as they say, is history. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:17 PM Dave Taht > wrote: > > The 0.0.0.0 thread has been fascinating and I now have more to read > than I ever imagined I would. Moving sideways... > > So, it seems obvious that address size problems plagued the arpanet > and earlier versions of IP. When did the writing show up on the wall > that the classful design wasn't working, and secondly that 32 bits > wasn't enough? > > As near as I can tell, this netnews exchange > > https://web.archive.org/web/20030718205943/http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk:80/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8813.mm.www/0178.html > > ultimately resulted in CIDR and the next message, kicked off IPv6 - for > the toasters! > > https://web.archive.org/web/20030913113707/http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8813.mm.www/0237.html > > Somewhere also in this fascinating month of internet history (morris > worm days) someone suggested starting to use the class-e space, with no > replies.... Were there proposals to use this as an extension of some sort? > > Anyway it seems to me (in retrospect) that everybody *knew* 32 bits > wasn't enough even going back as far as 1981 (loved hearing about how > tcp went from v2 to v4) ?) but it didn't become > recognized as a serious problem til about this era. ? > > > > > I personally (in my current naive state of mind) would like to see > > daemons daemons source traffic from any of the other 65,535 ports > > excluding than the destination port as a possible source port. > > IANA suggests a smaller ephemeral port range than what linux uses. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeral_port > > Given the profusion of NAT-like nasty things like CGNs and DS-lite and > the rise of QUIC I would favor extending the ephemeral port range as far > as possible. > > > > > Aside: Why is port 0 special? }:-) > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From craig at tereschau.net Wed Feb 13 12:41:17 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:41:17 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <9D0E17A6-E5AA-4A1F-A5EC-82929F7A92D3@sobco.com> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> <9D0E17A6-E5AA-4A1F-A5EC-82929F7A92D3@sobco.com> Message-ID: A small tweak to Scott's note. The first "we're going to run out of IP addresses soon" talk was given by Mike St Johns at IETF 13 in April 1989. He predicted depletion by the year 2000 (pp. 244-248 of the IETF proceedings, which are on-line at ietf.org). Solensky's talk, which Scott lists, was more important because it looked at depletion by address class and showed that class B would vanish by 1994 -- moving the issue from important but 10 years out to basically right on top of the IETF. Note that in a paper on Internet governance, I argue that address depletion concerns were the final straw that led to the Kobe revolt. The paper contains many references to key steps in how the IETF responded to the concerns (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7274250). Craig On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:52 PM Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > > > > > The 0.0.0.0 thread has been fascinating and I now have more to read > > than I ever imagined I would. Moving sideways... > > > > So, it seems obvious that address size problems plagued the arpanet > > and earlier versions of IP. When did the writing show up on the wall > > that the classful design wasn't working, and secondly that 32 bits > > wasn't enough? > > from the proceedings of IETF 18 (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/18.pdf) > > "Sue Hares and Dale Johnson (MERIT)showed the growth of "configured" > networks numbers in the NSFnet routing database. This indicates which > networks have per- mission to send traffic across the NSFnet. Sue and Dale > were instrumental in helping to define and explain these various "network > number concepts", and how MERIT used these concepts in establishing its > routing database. > > Using this information, and information from BBN,Frank Solensky > (Racal-Interlan), presented a statistical analysis on the rate of > utilization of IP address space. He showedthat the growthis exponential. > See the accompanyingslides for his projections whenthe IP address space > becomedepleted (assuming continued exponential growth)." > > Frank?s slides start on page 59 of the proceedings > > Scott > > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 12:42:56 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:42:56 +1300 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <40cf37e4-2d4f-199e-91ba-aee43f5031bf@3kitty.org> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> <40cf37e4-2d4f-199e-91ba-aee43f5031bf@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <8016f078-4fca-cbf1-7714-0ed9a51d609c@gmail.com> Jack, > When NAT appeared, IMHO it took a lot of pressure off the address space, > since the millions of small LANs could then share the same reserved > address spaces like 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x (in memory of the ARPANET > which had been retired). But NAT for IP appeared *after* the concerns appeared. So I think Scott's note about Frank Skolensky's extrapolations was the correct answer to Dave Taht's question. (In my early IETF meetings I often had Sunday breakfast with Frank, since we were both early risers. But that was already into the 1990s.) BTW, NAT haters appeared as soon as NAT appeared. NAT for non-IP was around much earlier. DECnet "hidden areas" were a form of NAT, and at CERN we NATted a home-built network in the early 1980s since it had (iirc) 6-bit host addresses. It was that experience that made me a NAT hater for evermore. Regards Brian On 2019-02-14 08:44, Jack Haverty wrote: > On 2/13/19 11:08 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > >> So, it seems obvious that address size problems plagued the arpanet >> and earlier versions of IP. When did the writing show up on the wall >> that the classful design wasn't working, and secondly that 32 bits >> wasn't enough? > > I don't recall hearing any concerns that the ARPANET address space was > too small, other than the time when the "leaders" were expanded from 32 > to 96 bits. > > This was the era when computers were big and expensive, so there weren't > many of them.?? What changed was the advent of minicomputers, > workstations, and PCs, along with the various kinds of LANs that made > computers cheap enough to have millions of them. > > Despite that evolution, I don't recall much concern about address size > in the early IP days.? Remember, at that point the Internet was an > Experiment, and it was supposed to eventually go away when the > CCITT/ISO/Industry deployed the "real" infrastructure system for > computer communications.?? The IPV4 address space was plenty big enough > for all the anticipated experiments and early deployments, e.g., by > DARPA and NSF, while waiting to transition to the "real" system. > > Of course that never happened, and the Internet evolved as the only > system which you could actually buy, install, and use.? The IPV4 address > space only started to be a problem when ISPs started to proliferate, and > each needed a block of addresses for its customers. > > When NAT appeared, IMHO it took a lot of pressure off the address space, > since the millions of small LANs could then share the same reserved > address spaces like 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x (in memory of the ARPANET > which had been retired). > > /Jack Haverty > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From craig at tereschau.net Wed Feb 13 13:04:34 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:04:34 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <8016f078-4fca-cbf1-7714-0ed9a51d609c@gmail.com> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> <40cf37e4-2d4f-199e-91ba-aee43f5031bf@3kitty.org> <8016f078-4fca-cbf1-7714-0ed9a51d609c@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:57 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > > But NAT for IP appeared *after* the concerns appeared. So I think Scott's > note > about Frank Skolensky's extrapolations was the correct answer to Dave > Taht's > question. (In my early IETF meetings I often had Sunday breakfast with > Frank, > > Yes. NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group as was CIDR. As I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea and CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. (Less sure re: CIDR -- I do remember a talk by Van). Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 13:30:57 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:30:57 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: (Craig Partridge's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:41:17 -0700") References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> <9D0E17A6-E5AA-4A1F-A5EC-82929F7A92D3@sobco.com> Message-ID: <87bm3f2x66.fsf@taht.net> Craig Partridge writes: > A small tweak to Scott's note. > > The first "we're going to run out of IP addresses soon" talk was given > by Mike St Johns at IETF 13 in April 1989. He predicted depletion by > the year 2000 (pp. 244-248 of the IETF proceedings, which are on-line > at ietf.org). > > Solensky's talk, which Scott lists, was more important because it > looked at depletion by address class and showed that class B would > vanish by 1994 -- moving the issue from important but 10 years out to > basically right on top of the IETF. Yes, that document (ietf 13 pg 61) - was *convincing*. However the Toaster-Net netnews thread that I pointed to is a more colorful origin story. :) I guess I'll cite all three and try to incorporate multiple comments here. I wasn't planning on writing an epic, though. > > Note that in a paper on Internet governance, I argue that address > depletion concerns were the final straw that led to the Kobe revolt. > The paper contains many references to key steps in how the IETF > responded to the concerns > (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7274250). Regrettably this is not an open access publication and I let my ieee membership lapse in the past couple years. Thankfully the DOI is readily available via sci-hub... 10.1109/MAHC.2015.72 I'd not heard of the kobe revolt until now... and the insight into the tension between the IAB and IETF at the time was very fascinating, and how fast HEM->SNMP evolved, in those days, also, and also also also the retrospective on OSI. thx everyone! > Craig > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:52 PM Scott O. Bradner > wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > > > > > The 0.0.0.0 thread has been fascinating and I now have more to > read > > than I ever imagined I would. Moving sideways... > > > > So, it seems obvious that address size problems plagued the > arpanet > > and earlier versions of IP. When did the writing show up on the > wall > > that the classful design wasn't working, and secondly that 32 > bits > > wasn't enough? > > from the proceedings of IETF 18 > (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/18.pdf) > > "Sue Hares and Dale Johnson (MERIT)showed the growth of > "configured" networks numbers in the NSFnet routing database. This > indicates which networks have per- mission to send traffic across > the NSFnet. Sue and Dale were instrumental in helping to define > and explain these various "network number concepts", and how MERIT > used these concepts in establishing its routing database. > > Using this information, and information from BBN,Frank Solensky > (Racal-Interlan), presented a statistical analysis on the rate of > utilization of IP address space. He showedthat the growthis > exponential. See the accompanyingslides for his projections > whenthe IP address space becomedepleted (assuming continued > exponential growth)." > > Frank?s slides start on page 59 of the proceedings > > Scott > > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 13:34:56 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:34:56 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: (Craig Partridge's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:04:34 -0700") References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> <40cf37e4-2d4f-199e-91ba-aee43f5031bf@3kitty.org> <8016f078-4fca-cbf1-7714-0ed9a51d609c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <877ee32wzj.fsf@taht.net> Craig Partridge writes: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:57 PM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > But NAT for IP appeared *after* the concerns appeared. So I think > Scott's note > about Frank Skolensky's extrapolations was the correct answer to > Dave Taht's > question. (In my early IETF meetings I often had Sunday breakfast > with Frank, > > > > Yes. NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working > group as was CIDR. > > As I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea and CIDR, I think, was Jeff > Mogul's idea. (Less sure re: CIDR -- > I do remember a talk by Van). ROAD sounds like it was very effective wg. While I'm at this, this is an open question on the CIDR talk page on wikipedia. Who invented CIDR notation or made it become standard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing#Origins_of_CIDR > > Craig From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 13 14:01:30 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:01:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? Message-ID: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Craig Partridge > NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand for a long time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) > I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I first heard about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or whatever that meeting was called. > CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF world by then. Maybe you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la MIT? CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was any specific person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to Roki's supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it 'supernetting', not CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different reason/need (IIRC, he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a host on a different VAN, without going through a router). Noel From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 14:09:06 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:09:06 -0800 Subject: [ih] The history of "This" 0.0.0.0/8 network? In-Reply-To: <87ftsr339i.fsf@taht.net> (Dave Taht's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:19:21 -0800") References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftsr339i.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <87y36j1gu5.fsf@taht.net> OK, so I have ploughed through many of the references on this thread, and hope to incorporate some text from it. However, I have drawn a conclusion from all this, that says that the only reason 0.0.0.0/8 is not allowed is due to historical circumstance, obsolete since 1989 at the very least, and perhaps much earlier? Only in RFC792 was there a protocol that attempted to do address configuration using these low numbers, in a pair of ICMP messages (Information Request & Reply) that asked for an IP address and responded with one. Those messages were deprecated in RFC 1122, section 3.2.2.7. ARP, bootp, dhcp, etc followed. Secondly, the only truly invalid "zeroth" network address is 0.0.0.0/32. Everything else, since CIDR, should be allowing the zeroth member of a subnet as a valid address. ? (this is probably not the right forum to make these conclusions, (what would be?), but it has been wonderful getting all this background from from y'all from my pre-kindergarden years.....) From sob at sobco.com Wed Feb 13 14:27:30 2019 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:27:30 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: > On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Craig Partridge > >> NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group > > Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand for a long > time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) > >> I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea > > He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I first heard > about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or whatever that > meeting was called. Paul acknowledges Van?s address reuse concept in RFC 1631 (NAT) Scott From rwcallon at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 14:34:32 2019 From: rwcallon at gmail.com (Ross Callon) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:34:32 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> There was some mumbling about 32 bits not being enough as early as 1980. In 1980 there was the beginning of the effort that became CLNP. The first related proposal came out of BBN and NBS (National Bureau of Standards, which is now called NIST) in 1980 and proposed that what became CLNP should be just IPv4 with 64 bit addresses and the source quench removed, and nothing else changed other than the version. At the time BBN had a contract with NBS. This proposal was taken into ANSI bound in bright orange cover paper, which caused it to be unofficially named the ?pumpkin paper?. Around the same time I privately mentioned to Vint that instead of going from an 8 bit network number plus a 24 bit subnet address to class A,B,C addresses, instead they should go to 64 bits. He said this would be too disruptive. I didn?t find out until the ROAD meetings many years later that someone else, I think probably Bob Hinden, had told Vint the same thing at about the same time. Of course, at the time I had absolutely no idea how to get anyone to agree with this change, and I was unaware that ANSI and ISO would be unable to get anyone to follow their standards. I recall the ROAD group as occurring while I was still at BBN, which I left in 1988. As such the group must have met no later than 1988. NAT was discussed. I thought that Van Jacobsen brought the idea into the ROAD group although Paul Francis was also participating, and there was someone else whose name escapes me (possibly Vince Fuller) who was also proposing NAT, and of course this doesn?t say whose idea it was originally. I think of CIDR as having two parts. One was just getting away from the class A, B, C restrictions. I don?t know where this came from. The other was assigning addresses topologically. I think that the topological part came later than the ?no A,B,C? part. Bob Hinden might remember some of this. Ross > On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Craig Partridge > >> NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group > > Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand for a long > time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) > >> I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea > > He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I first heard > about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or whatever that > meeting was called. > >> CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. > > I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF world by then. Maybe > you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la MIT? > > CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was any specific > person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to Roki's > supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it 'supernetting', not > CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different reason/need (IIRC, > he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a host on a > different VAN, without going through a router). > > Noel > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 15:34:07 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:34:07 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> (Ross Callon's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:34:32 -0500") References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87tvh71cwg.fsf@taht.net> Ross Callon writes: > There was some mumbling about 32 bits not being enough as early as > 1980. In 1980 there was the beginning of the effort that became CLNP. > The first related proposal came out of BBN and NBS (National Bureau of > Standards, which is now called NIST) in 1980 and proposed that what > became CLNP should be just IPv4 with 64 bit addresses and the source > quench removed, and nothing else changed other than the version. At > the time BBN had a contract with NBS. This proposal was taken into > ANSI bound in bright orange cover paper, which caused it to be > unofficially named the ?pumpkin paper?. Hah. Even though I worked on the ISO stuff stuff I cannot remember the final address size. > Around the same time I > privately mentioned to Vint that instead of going from an 8 bit > network number plus a 24 bit subnet address to class A,B,C addresses, > instead they should go to 64 bits. He said this would be too > disruptive. I didn?t find out until the ROAD meetings many years later > that someone else, I think probably Bob Hinden, had told Vint the same > thing at about the same time. > > Of course, at the time I had absolutely no idea how to get anyone to > agree with this change, and I was unaware that ANSI and ISO would be > unable to get anyone to follow their standards. > > I recall the ROAD group as occurring while I was still at BBN, which I > left in 1988. As such the group must have met no later than 1988. NAT > was discussed. I thought that Van Jacobsen brought the idea into the > ROAD group although Paul Francis was also participating, and there was > someone else whose name escapes me (possibly Vince Fuller) who was > also proposing NAT, and of course this doesn?t say whose idea it was > originally. It sounds like the official formation of ROAD long followed an unofficial group thinking about the same stuff. ROAD itself is fascinating, in that it was a closed group (contrary to ietf processes) and it achieved results. > I think of CIDR as having two parts. One was just getting away from > the class A, B, C restrictions. I don?t know where this came from. The > other was assigning addresses topologically. I think that the > topological part came later than the ?no A,B,C? part. CIDR (in these two parts) and NAT "saved the internet". Or I guess, in some views, totally pushed back the urgency for ipv6. The ROAD not taken. > Bob Hinden might remember some of this. > > Ross > > On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > > > > From: Craig Partridge > > > NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working > group > > > Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand > for a long > time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) > > I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea > > > He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I > first heard > about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or > whatever that > meeting was called. > > CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. > > > I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF world > by then. Maybe > you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la MIT? > > CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was any > specific > person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to > Roki's > supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it > 'supernetting', not > CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different > reason/need (IIRC, > he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a > host on a > different VAN, without going through a router). > > Noel > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From rwcallon at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 15:38:28 2019 From: rwcallon at gmail.com (Ross Callon) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:38:28 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <1D55E7B5-4162-44D9-8188-E4C797A07A99@gmail.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <1D55E7B5-4162-44D9-8188-E4C797A07A99@gmail.com> Message-ID: <72E7BCC5-28CC-4E69-93B3-894178C604F3@gmail.com> There were two ROAD groups. You are thinking of the much later public one. There was a private one that occurred back when I was at BBN. I was thinking of the first of these. I guess we need to be clear which one we are thinking about now that we remember that there was more than one. thanks, Ross > On Feb 13, 2019, at 6:20 PM, Lyman Chapin wrote: > > > >> On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:34 PM, Ross Callon > wrote: >> >> There was some mumbling about 32 bits not being enough as early as 1980. In 1980 there was the beginning of the effort that became CLNP. The first related proposal came out of BBN and NBS (National Bureau of Standards, which is now called NIST) in 1980 and proposed that what became CLNP should be just IPv4 with 64 bit addresses and the source quench removed, and nothing else changed other than the version. At the time BBN had a contract with NBS. This proposal was taken into ANSI bound in bright orange cover paper, which caused it to be unofficially named the ?pumpkin paper?. Around the same time I privately mentioned to Vint that instead of going from an 8 bit network number plus a 24 bit subnet address to class A,B,C addresses, instead they should go to 64 bits. He said this would be too disruptive. I didn?t find out until the ROAD meetings many years later that someone else, I think probably Bob Hinden, had told Vint the same thing at about the same time. >> >> Of course, at the time I had absolutely no idea how to get anyone to agree with this change, and I was unaware that ANSI and ISO would be unable to get anyone to follow their standards. >> >> I recall the ROAD group as occurring while I was still at BBN, which I left in 1988. > > No, it was 1991; you?d gone to DEC - > > - Lyman > >> As such the group must have met no later than 1988. NAT was discussed. I thought that Van Jacobsen brought the idea into the ROAD group although Paul Francis was also participating, and there was someone else whose name escapes me (possibly Vince Fuller) who was also proposing NAT, and of course this doesn?t say whose idea it was originally. >> >> I think of CIDR as having two parts. One was just getting away from the class A, B, C restrictions. I don?t know where this came from. The other was assigning addresses topologically. I think that the topological part came later than the ?no A,B,C? part. >> >> Bob Hinden might remember some of this. >> >> Ross >> >>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: >>> >>>> From: Craig Partridge >>> >>>> NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group >>> >>> Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand for a long >>> time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) >>> >>>> I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea >>> >>> He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I first heard >>> about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or whatever that >>> meeting was called. >>> >>>> CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. >>> >>> I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF world by then. Maybe >>> you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la MIT? >>> >>> CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was any specific >>> person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to Roki's >>> supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it 'supernetting', not >>> CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different reason/need (IIRC, >>> he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a host on a >>> different VAN, without going through a router). >>> >>> Noel >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Feb 13 16:12:02 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:12:02 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think what you're seeing is that the various people and groups working on "the Internet" in the early times (80s) didn't have the same view of the goal.? The "let's experiment with new ideas for routing, protocols, congestion control, etc." crowd saw 32 bits as plenty for what they envisioned doing.? This would include a lot of the DARPA "experimental" work.?? I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major change to TCP/IP to halt other experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year or two it would take to change all the software again. The "how do we build something for the whole planet" crowd saw 32 bits as totally inadequate.? This would include the emerging ISPs who wanted a big market, and the ISO designers targeting the long vision.? These efforts produced a lot of paper, and software and hardware that worked if you adopted their particular "walled garden", but nothing with TCP/IP's universality that was embodied in things you could actually buy. IMHO, both were right in their positions.? They were simply working on different problems, and probably didn't realize it at the time. TCP/IP was later widely viewed as the "interim system" to be used outside of the experimental world, while the ISO et al were getting the final system in place.? It worked well enough, and much better than anything else that was available.? Plus there was a small army named IETF tweaking and patching the system to solve operational problems that came up. That "interim solution" viewpoint sidestepped a lot of bureaucratic obstacles since it was easier to get approvals, and fight fewer battles, for an interim stopgap. I wonder when (and if) the Internet ever graduated from "interim solution" status... /Jack Haverty On 2/13/19 2:34 PM, Ross Callon wrote: > There was some mumbling about 32 bits not being enough as early as > 1980. In 1980 there was the beginning of the effort that became CLNP. > The first related proposal came out of BBN and NBS (National Bureau of > Standards, which is now called NIST) in 1980 and proposed that what > became CLNP should be just IPv4 with 64 bit addresses and the source > quench removed, and nothing else changed other than the version. > At?the time BBN had a contract with NBS. This proposal?was taken into > ANSI bound in bright orange cover paper, which caused it to be > unofficially named the??pumpkin paper?. Around the same?time I > privately mentioned to Vint that instead of going from an 8 > bit?network number plus a 24 bit?subnet address to class A,B,C > addresses, instead they?should go to 64 bits. He said this would be > too disruptive. I didn?t find out until the ROAD meetings many years > later that someone else, I think probably Bob Hinden, had told Vint > the same thing at about the same time.? > > Of course, at the time I had absolutely no idea how to get?anyone to > agree with this change, and I was unaware that ANSI and ISO would be > unable to get anyone to follow their standards.? > > I recall the ROAD group as?occurring while I was still at BBN, which I > left in 1988. As?such the group must have met no later than 1988. NAT > was discussed. I thought that Van Jacobsen brought the idea into the > ROAD group although Paul Francis was also participating, and there was > someone else whose name escapes me (possibly Vince Fuller) who was > also proposing NAT, and of course this doesn?t say whose idea it was > originally.? > > I think of CIDR as having two parts. One was?just getting away from > the class A, B, C restrictions. I don?t know where this came from. The > other was assigning addresses topologically. I think that the > topological part came later than the??no A,B,C? part.? > > Bob Hinden might remember some of this.? > > Ross > >> On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa > > wrote: >> >>> From: Craig Partridge >> >>> NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group >> >> Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand >> for a long >> time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) >> >>> I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea >> >> He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I >> first heard >> about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or >> whatever that >> meeting was called. >> >>> CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. >> >> I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF world by >> then. Maybe >> you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la MIT? >> >> CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was any >> specific >> person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to Roki's >> supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it >> 'supernetting', not >> CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different >> reason/need (IIRC, >> he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a host on a >> different VAN, without going through a router). >> >> ?Noel >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Wed Feb 13 16:33:44 2019 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:33:44 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <5C64B768.23377.3B3197D2@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 13 Feb 2019 at 16:12, Jack Haverty wrote: > I think what you're seeing is that the various people and groups working > on "the Internet" in the > early times (80s) didn't have the same view of the goal.? > The "let's experiment with new ideas for routing, protocols, congestion > control, etc." crowd saw 32 > bits as plenty for what they envisioned doing.? This would include a > lot of the DARPA > "experimental" work.?? I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major > change to TCP/IP to halt other > experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year or two it > would take to change all the > software again. If that was true at the time, it is perhaps not surprising that the way things are the software is, essentially, unchangeable. For good or ill. Vint came to Roanoke to talk to some group [I don't remember something like the "21st century group" or something like that]. This was in something like 1995 or 1996, a mere 20+ years ago. He said that IPv4 was going to implode and we would *have* to transition to IPv6 in a few years. I've asked IPv6 advocates every few years since then what the plan is to cut over from v4 to v6. I have no idea what the current plan is, but I'm still a skeptic: I'm out of it now, have been for a long time, but if I were still involved with the design and planning I wouldn't have a clue on how to get everybody using IPv6. My mind boggles just thinking about all the systems that'd have to be changed, much less how to effect and coordinate the change. I don't know what group is looking forward, thinking about the future of the Internet, but it feels like it an unstoppable ball that is rolling down the side of a mountain. /Bernie\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm.com -- Too many people; too few sheep -- From leo at vegoda.org Wed Feb 13 16:53:56 2019 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:53:56 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:30 AM Dave Taht wrote: [...] > Somewhere also in this fascinating month of internet history (morris > worm days) someone suggested starting to use the class-e space, with no > replies.... Were there proposals to use this as an extension of some sort? I am aware of these two I-Ds, which looked at making use of that space: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 I believe the main reason they did not progress was that the vast majority of deployed devices would barf at those addresses, which would raise support costs for network operators beyond those incurred by other approaches to providing continued IPv4 connectivity. From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 17:11:55 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:11:55 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: (Jack Haverty's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:12:02 -0800") References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87pnrv18dg.fsf@taht.net> Jack Haverty writes: > I think what you're seeing is that the various people and groups > working on "the Internet" in the early times (80s) didn't have the > same view of the goal. I think this is a very good split of approaches. > > The "let's experiment with new ideas for routing, protocols, > congestion control, etc." crowd saw 32 bits as plenty for what they > envisioned doing. This would include a lot of the DARPA "experimental" > work. I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major change to TCP/IP to > halt other experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year > or two it would take to change all the software again. > > The "how do we build something for the whole planet" crowd saw 32 bits > as totally inadequate. This would include the emerging ISPs who wanted > a big market, ISPs as I know them didn't start to emerge until about 1987 (uunet), and 1988 (netcom). > and the ISO designers targeting the long vision. These > efforts produced a lot of paper, and software and hardware that worked > if you adopted their particular "walled garden", but nothing with > TCP/IP's universality that was embodied in things you could actually > buy. > > IMHO, both were right in their positions. They were simply working on > different problems, and probably didn't realize it at the time. > > TCP/IP was later widely viewed as the "interim system" to be used > outside of the experimental world, while the ISO et al were getting > the final system in place. It worked well enough, and much better than > anything else that was available. Plus there was a small army named > IETF tweaking and patching the system to solve operational problems > that came up. > > That "interim solution" viewpoint sidestepped a lot of bureaucratic > obstacles since it was easier to get approvals, and fight fewer > battles, for an interim stopgap. I think the IP stack's development vs the other stacks' development were one of the first cases of lessig's "code is law" dictum. Also the low entry cost (ISO standards *cost*), the earlier deployment of running code, etc. Still what astonished me back then was that IPX/SPX wasn't successfully extended - it ruled the lan then outside of the few campuses that had tcp/ip. It fit into 64k. It was far from certain up until, oh, 1995 or so, that IPv4 "would win", not just against decnet, ipx/spx, netbui, but against ipv6! > > I wonder when (and if) the Internet ever graduated from "interim > solution" status... > > /Jack Haverty > > On 2/13/19 2:34 PM, Ross Callon wrote: > > There was some mumbling about 32 bits not being enough as early as > 1980. In 1980 there was the beginning of the effort that became > CLNP. The first related proposal came out of BBN and NBS (National > Bureau of Standards, which is now called NIST) in 1980 and > proposed that what became CLNP should be just IPv4 with 64 bit > addresses and the source quench removed, and nothing else changed > other than the version. At the time BBN had a contract with NBS. > This proposal was taken into ANSI bound in bright orange cover > paper, which caused it to be unofficially named the ?pumpkin > paper?. Around the same time I privately mentioned to Vint that > instead of going from an 8 bit network number plus a 24 bit subnet > address to class A,B,C addresses, instead they should go to 64 > bits. He said this would be too disruptive. I didn?t find out > until the ROAD meetings many years later that someone else, I > think probably Bob Hinden, had told Vint the same thing at about > the same time. > > > Of course, at the time I had absolutely no idea how to get anyone > to agree with this change, and I was unaware that ANSI and ISO > would be unable to get anyone to follow their standards. > > > I recall the ROAD group as occurring while I was still at BBN, > which I left in 1988. As such the group must have met no later > than 1988. NAT was discussed. I thought that Van Jacobsen brought > the idea into the ROAD group although Paul Francis was also > participating, and there was someone else whose name escapes me > (possibly Vince Fuller) who was also proposing NAT, and of course > this doesn?t say whose idea it was originally. > > > I think of CIDR as having two parts. One was just getting away > from the class A, B, C restrictions. I don?t know where this came > from. The other was assigning addresses topologically. I think > that the topological part came later than the ?no A,B,C? part. > > > Bob Hinden might remember some of this. > > > > Ross > > > On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > > > > From: Craig Partridge > > > NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working > group > > > Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the > sand for a long > time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) > > I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea > > > He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I > think? I first heard > about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or > whatever that > meeting was called. > > CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. > > > I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF > world by then. Maybe > you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la > MIT? > > CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was > any specific > person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to > Roki's > supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it > 'supernetting', not > CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different > reason/need (IIRC, > he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a > host on a > different VAN, without going through a router). > > Noel > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From pnr at planet.nl Wed Feb 13 17:14:47 2019 From: pnr at planet.nl (Paul Ruizendaal) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:14:47 +0100 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: >> Around the same time [1980] I privately mentioned to Vint that instead of going from an 8 bit network number plus a 24 bit subnet address to class A,B,C addresses, instead they should go to 64 bits. He said this would be too disruptive. > I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major change to TCP/IP to halt other experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year or two it would take to change all the software again. Maybe Vint can chime in. Looking at it almost 40 years later, it would seem to me that just changing the addresses from 32 to 64 bit would have been about the same level of disruption as the GGP/ICMP split that occurred in 1981. My hypothesis would be that the case for 64 bit was at that time simply viewed as not very strong - which would fit with both the ?experiment? and ?interim? views you describe. Paul > On 14 Feb 2019, at 01:12, Jack Haverty wrote: > > I think what you're seeing is that the various people and groups working on "the Internet" in the early times (80s) didn't have the same view of the goal. > > The "let's experiment with new ideas for routing, protocols, congestion control, etc." crowd saw 32 bits as plenty for what they envisioned doing. This would include a lot of the DARPA "experimental" work. I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major change to TCP/IP to halt other experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year or two it would take to change all the software again. > > The "how do we build something for the whole planet" crowd saw 32 bits as totally inadequate. This would include the emerging ISPs who wanted a big market, and the ISO designers targeting the long vision. These efforts produced a lot of paper, and software and hardware that worked if you adopted their particular "walled garden", but nothing with TCP/IP's universality that was embodied in things you could actually buy. > > IMHO, both were right in their positions. They were simply working on different problems, and probably didn't realize it at the time. > > TCP/IP was later widely viewed as the "interim system" to be used outside of the experimental world, while the ISO et al were getting the final system in place. It worked well enough, and much better than anything else that was available. Plus there was a small army named IETF tweaking and patching the system to solve operational problems that came up. > > That "interim solution" viewpoint sidestepped a lot of bureaucratic obstacles since it was easier to get approvals, and fight fewer battles, for an interim stopgap. > > I wonder when (and if) the Internet ever graduated from "interim solution" status... > > /Jack Haverty > > On 2/13/19 2:34 PM, Ross Callon wrote: >> There was some mumbling about 32 bits not being enough as early as 1980. In 1980 there was the beginning of the effort that became CLNP. The first related proposal came out of BBN and NBS (National Bureau of Standards, which is now called NIST) in 1980 and proposed that what became CLNP should be just IPv4 with 64 bit addresses and the source quench removed, and nothing else changed other than the version. At the time BBN had a contract with NBS. This proposal was taken into ANSI bound in bright orange cover paper, which caused it to be unofficially named the ?pumpkin paper?. I didn?t find out until the ROAD meetings many years later that someone else, I think probably Bob Hinden, had told Vint the same thing at about the same time. >> >> Of course, at the time I had absolutely no idea how to get anyone to agree with this change, and I was unaware that ANSI and ISO would be unable to get anyone to follow their standards. >> >> I recall the ROAD group as occurring while I was still at BBN, which I left in 1988. As such the group must have met no later than 1988. NAT was discussed. I thought that Van Jacobsen brought the idea into the ROAD group although Paul Francis was also participating, and there was someone else whose name escapes me (possibly Vince Fuller) who was also proposing NAT, and of course this doesn?t say whose idea it was originally. >> >> I think of CIDR as having two parts. One was just getting away from the class A, B, C restrictions. I don?t know where this came from. The other was assigning addresses topologically. I think that the topological part came later than the ?no A,B,C? part. >> >> Bob Hinden might remember some of this. >> >> Ross >> >>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> >>>> From: Craig Partridge >>> >>>> NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group >>> >>> Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand for a long >>> time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) >>> >>>> I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea >>> >>> He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I first heard >>> about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or whatever that >>> meeting was called. >>> >>>> CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. >>> >>> I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF world by then. Maybe >>> you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la MIT? >>> >>> CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was any specific >>> person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to Roki's >>> supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it 'supernetting', not >>> CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different reason/need (IIRC, >>> he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a host on a >>> different VAN, without going through a router). >>> >>> Noel >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> Contact >> list-owner at postel.org >> for assistance. >> > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 17:21:26 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:21:26 -0800 Subject: [ih] Class-E extensions? In-Reply-To: (Leo Vegoda's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:53:56 -0800") References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> Message-ID: <87lg2j17xl.fsf_-_@taht.net> Leo Vegoda writes: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:30 AM Dave Taht wrote: > > [...] > >> Somewhere also in this fascinating month of internet history (morris >> worm days) someone suggested starting to use the class-e space, with no >> replies.... Were there proposals to use this as an extension of some sort? > > I am aware of these two I-Ds, which looked at making use of that space: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 > > I believe the main reason they did not progress was that the vast > majority of deployed devices would barf at those addresses, which > would raise support costs for network operators beyond those incurred > by other approaches to providing continued IPv4 connectivity. Depends on your definition of "barf". If you mean "explodes on contact", noo.. If you mean "won't assign, can't connect", that is true, still, today... for windows, which is now a minority OS. Linux, IOS, BSD, OSX all seem to support 240/4 as globally routable unicast since vince fuller's draft in 08, IOT devices mostly only check for IN_MULTICAST and treat everything else as a valid IP address. The last (minor) fix for 240/4 went into linux 4.20 and openwrt last december. Anyway this verges on discussing my pending I-D, and I'm mostly here for the history... given all the documents I've now read about various address extensions for various stacks, someone *must* have seriously proposed something like a 64 bit address extension out of the 240/4 space in the 1990-1997 timeframe? Or did it lie completely fallow until those two drafts above? From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Feb 13 18:12:42 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:12:42 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, I know that I personally didn't think bigger addresses were highest priority.? We used to put a list of "things we have to figure out" on the whiteboard at every Internet/ICCB/IAB meeting.? Address size was there, but there were several issues that had to be worked first, since the outcome would likely impact any new address structure.? This was early/mid 80s. E.G., the "Expressway Routing" problem - namely how do you force traffic going from one computer to another on the same network to take a detour through gateways to use another intermediate net.? The practical case was the Wideband Net which was high-bandwidth satellite-based and attached to the ARPANET on both coasts.? But no traffic would naturally go that way since it would involve two hops instead of one. E.G., the "Multi-homed Host" problem - namely how do you deal with a user computer attached to more than one network.? Does it have two IP addresses?? Can it effectively use both network ports at the same time?? Can it be constrained to not act as a gateway? E.G., the "Multipath" problem - namely if you have several possible paths, how do you cause traffic to split and utilize both paths instead of just the one that seems best at the time, in order to achieve higher throughput and efficient line utilization. E.G., the "TOS Routing" problem - namely how do you make traffic with different TOS take different routes, such as a satellite one for traffic that doesn't need low delay.? This is one case of a larger "Policy Routing" issue - namely how you make traffic take routes constrained by someone's policy (like only ARPA projects can use ARPANET). There were more that I can't remember offhand. So, there was lots of stuff still to be done, all of which seemed likely to require experimentation.? Not a good time to change the basic address structure.... I haven't been involved for a while, but I wonder if those outstanding problems have been solved, perhaps in IPV6. /Jack Haverty On 2/13/19 5:14 PM, Paul Ruizendaal wrote: >>> Around the same time [1980] I privately mentioned to Vint that instead of going from an 8 bit network number plus a 24 bit subnet address to class A,B,C addresses, instead they should go to 64 bits. He said this would be too disruptive. >> I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major change to TCP/IP to halt other experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year or two it would take to change all the software again. > Maybe Vint can chime in. Looking at it almost 40 years later, it would seem to me that just changing the addresses from 32 to 64 bit would have been about the same level of disruption as the GGP/ICMP split that occurred in 1981. My hypothesis would be that the case for 64 bit was at that time simply viewed as not very strong - which would fit with both the ?experiment? and ?interim? views you describe. > > Paul > >> On 14 Feb 2019, at 01:12, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> I think what you're seeing is that the various people and groups working on "the Internet" in the early times (80s) didn't have the same view of the goal. >> >> The "let's experiment with new ideas for routing, protocols, congestion control, etc." crowd saw 32 bits as plenty for what they envisioned doing. This would include a lot of the DARPA "experimental" work. I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major change to TCP/IP to halt other experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year or two it would take to change all the software again. >> >> The "how do we build something for the whole planet" crowd saw 32 bits as totally inadequate. This would include the emerging ISPs who wanted a big market, and the ISO designers targeting the long vision. These efforts produced a lot of paper, and software and hardware that worked if you adopted their particular "walled garden", but nothing with TCP/IP's universality that was embodied in things you could actually buy. >> >> IMHO, both were right in their positions. They were simply working on different problems, and probably didn't realize it at the time. >> >> TCP/IP was later widely viewed as the "interim system" to be used outside of the experimental world, while the ISO et al were getting the final system in place. It worked well enough, and much better than anything else that was available. Plus there was a small army named IETF tweaking and patching the system to solve operational problems that came up. >> >> That "interim solution" viewpoint sidestepped a lot of bureaucratic obstacles since it was easier to get approvals, and fight fewer battles, for an interim stopgap. >> >> I wonder when (and if) the Internet ever graduated from "interim solution" status... >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> On 2/13/19 2:34 PM, Ross Callon wrote: >>> There was some mumbling about 32 bits not being enough as early as 1980. In 1980 there was the beginning of the effort that became CLNP. The first related proposal came out of BBN and NBS (National Bureau of Standards, which is now called NIST) in 1980 and proposed that what became CLNP should be just IPv4 with 64 bit addresses and the source quench removed, and nothing else changed other than the version. At the time BBN had a contract with NBS. This proposal was taken into ANSI bound in bright orange cover paper, which caused it to be unofficially named the ?pumpkin paper?. I didn?t find out until the ROAD meetings many years later that someone else, I think probably Bob Hinden, had told Vint the same thing at about the same time. >>> >>> Of course, at the time I had absolutely no idea how to get anyone to agree with this change, and I was unaware that ANSI and ISO would be unable to get anyone to follow their standards. >>> >>> I recall the ROAD group as occurring while I was still at BBN, which I left in 1988. As such the group must have met no later than 1988. NAT was discussed. I thought that Van Jacobsen brought the idea into the ROAD group although Paul Francis was also participating, and there was someone else whose name escapes me (possibly Vince Fuller) who was also proposing NAT, and of course this doesn?t say whose idea it was originally. >>> >>> I think of CIDR as having two parts. One was just getting away from the class A, B, C restrictions. I don?t know where this came from. The other was assigning addresses topologically. I think that the topological part came later than the ?no A,B,C? part. >>> >>> Bob Hinden might remember some of this. >>> >>> Ross >>> >>>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Craig Partridge >>>>> NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group >>>> Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand for a long >>>> time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) >>>> >>>>> I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea >>>> He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I first heard >>>> about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or whatever that >>>> meeting was called. >>>> >>>>> CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. >>>> I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF world by then. Maybe >>>> you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la MIT? >>>> >>>> CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was any specific >>>> person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to Roki's >>>> supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it 'supernetting', not >>>> CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different reason/need (IIRC, >>>> he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a host on a >>>> different VAN, without going through a router). >>>> >>>> Noel >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> Contact >>> list-owner at postel.org >>> for assistance. >>> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 19:01:06 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:01:06 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: (Jack Haverty's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:12:42 -0800") References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87h8d713bh.fsf@taht.net> Jack Haverty writes: > Well, I know that I personally didn't think bigger addresses were > highest priority.? We used to put a list of "things we have to figure > out" on the whiteboard at every Internet/ICCB/IAB meeting.? Address size > was there, but there were several issues that had to be worked first, > since the outcome would likely impact any new address structure.? This > was early/mid 80s. Yes, we had other issues besides address space! Mine at the time was somehow getting IPX/SPX based networks to interop. Didn't succeed. > E.G., the "Expressway Routing" problem - namely how do you force traffic > going from one computer to another on the same network to take a detour > through gateways to use another intermediate net.? The practical case > was the Wideband Net which was high-bandwidth satellite-based and > attached to the ARPANET on both coasts.? But no traffic would naturally > go that way since it would involve two hops instead of one. Most DDOS providers offer this capabliity nowadays. I have no idea how it works aside from "it takes BGP magic". > > E.G., the "Multi-homed Host" problem - namely how do you deal with a > user computer attached to more than one network.? Does it have two IP > addresses?? Can it effectively use both network ports at the same time?? > Can it be constrained to not act as a gateway? For IPv6, SADR routing has emerged. This involves having at least one IPv6 address per possible uplink. It's a subset of policy routing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-specific_routing It is nearly universal now in embedded linux routers as it eliminates the default route entirely, and thus any need for bcp38. 10 years ago (?), in babeld and linux it became possible to have one IPv4/32 and IPv6/128 address per computer, no matter how many interfaces it had. It broke broadcast and mcast to some extent but could and did work for mobile IP, multiple routes to multiple destinations via the best local path, etc. It did not solve the load balancing problem, however. I still miss the days where I had a connection nailed up over ethernet, and I moved to the (ad-hoc wifi) to walk to another location - plugged back in - and went back to ethernet. Despite things like mosh, and vpns smoothing that transition out now for me, still find it quite jarring. > E.G., the "Multipath" problem - namely if you have several possible > paths, how do you cause traffic to split and utilize both paths instead > of just the one that seems best at the time, in order to achieve higher > throughput and efficient line utilization. See MPTCP, ECMP, etc. We did some multipath work with mosh: https://hal-univ-diderot.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01114285/document > > E.G., the "TOS Routing" problem - namely how do you make traffic with > different TOS take different routes, such as a satellite one for traffic > that doesn't need low delay.? This is one case of a larger "Policy > Routing" issue - namely how you make traffic take routes constrained by > someone's policy (like only ARPA projects can use ARPANET). > > There were more that I can't remember offhand. > > So, there was lots of stuff still to be done, all of which seemed likely > to require experimentation.? Not a good time to change the basic address > structure.... Agreed! > > I haven't been involved for a while, but I wonder if those outstanding > problems have been solved, perhaps in IPV6. > > /Jack Haverty > > On 2/13/19 5:14 PM, Paul Ruizendaal wrote: >>>> Around the same time [1980] I privately mentioned to Vint that >>>> instead of going from an 8 bit network number plus a 24 bit subnet >>>> address to class A,B,C addresses, instead they should go to 64 >>>> bits. He said this would be too disruptive. >>> I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major change to TCP/IP to >>> halt other experimental work in how to use the Internet for the >>> year or two it would take to change all the software again. >> Maybe Vint can chime in. Looking at it almost 40 years later, it >> would seem to me that just changing the addresses from 32 to 64 bit >> would have been about the same level of disruption as the GGP/ICMP >> split that occurred in 1981. My hypothesis would be that the case >> for 64 bit was at that time simply viewed as not very strong - which >> would fit with both the ?experiment? and ?interim? views you >> describe. >> >> Paul >> >>> On 14 Feb 2019, at 01:12, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>> I think what you're seeing is that the various people and groups >>> working on "the Internet" in the early times (80s) didn't have the >>> same view of the goal. >>> >>> The "let's experiment with new ideas for routing, protocols, >>> congestion control, etc." crowd saw 32 bits as plenty for what they >>> envisioned doing. This would include a lot of the DARPA >>> "experimental" work. I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major >>> change to TCP/IP to halt other experimental work in how to use the >>> Internet for the year or two it would take to change all the >>> software again. >>> >>> The "how do we build something for the whole planet" crowd saw 32 >>> bits as totally inadequate. This would include the emerging ISPs >>> who wanted a big market, and the ISO designers targeting the long >>> vision. These efforts produced a lot of paper, and software and >>> hardware that worked if you adopted their particular "walled >>> garden", but nothing with TCP/IP's universality that was embodied >>> in things you could actually buy. >>> >>> IMHO, both were right in their positions. They were simply working >>> on different problems, and probably didn't realize it at the time. >>> >>> TCP/IP was later widely viewed as the "interim system" to be used >>> outside of the experimental world, while the ISO et al were getting >>> the final system in place. It worked well enough, and much better >>> than anything else that was available. Plus there was a small army >>> named IETF tweaking and patching the system to solve operational >>> problems that came up. >>> >>> That "interim solution" viewpoint sidestepped a lot of bureaucratic >>> obstacles since it was easier to get approvals, and fight fewer >>> battles, for an interim stopgap. >>> >>> I wonder when (and if) the Internet ever graduated from "interim solution" status... >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> On 2/13/19 2:34 PM, Ross Callon wrote: >>>> There was some mumbling about 32 bits not being enough as early as >>>> 1980. In 1980 there was the beginning of the effort that became >>>> CLNP. The first related proposal came out of BBN and NBS (National >>>> Bureau of Standards, which is now called NIST) in 1980 and >>>> proposed that what became CLNP should be just IPv4 with 64 bit >>>> addresses and the source quench removed, and nothing else changed >>>> other than the version. At the time BBN had a contract with >>>> NBS. This proposal was taken into ANSI bound in bright orange >>>> cover paper, which caused it to be unofficially named the ?pumpkin >>>> paper?. I didn?t find out until the ROAD meetings many years >>>> later that someone else, I think probably Bob Hinden, had told >>>> Vint the same thing at about the same time. >>>> >>>> Of course, at the time I had absolutely no idea how to get anyone >>>> to agree with this change, and I was unaware that ANSI and ISO >>>> would be unable to get anyone to follow their standards. >>>> >>>> I recall the ROAD group as occurring while I was still at BBN, >>>> which I left in 1988. As such the group must have met no later >>>> than 1988. NAT was discussed. I thought that Van Jacobsen brought >>>> the idea into the ROAD group although Paul Francis was also >>>> participating, and there was someone else whose name escapes me >>>> (possibly Vince Fuller) who was also proposing NAT, and of course >>>> this doesn?t say whose idea it was originally. >>>> >>>> I think of CIDR as having two parts. One was just getting away >>>> from the class A, B, C restrictions. I don?t know where this came >>>> from. The other was assigning addresses topologically. I think >>>> that the topological part came later than the ?no A,B,C? part. >>>> >>>> Bob Hinden might remember some of this. >>>> >>>> Ross >>>> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Craig Partridge >>>>>> NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group >>>>> Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand for a long >>>>> time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) >>>>> >>>>>> I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea >>>>> He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I first heard >>>>> about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or whatever that >>>>> meeting was called. >>>>> >>>>>> CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. >>>>> I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF world by then. Maybe >>>>> you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la MIT? >>>>> >>>>> CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was any specific >>>>> person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to Roki's >>>>> supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it 'supernetting', not >>>>> CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different reason/need (IIRC, >>>>> he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a host on a >>>>> different VAN, without going through a router). >>>>> >>>>> Noel >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> Contact >>>> list-owner at postel.org >>>> for assistance. >>>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From leo at vegoda.org Wed Feb 13 19:31:40 2019 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:31:40 -0800 Subject: [ih] Class-E extensions? In-Reply-To: <87lg2j17xl.fsf_-_@taht.net> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> <87lg2j17xl.fsf_-_@taht.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:21 PM Dave Taht wrote: [...] > > I believe the main reason they did not progress was that the vast > > majority of deployed devices would barf at those addresses, which > > would raise support costs for network operators beyond those incurred > > by other approaches to providing continued IPv4 connectivity. > > Depends on your definition of "barf". If you mean "explodes on contact", > noo.. If you mean "won't assign, can't connect", that is true, still, > today... for windows, which is now a minority OS. I simply meant that connections between devices would sometimes fail and I don't think anyone wanted to pick up the support costs. From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 19:57:11 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:57:11 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section Message-ID: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> I seem to find myself kind of lonely in wanting to discuss the competing impact of netbui and ipx/spx before 2004 or so. I can't be the only one who's primary intro to networking was via those protocols? They seem to get short shrift today.... Anyway, although I can add a lot more to the arpanet portion of the history section, and probably will, my current working draft of the history section of this document is now up here: https://github.com/dtaht/ipv4-cleanup/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt#L117 Feel free to make suggestions for more (or less!) content, comment as to my mental state, ancestry, naivety, and overall correctness of the cites - I note that the last cite I added today was rfc1925, which really should get cited more often. From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Wed Feb 13 20:17:57 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:17:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <8016f078-4fca-cbf1-7714-0ed9a51d609c@gmail.com> References: <87tvhavzyi.fsf@taht.net> <61164c96-8969-cb93-0586-48ff821c091a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87ftssx3v5.fsf@taht.net> <79d3f56b-061a-2c8f-4ab6-21d7be87e1b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <87k1i333r5.fsf_-_@taht.net> <40cf37e4-2d4f-199e-91ba-aee43f5031bf@3kitty.org> <8016f078-4fca-cbf1-7714-0ed9a51d609c@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/13/19 1:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > NAT for non-IP was around much earlier. DECnet "hidden areas" were a > form of NAT, and at CERN we NATted a home-built network in the early > 1980s since it had (iirc) 6-bit host addresses. It was that experience > that made me a NAT hater for evermore. Were "hidden areas" really NAT? I thought it was more a bastion host that you could connect to / pass through (above the network layer) to get to hosts in functionally private DECnet address space. Could you cause DECnet packets / datagrams / frames / ??? coming in from one side to forward out the other side, like destination NAT / port forwarding? Or was it only that DECnet nodes that knew about the re-used / hidden areas could get to them. Could hosts on the outside have a route to the hidden area via the bastion? -- Grant. . . . unix || die From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Wed Feb 13 20:27:15 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:27:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <0383ca08-e379-2316-6a10-40c70df7efed@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 2/13/19 8:57 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > I seem to find myself kind of lonely in wanting to discuss the competing > impact of netbui and ipx/spx before 2004 or so. I can't be the only one > who's primary intro to networking was via those protocols? They seem to > get short shrift today.... I'd be interested in hearing / reading such discussions. Does the "Internet History" mailing list mean that it's Internet Protocol /centric/? Or is it okay to segue into other protocols that (at least once upon a time) had large global network presence? If the latter is the case, then I think IPX/SPX, NetBIOS (NetBEUI), Banyan VINES, SNA, AppleTalk, DECnet, you name it have some room to be discussed. But that's based on an "if" that I'm not qualified to answer. > Anyway, although I can add a lot more to the arpanet portion of the > history section, and probably will, my current working draft of the > history section of this document is now up here: > > https://github.com/dtaht/ipv4-cleanup/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt#L117 $ReadingList++ > Feel free to make suggestions for more (or less!) content, comment as to > my mental state, ancestry, naivety, and overall correctness of the cites - > I note that the last cite I added today was rfc1925, which really should > get cited more often. ;-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Wed Feb 13 20:34:13 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:34:13 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <87pnrv18dg.fsf@taht.net> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <87pnrv18dg.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <6ea485a8-ce62-cf34-f8db-1d29aa909d8d@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 2/13/19 6:11 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > Still what astonished me back then was that IPX/SPX wasn't successfully > extended - it ruled the lan then outside of the few campuses that had > tcp/ip. It fit into 64k. Were there no ISPs that offered IPX connectivity? Was it really only inside businesses / enterprises? I guess I had assumed that there were. ?\_(?)_/? -- Grant. . . . unix || die From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 21:01:53 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:01:53 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <6ea485a8-ce62-cf34-f8db-1d29aa909d8d@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> (Grant Taylor's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:34:13 -0700") References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <87pnrv18dg.fsf@taht.net> <6ea485a8-ce62-cf34-f8db-1d29aa909d8d@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <878syj0xq6.fsf@taht.net> Grant Taylor writes: > On 2/13/19 6:11 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> Still what astonished me back then was that IPX/SPX wasn't successfully >> extended - it ruled the lan then outside of the few campuses that had >> tcp/ip. It fit into 64k. > > Were there no ISPs that offered IPX connectivity? Was it really only > inside businesses / enterprises? IPX/SPX bridging equipment was sold to businesses and enterprises. No ISP-like intermediaries existed because there was no security boundry enforcable, so it was not a good means to interconnect multiple enterprises. However, individual frame relay connections for these were common and I guess dealing with the Bell monopoly in those days was somewhat similar to dealing with the cable monopoly today. I do not recall how well these bridges worked. They were better than nothing. I'm trying to remember the date of my first novell smtp email gw... Side note - when I first got ahold of my first pre-wifi cards in 1998, they were only usable as an IPX/SPX bridge. We got tcp/ip running on 'em in about the middle of that year. http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2010/10/who-invented-embedded-linux-based.html > > I guess I had assumed that there were. ?\_(?)_/? From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Feb 13 21:07:05 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:07:05 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <30F92DDD-4FBC-403F-97B9-0A34B82D4FC3@strayalpha.com> > On Feb 13, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > ? > > E.G., the "Multi-homed Host" problem - namely how do you deal with a > user computer attached to more than one network. See below. Unsurprisingly, it involves a router inside the end ?host?. > Does it have two IP > addresses? Yes, and more for the internal virtual router. > Can it effectively use both network ports at the same time? Yes, with ?policy routing?. > Can it be constrained to not act as a gateway? Yes. > ... > > I haven't been involved for a while, but I wonder if those outstanding > problems have been solved, perhaps in IPV6. We experienced this problem in the mid 90s when trying to deploy a somewhat unreliable prototype ?gigabit LAN? for operational use. We wanted division-wide participation, but not to interfere with use if (when) the links failed. That included avoiding renumbering impact on long-lived TCP connections (notably telnet logins), NTP (which we couldn?t restart on new addresses without affecting running programs using disk-based files), etc. Our solution is documented here, and became part of the basis of our understanding of the nuances of overlay networks in the X-Bone project: Touch, J; Faber, T: Dynamic Host Routing for Production Use of Developmental Networks <>. In: ICNP, pp. 285-292, IEEE, 1997. Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 21:13:59 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:13:59 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <0383ca08-e379-2316-6a10-40c70df7efed@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> (Grant Taylor's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:27:15 -0700") References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> <0383ca08-e379-2316-6a10-40c70df7efed@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <874l970x60.fsf@taht.net> Grant Taylor writes: > On 2/13/19 8:57 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> I seem to find myself kind of lonely in wanting to discuss the competing >> impact of netbui and ipx/spx before 2004 or so. I can't be the only one >> who's primary intro to networking was via those protocols? They seem to >> get short shrift today.... > > I'd be interested in hearing / reading such discussions. > > Does the "Internet History" mailing list mean that it's Internet > Protocol /centric/? Or is it okay to segue into other protocols that > (at least once upon a time) had large global network presence? If the > latter is the case, then I think IPX/SPX, NetBIOS (NetBEUI), Banyan > VINES, SNA, AppleTalk, DECnet, you name it have some room to be > discussed. But that's based on an "if" that I'm not qualified to answer. Seeing the history here as IP vs OSI is the dominant thread is a pretty common version of the history. But IP barely registered on my conciousness until the arrival of trumpet winsock for windows in 1994, and from where I sat most of the protocols above had had a good shot at global dominance. I am thinking now that perhaps all the events right around the 1992 timeframe (the ROAD group, CIDR, NAT, the kobe debate and near split between the IAB and IETF) were *the* inflection point where IPv4 became inevitable not only over OSI but the other protocols. So I shall go seeking elsewhere for what "moves" were happening in IPX/SPX and netbui lands. Novell's stock price peaked in 1992, never to recover: http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_214.htm From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Wed Feb 13 21:19:25 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 22:19:25 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <878syj0xq6.fsf@taht.net> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <87pnrv18dg.fsf@taht.net> <6ea485a8-ce62-cf34-f8db-1d29aa909d8d@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <878syj0xq6.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: On 2/13/19 10:01 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > IPX/SPX bridging equipment was sold to businesses and enterprises. No > ISP-like intermediaries existed because there was no security boundry > enforcable, so it was not a good means to interconnect multiple > enterprises. I thought that Border Manager had the ability to filter IPX traffic. I've not done much with it myself, so I'm not certain of that. > However, individual frame relay connections for these were common and I > guess dealing with the Bell monopoly in those days was somewhat similar > to dealing with the cable monopoly today. ACK > I do not recall how well these bridges worked. They were better than > nothing. I thought they did classic MAC address learning. > I'm trying to remember the date of my first novell smtp email gw... GroupWise Internet Agent, a.k.a. GWIA. It was the bane of our GroupWise admin's existence for a while at an old job. I think I may have first set one up in training in early 2000. I have since done it for @^*%s and giggles in VM in the last few years. > Side note - when I first got ahold of my first pre-wifi cards in 1998, > they were only usable as an IPX/SPX bridge. We got tcp/ip running on > 'em in about the middle of that year. I did something similar. I think I was booting the box that was the bridge off of a Fibre Channel SAN using HBAs that supposedly didn't support boot from SAN. ?\_(?)_/? > http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2010/10/who-invented-embedded-linux-based.html *nod* I think the person that patented the claw hammer did so after realizing that someone else had not patented it, so s/he did. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Wed Feb 13 21:21:16 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 22:21:16 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <874l970x60.fsf@taht.net> References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> <0383ca08-e379-2316-6a10-40c70df7efed@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <874l970x60.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <85f1ee39-a1e6-3a89-b0e8-86bfb1fd979c@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 2/13/19 10:13 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > So I shall go seeking elsewhere for what "moves" were happening in > IPX/SPX and netbui lands. Please let me know what you find if / when you find it. I suspect that I'd also like to partake in such discussions. ():-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Feb 13 21:24:14 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:24:14 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <30F92DDD-4FBC-403F-97B9-0A34B82D4FC3@strayalpha.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <30F92DDD-4FBC-403F-97B9-0A34B82D4FC3@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: > On Feb 13, 2019, at 9:07 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > >> On Feb 13, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: >> >> ? >> >> E.G., the "Multi-homed Host" problem - namely how do you deal with a >> user computer attached to more than one network. > > See below. Unsurprisingly, it involves a router inside the end ?host?. > >> Does it have two IP >> addresses? > > Yes, and more for the internal virtual router. To add a bit: it takes at least 3. 1 as the ?immutable? address, the unchanging endpoint of the host 1 each for the IP addresses on each of the subnets The basic approach is to run the host as if it runs on an overlay that uses the two other addresses, i.e., to treat the multihoming as a ?link? change, rather than a network one. > >> Can it effectively use both network ports at the same time? > > Yes, with ?policy routing?. > >> Can it be constrained to not act as a gateway? > > Yes. > >> ... >> >> I haven't been involved for a while, but I wonder if those outstanding >> problems have been solved, perhaps in IPV6. > > We experienced this problem in the mid 90s when trying to deploy a somewhat unreliable prototype ?gigabit LAN? for operational use. We wanted division-wide participation, but not to interfere with use if (when) the links failed. That included avoiding renumbering impact on long-lived TCP connections (notably telnet logins), NTP (which we couldn?t restart on new addresses without affecting running programs using disk-based files), etc. > > Our solution is documented here, and became part of the basis of our understanding of the nuances of overlay networks in the X-Bone project: > > Touch, J; Faber, T: Dynamic Host Routing for Production Use of Developmental Networks <>. In: ICNP, pp. 285-292, IEEE, 1997. > > Joe > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Feb 13 21:39:49 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:39:49 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <0383ca08-e379-2316-6a10-40c70df7efed@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> <0383ca08-e379-2316-6a10-40c70df7efed@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <74869C93-AC12-4BCA-A4C4-7B3152E03202@strayalpha.com> > On Feb 13, 2019, at 8:27 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > ... > Does the "Internet History" mailing list mean that it's Internet > Protocol /centric/? Speaking as list creator and admin: The list is intended for that focus, which does include related technologies (as per the next answer). > Or is it okay to segue into other protocols that > (at least once upon a time) had large global network presence? Preferably ones that evolved into, influenced, interconnected with, or competed directly with the Internet. > If the > latter is the case, then I think IPX/SPX, NetBIOS (NetBEUI), Banyan > VINES, SNA, AppleTalk, DECnet, you name it have some room to be > discussed. Those all would be fine, as would be OSI, X.25, ATM, AlohaNet, etc. Teletype (telex) and SS7 are examples that would be out of scope unless there?s some Internet relation in the question posted. Again, preferably there?s a reason to discuss them here - either a relation to the Internet or an expectation that someone here might know an answer or provide a referral that can be provided privately. Joe From gnu at toad.com Wed Feb 13 22:30:59 2019 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 22:30:59 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet Archive has some Internet History documents Message-ID: <6625.1550125859@hop.toad.com> https://archive.org/search.php?query=arpanet This metadata search produces about 500 documents, videos and audio recordings, most of which look pretty relevant. Many came from the Defense Technical Information Center. If you also have it look in the digitized text of books and documents, you get more like 13,000: https://archive.org/search.php?query=arpanet&sin=TXT For example, they have this one by BBN digitized: DTIC ADA092065: ARPANET Routing Algorithm Improvements https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA092065 John From dave at taht.net Wed Feb 13 23:44:57 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 23:44:57 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet Archive has some Internet History documents In-Reply-To: <6625.1550125859@hop.toad.com> (John Gilmore's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 22:30:59 -0800") References: <6625.1550125859@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <87zhqyzudi.fsf@taht.net> John Gilmore writes: > https://archive.org/search.php?query=arpanet > > This metadata search produces about 500 documents, videos and audio > recordings, most of which look pretty relevant. Many came from the > Defense Technical Information Center. If you also have it look in the > digitized text of books and documents, you get more like 13,000: > > https://archive.org/search.php?query=arpanet&sin=TXT > For example, they have this one by BBN digitized: > > DTIC ADA092065: ARPANET Routing Algorithm Improvements > https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA092065 Oh, no I've read too much history today. No, I'm not going to read BBN's report 3940 also... oh, heck, I just did. ... A search for the "arpanet protocol handbook" (mentioned earlier this week as at the computer history museum but undigitized) came up empty but with an intriguing reference to another handbook entirely: https://archive.org/search.php?query=arpanet%20protocol%20handbook How does one go about an interlibrary loan between these orgs? > > John > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 00:08:54 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 21:08:54 +1300 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: Responding to two messages in one: >> I wonder when (and if) the Internet ever graduated from "interim >> solution" status... >> >> /Jack Haverty In Europe, it was somewhat official when RARE, the research networks' association (later renamed TERENA and now named G?ANT) recognized TCP/IP as an acceptable solution in January 1990 "without putting into question its OSI policy." I think that Dennis Jennings' choice of TCP/IP for NSFnet in 1986 (?) was determinant in the US. A related question is when the various OSI strategies were formally dropped. Possibly never, because of the amour-propre of civil servants. On 2019-02-14 15:12, Jack Haverty wrote: > Well, I know that I personally didn't think bigger addresses were > highest priority.? We used to put a list of "things we have to figure > out" on the whiteboard at every Internet/ICCB/IAB meeting.? Address size > was there, but there were several issues that had to be worked first, > since the outcome would likely impact any new address structure.? This > was early/mid 80s. > > E.G., the "Expressway Routing" problem - namely how do you force traffic > going from one computer to another on the same network to take a detour > through gateways to use another intermediate net.? The practical case > was the Wideband Net which was high-bandwidth satellite-based and > attached to the ARPANET on both coasts.? But no traffic would naturally > go that way since it would involve two hops instead of one. Policy based routing was a major issue when we first started interconnecting research networks internationally in the NSFnet era. BGP4 helped, but configuring it appropriately was (and is) a black art. > E.G., the "Multi-homed Host" problem - namely how do you deal with a > user computer attached to more than one network.? Does it have two IP > addresses?? Can it effectively use both network ports at the same time?? > Can it be constrained to not act as a gateway? Still a hot topic. There's a current very active thread in the IETF IPv6 maintenance WG about 'Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios' which is really about this. It's a hard problem, present in Pouzin's 1974 catenet paper and still tricky. I've been worrying about multihoming for 20 years. > E.G., the "Multipath" problem - namely if you have several possible > paths, how do you cause traffic to split and utilize both paths instead > of just the one that seems best at the time, in order to achieve higher > throughput and efficient line utilization. Yep. Usually called ECMP these days (equal cost multipath routing). Still a problem when packets are fragmented and the fragments might follow different paths. > E.G., the "TOS Routing" problem - namely how do you make traffic with > different TOS take different routes, such as a satellite one for traffic > that doesn't need low delay.? This is one case of a larger "Policy > Routing" issue - namely how you make traffic take routes constrained by > someone's policy (like only ARPA projects can use ARPANET). That's *supposed* to be handled by the diffserv (differentiated services) mechanisms that replaced the original TOS mechanism via RFC2474, but diffserv across ISP boundaries remains a bit tricky. > > There were more that I can't remember offhand. > > So, there was lots of stuff still to be done, all of which seemed likely > to require experimentation.? Not a good time to change the basic address > structure.... > > I haven't been involved for a while, but I wonder if those outstanding > problems have been solved, perhaps in IPV6. They are IMNSHO largely orthogonal to the address size. We intentionally designed diffserv, for example, to be identical for IPv4 and IPv6. The IPv6 flow label is supposed to help the ECMP and load balancing problem, but is only now coming into widespread deployment. Regards Brian > > /Jack Haverty > > On 2/13/19 5:14 PM, Paul Ruizendaal wrote: >>>> Around the same time [1980] I privately mentioned to Vint that instead of going from an 8 bit network number plus a 24 bit subnet address to class A,B,C addresses, instead they should go to 64 bits. He said this would be too disruptive. >>> I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major change to TCP/IP to halt other experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year or two it would take to change all the software again. >> Maybe Vint can chime in. Looking at it almost 40 years later, it would seem to me that just changing the addresses from 32 to 64 bit would have been about the same level of disruption as the GGP/ICMP split that occurred in 1981. My hypothesis would be that the case for 64 bit was at that time simply viewed as not very strong - which would fit with both the ?experiment? and ?interim? views you describe. >> >> Paul >> >>> On 14 Feb 2019, at 01:12, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>> I think what you're seeing is that the various people and groups working on "the Internet" in the early times (80s) didn't have the same view of the goal. >>> >>> The "let's experiment with new ideas for routing, protocols, congestion control, etc." crowd saw 32 bits as plenty for what they envisioned doing. This would include a lot of the DARPA "experimental" work. I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major change to TCP/IP to halt other experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year or two it would take to change all the software again. >>> >>> The "how do we build something for the whole planet" crowd saw 32 bits as totally inadequate. This would include the emerging ISPs who wanted a big market, and the ISO designers targeting the long vision. These efforts produced a lot of paper, and software and hardware that worked if you adopted their particular "walled garden", but nothing with TCP/IP's universality that was embodied in things you could actually buy. >>> >>> IMHO, both were right in their positions. They were simply working on different problems, and probably didn't realize it at the time. >>> >>> TCP/IP was later widely viewed as the "interim system" to be used outside of the experimental world, while the ISO et al were getting the final system in place. It worked well enough, and much better than anything else that was available. Plus there was a small army named IETF tweaking and patching the system to solve operational problems that came up. >>> >>> That "interim solution" viewpoint sidestepped a lot of bureaucratic obstacles since it was easier to get approvals, and fight fewer battles, for an interim stopgap. >>> >>> I wonder when (and if) the Internet ever graduated from "interim solution" status... >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> On 2/13/19 2:34 PM, Ross Callon wrote: >>>> There was some mumbling about 32 bits not being enough as early as 1980. In 1980 there was the beginning of the effort that became CLNP. The first related proposal came out of BBN and NBS (National Bureau of Standards, which is now called NIST) in 1980 and proposed that what became CLNP should be just IPv4 with 64 bit addresses and the source quench removed, and nothing else changed other than the version. At the time BBN had a contract with NBS. This proposal was taken into ANSI bound in bright orange cover paper, which caused it to be unofficially named the ?pumpkin paper?. I didn?t find out until the ROAD meetings many years later that someone else, I think probably Bob Hinden, had told Vint the same thing at about the same time. >>>> >>>> Of course, at the time I had absolutely no idea how to get anyone to agree with this change, and I was unaware that ANSI and ISO would be unable to get anyone to follow their standards. >>>> >>>> I recall the ROAD group as occurring while I was still at BBN, which I left in 1988. As such the group must have met no later than 1988. NAT was discussed. I thought that Van Jacobsen brought the idea into the ROAD group although Paul Francis was also participating, and there was someone else whose name escapes me (possibly Vince Fuller) who was also proposing NAT, and of course this doesn?t say whose idea it was originally. >>>> >>>> I think of CIDR as having two parts. One was just getting away from the class A, B, C restrictions. I don?t know where this came from. The other was assigning addresses topologically. I think that the topological part came later than the ?no A,B,C? part. >>>> >>>> Bob Hinden might remember some of this. >>>> >>>> Ross >>>> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Craig Partridge >>>>>> NAT was a product of the ROAD (Routing and Addressing) working group >>>>> Err, I don't think so. AFAICR, the IETF stuck its head in the sand for a long >>>>> time over NAT. (Which definitely has its downsides...) >>>>> >>>>>> I recall, NAT was Van Jacobson's idea >>>>> He and Paul Francis/Tsuchiya independently invented it, I think? I first heard >>>>> about it from Van at the IAB 'addressing/routing retreat', or whatever that >>>>> meeting was called. >>>>> >>>>>> CIDR, I think, was Jeff Mogul's idea. >>>>> I don't think so; I'm pretty sure Jeff was out of the IETF world by then. Maybe >>>>> you're thinking of his earlier document on subnetting a la MIT? >>>>> >>>>> CIDR came out of the ROAD meetings, but I don't know if it was any specific >>>>> person's? Also, like I said, it was in mechanism identical to Roki's >>>>> supernetting thing (in fact, the early RFC's on it call it 'supernetting', not >>>>> CIDR), although he had proposed it for a totally different reason/need (IIRC, >>>>> he wanted a host on an X.25 VAN to be able to send packet to a host on a >>>>> different VAN, without going through a router). >>>>> >>>>> Noel >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> Contact >>>> list-owner at postel.org >>>> for assistance. >>>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From pnr at planet.nl Thu Feb 14 01:10:55 2019 From: pnr at planet.nl (Paul Ruizendaal) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:10:55 +0100 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: > On 14 Feb 2019, at 04:57, Dave Taht wrote: > > I seem to find myself kind of lonely in wanting to discuss the competing > impact of netbui and ipx/spx before 2004 or so. I can't be the only one > who's primary intro to networking was via those protocols? They seem to > get short shrift today.... I?ve been wondering about the this topic for a while, why did tcp/ip win out over ipx/spx. There is probably a multitude of reasons, economic, social and technical. When just looking at the latter my hypothesis is that tcp/ip was the only networking stack in the late 80?s/early 90?s that did well in both WAN and LAN contexts. As most readers of this list are probably aware, tcp/ip and ipx/spx share early roots: ipx/spx has roots in XNS, which has its roots in PUP. The development of PUP was contemporary with early work on tcp/ip and cyclades and their development seems a little intertwined (as narrated by Bob Taylor here: http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2013/05/102702015-05-01-acc.pdf) The context was different though; my understanding is that whereas the "Xerox team" focussed more on LAN usage, the "Arpa team" was more focussed on wide area usage. This lead for example to PUP and descendants using a different ACK strategy including not having a window concept. These choices seem to have hampered its usage on a WAN later on. Also, tcp/ip developed a set of higher level protocols / tools / institutions to manage a global WAN, whereas competing LAN-focussed technologies did not. A speculative line of thought is that tcp/ip benefitted a lot from the interaction in the early 80?s between the Arpa community and the Unix community. Whereas the tcp/ip origins were in usage across a variety of WAN technologies, the group at CSRG seems to have had enormous focus on performance over ethernet and token ring LAN technologies. This may have set the scene for developments a decade later. All the above is hypothesis. I?d be interested to hear from the people that actually made it all happen. Paul From pnr at planet.nl Thu Feb 14 02:56:09 2019 From: pnr at planet.nl (Paul Ruizendaal) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:56:09 +0100 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: > On 14 Feb 2019, at 04:57, Dave Taht wrote: > > Anyway, although I can add a lot more to the arpanet portion of the > history section, and probably will, my current working draft of the > history section of this document is now up here: > > https://github.com/dtaht/ipv4-cleanup/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt#L117 > > Feel free to make suggestions for more (or less!) content, comment as to > my mental state, ancestry, naivety, and overall correctness of the cites > - I note that the last cite I added today was rfc1925, which really > should get cited more often. Hi Dave, In the paper you write around line 233: "During that era, there was confusion in one popular IPv4 implementation, 4.2 BSD, which used the zero node address for broadcast, rather than the all-ones node address. When these mismatched implementations tried to interoperate on an Ethernet, it was easy to produce "broadcast storms" that would consume all available network bandwidth until manually stopped. The offending implementation was upgraded in the subsequent 4.3 BSD release to meet the standards.? I was looking into the early history of routing protocols the other day and I think the above paragraph might suggest an incorrect timeline. Interestingly, there is a link with PUP, the ipx/spx ancestor, as well. Let me explain my understanding: - Early in the development of tcp/ip routers (gateways) used static routing tables. This was foreseen to become a problem as the network grew and the gateway-to-gateway protocol GGP was developed. As originally developed, the gateways needed an initial table of other routers, although newer versions of the table could be propagated between routers. There was no broadcast-based discovery of other gateways on the same local net(s). - It would seem that the GGP protocol was under heavy review around 1982, with ICMP split off in 1981 and the first proposals for an EGP appearing around the same time. It is hard to tell from RFC?s alone, but my impression is that early in 1983 there was no firm router protocol spec for tcp/ip. - Then, early in 1983, CSRG took the RIP protocol from XNS and implemented that as RIP for tcp/ip (the ?routed? daemon). RIP used broadcast to discover neighbouring routers and hence tcp/ip needed some way to specify broadcast addresses. In 4.2BSD this was apparently the zero node address. It turns out that the XNS RIP protocol was based on the PUP Gateway Information Protocol, which in turn seems to have been influenced by the routing protocols used inside IMP?s. - Usage of all ones as the tcp/ip broadcast address was codified only later, in 1984 or 1985 I think. RIP for tcp/ip itself was only codified in an RFC in 1988; not sure why it took 5 years to do so. So, if the above understanding is correct, then having the potential misreading of the above paragraph that 4.2BSD implemented the standard incorrectly is at odds with the timeline, where 4.2BSD appeared before the standard did. Paul PS In reading up on a PUP document just now, I noticed that PUP also uses ?network #0? to mean ?this network?. From vint at google.com Thu Feb 14 03:04:54 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 06:04:54 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: removing all the previous emails and responding to the question about when we realized that address space would be a problem. I seem to recall that around 1977 the splitting off of IP from TCP led to discussions about address size. There were three camps: 32 bit, 128 bit and variable address lengths. The latter was Danny Cohen's theme but software folks worried about all the extra cycles needed to find fields in the header if the address field were variable length. At the time, I thought 128 bit addresses seemed way over the top - even though there was a belief in some circles that we would be swimming in ethernet LANS and need the additional address space. I finally concluded, as program manager of the Internet project at the time that I did not want another cycle of implementation and testing of a new packet format and that there was plenty of room in 32 bits to test the design at reasonable scale. Remember this was only 4 years into the development program. We had a lot of other questions (some of which Jack Haverty and Craig Partridge and others have mentioned) that needed attention and changing the packet format yet again would divert effort from dealing with more complex issues (some of which remain unresolved today). So I decided to stick with 32 bit address space with reinterpretation from 8 bits of network to A,B.C.D,E. Eventually CIDR arrived which development came after my departure from DARPA in late 1982. Vint -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 05:44:43 2019 From: alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com (Alejandro Acosta) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? Message-ID: Hello All, ? Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I found the phrase (that all of you have listened before):? "Internet (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. ? My question would be: when the words "designed to survive a nuclear war" appeared for the first time? Thanks, Alejandro, From steffen at sdaoden.eu Thu Feb 14 06:20:05 2019 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:20:05 +0100 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20190214142005.5g9uZ%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Alejandro Acosta wrote in : |Hello All, | |? Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I |found the phrase (that all of you have listened before):? "Internet |(ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I |know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research |network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. | |? My question would be: when the words "designed to survive a nuclear |war" appeared for the first time? (I do not know.) This must have been in the 70s, all the people were building private shelters at that time, there is a famous sketch of the very wonderful Loriot on that [1], please note it is about advertising the shelter in question, the "K2000" (Luftschutz"K"eller, for cellar (bomb-proof refuge)). I wonder, maybe that could be refurbished and be sold as "K2020", it could become a bestseller!!! [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC5z3GayRcQ |Alejandro, Asi es la vida, viejo! --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Thu Feb 14 06:28:52 2019 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:28:52 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <168ec6900b8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta wrote: > > > Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I > found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): "Internet > (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I > know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research > network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. my take on that is that there were two lines of thought leading up to the ARPAnet. very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was thinking about how the military command and control might be able to continue functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR Licklider, who was thinking about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas and results to better collaborate. when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the easier to understand to the average person, raather than the more diaphanous idea of researcher collaboration. so Baran's take kinda caught the public imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was the it was {somehow :o)} to be a research tool. /Bernie\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm. com ? Too many people, too few sheep ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Feb 14 06:43:45 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:43:45 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/14/19 8:44 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: > Hello All, > > ? Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I > found the phrase (that all of you have listened before):? "Internet > (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I > know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research > network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > ? My question would be: when the words "designed to survive a nuclear > war" appeared for the first time? > Speaking as someone who spent a number of years at BBN - at the time we split the Defense Data Network off from the ARPANET (but not really)... It's kind of funny, I don't think "survive a nuclear war" was officially part of the design specs or goals - but people certainly talked a lot about survivability in general.? The IMPs & routing algorithms were all designed to keep passing traffic despite failure & destruction of nodes & links.? The network management systems were designed for monitoring more than control (you could blow up all three operations centers and the net would just keep humming along).? We paid a lot attention to diverse routing for circuits (boy was everyone pissed, back in 1986, when a single cable cut took out all of the ARPANET's connectivity to New England). I expect that, at some point, somebody made a comment like "you could blow up 90% of the network and the packets would just keep flowing over what's left" - and that got picked up, in a presentation, an interview, whatever.? Or it could be that somebody wrote as much in a funding proposal, or a contract award justification. Or maybe, when the Church Committee led to ARPA's mission being focused on Defense (hence DARPA), somebody had to justify why they were funding some of the more researchy parts of ARPANET. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Feb 14 07:14:42 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:14:42 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: <168ec6900b8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> References: <168ec6900b8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <04e59444-a51f-ab74-34e7-1a572e48d98c@meetinghouse.net> Bernie, On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta > wrote: > >> >> ? Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I >> found the phrase (that all of you have listened before):? "Internet >> (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I >> know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research >> network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > my take on that is that there were two lines of thought leading up to the > ARPAnet.? very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was thinking > about how the military command and control might be able to continue > functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR Licklider, who was thinking > about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas and > results > to better collaborate. > > when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the easier to > understand to the average person, raather than the more diaphanous idea > of researcher collaboration.? so Baran's take kinda caught the public > imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was the it was > {somehow? :o)} to be a research tool. > You were involved a lot earlier than I was.? Perhaps you could comment on how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the early days.? It's always struck me that things like continuity-of-operations, in the face of node & link outages, and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to survive everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and coincidentally, nuclear war. On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes (not so much C/30s and such).? Were any of the IMPs built to withstand EMP? Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Thu Feb 14 07:26:59 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:26:59 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:24 AM Paul Ruizendaal wrote: > > > I?ve been wondering about the this topic for a while, why did tcp/ip win > out over ipx/spx. There is probably a multitude of reasons, economic, > social and technical. When just looking at the latter my hypothesis is that > tcp/ip was the only networking stack in the late 80?s/early 90?s that did > well in both WAN and LAN contexts. > Cole's law: *Simple economics always beats sophisticated engineering.* IP/TCP won because it was the *most economical *solution at the time. The USG has spent a lot of money with example code for a number of did operating systems and that code was available. Today we call this 'Free and Open Source.' In those days, it was just how it was done ;-) We had examples to work with and we used them. I will tell you straight out, when Stan and I wrote the VMS implementation in Bliss and CDC-Cyber Implementations in 1979 we had the RFCs and IEN, but we also had an early BBN examples (as well as the MIT/Multics version). The problem with the Xerox stack was, it was Xerox's - nothing to look at but some papers from PARC. Just like DECnet was DEC's and SNA was IBM. It was originally seen as a walled garden and in fact the original Novell implementation was just that. It was not a technical discussion; WAN or LAN. IP/TCP was what was there. So we used it. We were making an internal network at Tektronix. We did not think we would be able to get it connected to ARPA's Research Network. In fact until CS-NET was created it was being offered to us to do that. But we needed 'WAN' (site to site connectivity), we also need to talk to our high systems as well as eventually LANs (remember I was 3Com first customer, beause we could not >>buy<< the 3M Xerox stuff - we eventually built our own LAN called the 'NIBB - Network Interface Black Box' that used 75 ohm coax). We switched to Ethernet only when we could buy it. I think the same thing went in other places and by the time of BSD and the Unix Wars the die was cast. Clem ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sob at sobco.com Thu Feb 14 07:28:29 2019 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:28:29 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when did people start saying that or what was the reason they said that? fwiw - I just gave a talk on the latter http://www.sobco.com/presentations/2019-02-05-Internet-history-bkc.pdf a video will be posted at some point on youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/BerkmanCenter under 2018-2019 talks Scott > On Feb 14, 2019, at 8:44 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: > > Hello All, > > Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I > found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): "Internet > (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I > know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research > network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > My question would be: when the words "designed to survive a nuclear > war" appeared for the first time? > > > Thanks, > > > Alejandro, > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Feb 14 08:23:39 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:23:39 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nice! On 2/14/19 10:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > when did people start saying that or what was the reason they said that? > > fwiw - I just gave a talk on the latter > > http://www.sobco.com/presentations/2019-02-05-Internet-history-bkc.pdf > > a video will be posted at some point on youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/BerkmanCenter under 2018-2019 talks > > Scott > >> On Feb 14, 2019, at 8:44 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> >> Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I >> found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): "Internet >> (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I >> know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research >> network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. >> >> My question would be: when the words "designed to survive a nuclear >> war" appeared for the first time? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Alejandro, >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Thu Feb 14 08:23:37 2019 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:23:37 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: <04e59444-a51f-ab74-34e7-1a572e48d98c@meetinghouse.net> References: <168ec6900b8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> <04e59444-a51f-ab74-34e7-1a572e48d98c@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <168ecd21328.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> On February 14, 2019 10:32:16 Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: >> my take on that is that there were two lines of thought leading up to the >> ARPAnet. very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was thinking >> about how the military command and control might be able to continue >> functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR Licklider, who was thinking >> about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas and results >> to better collaborate. >> >> >> when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the easier to >> understand to the average person, raather than the more diaphanous idea >> of researcher collaboration. so Baran's take kinda caught the public >> imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was the it was >> {somehow :o)} to be a research tool. > You were involved a lot earlier than I was. Perhaps you could comment on > how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the early days. It's > always struck me that things like continuity-of-operations, in the face of > node & link outages, and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the > beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to survive > everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and coincidentally, nuclear war. we couldn't do anything, of course, about continuity of operations, per se, but we certainly focused on having the IMP be as resilient {including such hacks as rebooting froma neighbor, rather than someone feeding paper tape in} . Will Crowther, in particular, wanted the network to work. if there was a way {looking from a god's eye view of the topology of the net} to get from A to B, regardless of outages and such, we wanted an isolated IMP, without benefit of knowing the topology of the net or a central oracle telling it how to get where, to figure out if a rute was possible and then make an "educated guess" which of its modem lines would get the packet there most efficiently. of course we saw instances of "rerouting" around problems early on. , but the two things i thought were cool was when/if the net got partitioned, the two {or more} sections just kept going and then quietly stitched itself back together when the necessary links were restored, and when a new IMP came online nothing had to be done. you just turned it on and it, without further ado, it said hello to its neighbors and became part of the mix. i think we didn't fully appreciate at the time nust how resilient the damn things were and how that shaped the perception of it. very quickly, scarily so if you knew about the insides of the IMP ?, the network became almost a utility. Len at UCLA and folks at BBN discovered that the idea of the ARPAnet as being a networking experiment got hamstrung. it had kinda showed that the network level questions had been answered - routing worked, the network was resilient, rhe queuing theory worked, heterogeneity worked. of course none of it was perfect, but it worked. and that almost immediately changed the "conversation".. there was now a working network and while the squirrels kept spinning the exercise wheel to improve the infrastructure the focus shifted to question of whar to do with the damn thing. > On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes (not so much > C/30s and such). Were any of the IMPs built to withstand EMP? i was told the the original 516s were fully ruggedized and tempest secure. dunno about EMP. i was just amused by this big, solid monster.. it seemed overkill. but at least one thing that accomplished was to keep curious pokers at the sites from messing with it. i reall don't think "war survival" of the system was much of a consideration. perhaps dave remembers how they decided on the full-military cabinet. i joined the project after it was a fait accompli. /b\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm. com ? Too many people, too few sheep ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aamsendonly396 at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 08:26:31 2019 From: aamsendonly396 at gmail.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:26:31 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: <04e59444-a51f-ab74-34e7-1a572e48d98c@meetinghouse.net> References: <168ec6900b8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> <04e59444-a51f-ab74-34e7-1a572e48d98c@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: Miles, I believe the emphasis on survivability came from Frank Heart. Building the early ARPAnet was a very risky project, in the sense that there was a tight deadline, it would be easy to see if it worked or not, and most people didn't believe it would work. Frank's reputation was very much on the line. The ruggedized IMP cabinet was part of his emphasis on controlling everything the team could control, to minimize risk. But the particular risks the ruggedized cabinet was intended to protect against were: - careless site personnel, who cared about their own computers but might be expected to stick the IMP in a storage closet where maintenance workers would bump it, and - graduate students who might be inclined to study it, perhaps with destructive results. (Lest this seem outlandish, the TIP in Hawaii was a sore spot of unreliability when I was running the NCC - turned out a graduate student was crashing it every day by taping into its power supply which was just right for his project. The TIP was NOT in a ruggedized box.) The group was not trying to protect against EMP. More generally, if the ARPAnet had been designed to survive a nuclear attack it would have been necessary to insure that the IMP-to_IMP circuits did not go through the small number of Telco offices which made up the Telco backbone. No effort was made to influence the provisioning of these circuits, and it can be presumed that loss of only a few major cities would have resulted in most of the leased lines disappearing. Cheers, Alex On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:48 AM Miles Fidelman wrote: > Bernie, > > On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta > wrote: > > >> Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I >> found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): "Internet >> (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I >> know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research >> network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. >> > > my take on that is that there were two lines of thought leading up to the > ARPAnet. very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was thinking > about how the military command and control might be able to continue > functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR Licklider, who was thinking > about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas and results > to better collaborate. > > when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the easier to > understand to the average person, raather than the more diaphanous idea > of researcher collaboration. so Baran's take kinda caught the public > imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was the it was > {somehow :o)} to be a research tool. > > You were involved a lot earlier than I was. Perhaps you could comment on > how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the early days. It's > always struck me that things like continuity-of-operations, in the face of > node & link outages, and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the > beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to survive > everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and coincidentally, nuclear > war. > > On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes (not so much > C/30s and such). Were any of the IMPs built to withstand EMP? > > Miles > > > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Feb 14 08:33:44 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:33:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section Message-ID: <20190214163344.B19A418C0AB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Paul Ruizendaal > why did tcp/ip win out over ipx/spx. There is probably a multitude of > reasons, economic, social and technical. ... my hypothesis is that > tcp/ip was the only networking stack in the late 80's/early 90's that > did well in both WAN and LAN contexts. Not so much WAN/LAN (the PUP network had both LANs and WANs), although inclusion of WANs does bring in some issues, e.g. adaptive timeouts. I think a bigger factor was that TCP/IP was at least attempting to build a _large_ network, and also starting to think about the issues involved in building a 'multi-owner' network (which of course are not just technical, but also managerial). Anyone can build a small internet, but scaling it up is really hard. And that feeds in to what I still think is the killer - Metcalfe's Law, and the user base size. I had a saying I used to people at Proteon (many of whom were still focused on LANs) a lot: 'The neatest thing about the phone on your desk is not that it can call someone else in the company, but that it can call anyone anywhere.' Noel PS: I would be great if this list could focus on _one_ topic at a time. This ping-ponging from 'total silence for weeks' -> '4 active threads at once' is not optimal if the goal is carefully thought out replies. You (non-specific) have a topic you want to discuss? Stick it in your pocket until the list goes quiet for a day... From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Feb 14 08:39:13 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:39:13 -0800 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/14/2019 5:44 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: > ? My question would be: when the words "designed to survive a nuclear > war" appeared for the first time? No idea when it was first said, but from what I can tell, it was /not/ part of the sales or design effort for Arpanet. That is, it was not used to get the money for the project and it was not a factor in the technical design efforts. In fact I recently heard that Larry Roberts relatively recently noted that the design that was produced was not adequate for such a survival. I think he claimed that at least /four/ links would have been needed to/from each switch. I came into the community in 1972, just before the first public demonstration of Arpanet. The phrase that I /did/ hear repeately was "survive hostile battlefield conditions". I took that to mean using conventional weapons, not nuclear. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Feb 14 08:46:27 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:46:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section Message-ID: <20190214164627.B09EE18C0AB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Paul Ruizendaal > There was no broadcast-based discovery of other gateways on the same > local net(s). There _weren't_ any LANs in the very earliest Internet (although packet radio networks were close); that why the earliest IP address had only 8 bits of 'network number', to support the small number of WANs. > the PUP Gateway Information Protocol, which in turn seems to have been > influenced by the routing protocols used inside IMP's. The very earliest ARPANET routing protocol, perhaps - both it, and the Xerox routing protocols, were Destination Vector. The ARPANET transitioned to a Link State design fairly early. I'd have to check the dates for PUP, and that transition; my my sense is that the latter happened first. > RIP for tcp/ip itself was only codified in an RFC in 1988; not sure why > it took 5 years to do so. A number of reasons, but part of it was a feeling on some people's part (e.g. me) that DV algorithms had been shown by the ARPANet work to have issues. The BBN report by McQuillan et al that introduced the idea of LS (might have been "ARPANet Routing Algorithm Improvments", No. 3803 - I can't find my copy) went into great detail about the problems they were seeing with DV prototocols. In retrospect, the concern over DV was probably excessive; the original ARPANET routing was load-sensitive, so the inputs to the path selection were orders of magnitude more dynamic, which probably forced a lot of the DV issues out into the light. Noel From vint at google.com Thu Feb 14 09:30:36 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:30:36 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: <168ec6900b8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> <04e59444-a51f-ab74-34e7-1a572e48d98c@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: Alex is essentially correct. Paul Baran's work WAS aimed at post-nuclear survival but he never got to try his ideas out as they were rejected as unimplementable or uninteresting by a circuit-switching oriented Defense Communications Agency. Larry Roberts was clear that the ARPANET was intended to support resource sharing. By the time Bob Kahn and I started working on Internet with its focus on command/control, the issue of survivability was back on the table. The multi-network design contemplated multiple networks operated by distinct entities (in the DoD perspective it was multiple countries or aggregates like NATO) and resilience was important. I went so far as to commission a test in which we flew packet radios in Strategic Air Command aircraft, artificially "broke" the ARPANET up into fragments and re-integrated them through ground to air packet radio connectivity. I was particularly worried about the partitioning of a constituent network which would cause great confusion for the routing algorithm (a source gateway might know know to which "half" of the fragmented network a packet should be sent. My hazy recollection is that Radia Perlman came up with a way to solve that problem that involved creating new autonomous systems out of each "piece" and re-enabling routing algorithms. vint On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:18 PM Alex McKenzie wrote: > Miles, > > I believe the emphasis on survivability came from Frank Heart. Building > the early ARPAnet was a very risky project, in the sense that there was a > tight deadline, it would be easy to see if it worked or not, and most > people didn't believe it would work. Frank's reputation was very much on > the line. The ruggedized IMP cabinet was part of his emphasis on > controlling everything the team could control, to minimize risk. But the > particular risks the ruggedized cabinet was intended to protect against > were: > - careless site personnel, who cared about their own computers but might > be expected to stick the IMP in a storage closet where maintenance workers > would bump it, and > - graduate students who might be inclined to study it, perhaps with > destructive results. (Lest this seem outlandish, the TIP in Hawaii was a > sore spot of unreliability when I was running the NCC - turned out a > graduate student was crashing it every day by taping into its power supply > which was just right for his project. The TIP was NOT in a ruggedized box.) > The group was not trying to protect against EMP. > > More generally, if the ARPAnet had been designed to survive a nuclear > attack it would have been necessary to insure that the IMP-to_IMP circuits > did not go through the small number of Telco offices which made up the > Telco backbone. No effort was made to influence the provisioning of these > circuits, and it can be presumed that loss of only a few major cities would > have resulted in most of the leased lines disappearing. > > Cheers, > Alex > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:48 AM Miles Fidelman < > mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: > >> Bernie, >> >> On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: >> >> On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta >> wrote: >> >> >>> Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I >>> found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): "Internet >>> (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I >>> know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research >>> network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. >>> >> >> my take on that is that there were two lines of thought leading up to the >> ARPAnet. very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was thinking >> about how the military command and control might be able to continue >> functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR Licklider, who was >> thinking >> about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas and >> results >> to better collaborate. >> >> when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the easier to >> understand to the average person, raather than the more diaphanous idea >> of researcher collaboration. so Baran's take kinda caught the public >> imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was the it was >> {somehow :o)} to be a research tool. >> >> You were involved a lot earlier than I was. Perhaps you could comment on >> how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the early days. It's >> always struck me that things like continuity-of-operations, in the face of >> node & link outages, and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the >> beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to survive >> everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and coincidentally, nuclear >> war. >> >> On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes (not so >> much C/30s and such). Were any of the IMPs built to withstand EMP? >> >> Miles >> >> >> >> -- >> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Feb 14 10:05:39 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:05:39 -0800 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a82382b-6b81-d07d-157f-a785927d68b9@3kitty.org> My recollection is that the "survivability" theme became prominent in the Reagan Era, with the advent of the "Star Wars" programs, aka "Strategic Defense Initiative".? We found that where we had been "working on the Internet project" we were suddenly "working on the Strategic Defense Initiative", or SDI.? The main reason for that was that the funding faucets moved.? I recall Danny Cohen giving a talk at one of the quarterly Internet meetings about what SDI was and why we had to care. This had little noticeable effect on the people writing code and building things, who mostly just continued to do what they had been doing.? It did have an effect on things like writing proposals (to get the next round of funding), since the $$s were all being directed at SDI. I was involved in both situations.? It was interesting and often challenging translating "what we wanted to build" into "why it's critical to SDI" and vice versa. So the answer to the question "when did people start saying that" will probably depend strongly on which people you ask. /Jack Haverty On 2/14/19 7:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > when did people start saying that or what was the reason they said that? > > fwiw - I just gave a talk on the latter > > http://www.sobco.com/presentations/2019-02-05-Internet-history-bkc.pdf > > a video will be posted at some point on youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/BerkmanCenter under 2018-2019 talks > > Scott > >> On Feb 14, 2019, at 8:44 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> >> Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I >> found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): "Internet >> (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I >> know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research >> network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. >> >> My question would be: when the words "designed to survive a nuclear >> war" appeared for the first time? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Alejandro, >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Thu Feb 14 11:11:11 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:11:11 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: On 02/13/2019 08:57 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > Anyway, although I can add a lot more to the arpanet portion of the > history section, and probably will, my current working draft of the > history section of this document is now up here: > > https://github.com/dtaht/ipv4-cleanup/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt#L117 > > Feel free to make suggestions for more (or less!) content, comment as to > my mental state, ancestry, naivety, and overall correctness of the cites - > I note that the last cite I added today was rfc1925, which really should > get cited more often. Should the test-networks and / or link-local be included in the martian lists? 169.254.0.0/16 192.0.2.0/24 198.51.100.0/24 203.0.113.0/24 Is the benchmark network, 198.18.0.0/15, still used for such? Or could it also be reclaimed? Aside: Is there a reason that you're using the octothorpe (#) instead of the section symbol (?) when citing RFC sections? -- Grant. . . . unix || die From craig at tereschau.net Thu Feb 14 11:34:34 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:34:34 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:29 AM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > Responding to two messages in one: > > >> I wonder when (and if) the Internet ever graduated from "interim > >> solution" status... > >> > >> /Jack Haverty > > In Europe, it was somewhat official when RARE, the research networks' > association (later renamed TERENA and now named G?ANT) recognized TCP/IP > as an acceptable solution in January 1990 "without putting into question > its OSI policy." I think that Dennis Jennings' choice of TCP/IP for NSFnet > in 1986 (?) was determinant in the US. > > A related question is when the various OSI strategies were formally > dropped. > Possibly never, because of the amour-propre of civil servants. > I've argued that the OSI vs. TCP/IP process went through multiple stages. Dennis' decision to adopt TCP/IP for NSFNET was critical. What it led to was a boom in TCP/IP deployment and thus TCP/IP-based networking engineering expertise and products. By 1988/1989, the market for TCP/IP products was much bigger (and visibly so) than OSI and we had (a small number of) thousands of network engineers who understood how to put together and operate TCP/IP networks. Furthermore, it was clear that Novell's solutions didn't scale nicely, so the world-wide network interconnection space was TCP/IP's, barring unexpected bumps. But saying that out loud was a good way to invite retribution. I suffered one such case in 1989 when in a public forum about network management, I wanted to point out that the OSI network management protocols wouldn't work. But I inadvertently said "OSI won't work", which was understood in context, but got picked up by a reporter... As late as 1991/1992, the IAB still felt it needed to nod towards OSI in official statements, even though it was clear OSI was dead. It took a while for that need to be politic to go away. Notably, post-Kobe, the IETF promptly killed all its OSI-centered WGs. Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnl at iecc.com Thu Feb 14 11:48:34 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 14 Feb 2019 14:48:34 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190214194835.564F0200E51CC1@ary.qy> In article you write: >Should the test-networks and / or link-local be included in the martian >lists? Yes. >169.254.0.0/16 >192.0.2.0/24 >198.51.100.0/24 >203.0.113.0/24 >Is the benchmark network, 198.18.0.0/15, still used for such? Or could >it also be reclaimed? It's intended for use in lab networks that aren't supposed to send traffic to the public Internet so pretty much by definition you can't tell who's using it. >Aside: Is there a reason that you're using the octothorpe (#) instead >of the section symbol (?) when citing RFC sections? Probably because his message is in ASCII. R's, John PS: Only telco guys call it an octothorpe. For the rest of us it's a sharp sign or maybe a hash mark. From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Thu Feb 14 11:56:22 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:56:22 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <20190214194835.564F0200E51CC1@ary.qy> References: <20190214194835.564F0200E51CC1@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 02/14/2019 12:48 PM, John Levine wrote: > Yes. I suspect that much of RFC 3330 (or it's successors) should be included, safe for the changes made by the ID being discussed. > It's intended for use in lab networks that aren't supposed to send > traffic to the public Internet so pretty much by definition you can't > tell who's using it. ACK > PS: Only telco guys call it an octothorpe. For the rest of us it's a > sharp sign or maybe a hash mark. Hum. I thought octothorpe was the proper name for it. I also know it as the pound sign. According to Wikipedia (I hear my wife groaning now) the sharp sign (?) is actually a different shape than the octothorpe (#), but otherwise quite similar. I'd love to know the authoritative name for the pound sign / hash sign / octothorpe / sharp sign. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From johnl at iecc.com Thu Feb 14 12:33:34 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 14 Feb 2019 15:33:34 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190214203335.36334200E52508@ary.qy> In article you write: >I'd love to know the authoritative name for the pound sign / hash sign / >octothorpe / sharp sign. There isn't one. It depends on your context. Some people even call it a number sign. One can have an endless metaphysical debate whether it matters that sharp signs are typically typeset with the lines at a different angle from number signs. I can promise you that when I was typing on Teletypes in the late 1960s we called it a sharp sign. From richard at bennett.com Thu Feb 14 15:11:54 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:11:54 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: Once upon a time (early 90s IIRC) Excelan tried to push SPX/IPX as an alternative to TCP/IP for the vast global network. They figured it was a solution to address exhaustion and had many other benefits over the rather primitive status quo, such as a directory service that was a lot more sophisticated than the globally-unique address & WKP system. This was after the company had been acquired by Novell. Excelan is also where NETBIOS over TCP (RFCs 1001-2) came from. The PTB were already invested in TCP/IP by then, however. Tandem implemented NETBIOS/Netbeui on its Non-Stop (GUARDIAN OS) systems shortly after it was released by IBM for the PC Network in ?83. Sytek tried to get IEEE 802.3 to endorse PC Network as its low-cost LAN standard, but StarLAN defeated it. That led to 10BASE-T. Probably the single greatest achievement in popularizing roll-your-own networking was DataPoint?s ARCNet, made out of bubble gum, baling wire, and IBM 3270 coax transceivers in the early- to mid-?70s. They had a virtual file system long before any other commercially-significant company did. There was actually a lot of good, solid, creative protocol design work before TCP/IP. RB > On Feb 13, 2019, at 8:57 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > > I seem to find myself kind of lonely in wanting to discuss the competing > impact of netbui and ipx/spx before 2004 or so. I can't be the only one > who's primary intro to networking was via those protocols? They seem to > get short shrift today.... > > Anyway, although I can add a lot more to the arpanet portion of the > history section, and probably will, my current working draft of the > history section of this document is now up here: > > https://github.com/dtaht/ipv4-cleanup/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt#L117 > > Feel free to make suggestions for more (or less!) content, comment as to > my mental state, ancestry, naivety, and overall correctness of the cites > - I note that the last cite I added today was rfc1925, which really > should get cited more often. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Feb 14 15:34:25 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:34:25 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: On 2/14/2019 3:11 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > This was after the company had been acquired by Novell. Excelan is also > where NETBIOS over TCP (RFCs 1001-2) came from. Not quite. There were two or 3 companies that had done netbios over TCP. Excelan was one. I was at Ungermann-Bass. I forget who the third was. The RFC standards came out of a multi-company effort. (Ours was the only that allwed Netbios to go long-haul rather than just on the local LAN.) We had to ask Vint to mediate the discussions... I think all of us also had been using derivatives of the Xerox protocols, but each had adapted it so those wound up being non-interoperable. The Netbios experience was instructive. When you only publish an API, the plumbing people create to support it will be different. This shouldn't be surprising, but it's import is often missed. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From leo at vegoda.org Thu Feb 14 15:55:44 2019 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:55:44 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: References: <20190214194835.564F0200E51CC1@ary.qy> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:26 PM Grant Taylor wrote: [...] > I suspect that much of RFC 3330 (or it's successors) should be included, > safe for the changes made by the ID being discussed. The special networks are no-longer published in periodically updated RFCs. The IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry is now updated as a part of the process for making or changing those assignments. From jhlowry at mac.com Fri Feb 15 06:09:27 2019 From: jhlowry at mac.com (John Lowry) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:09:27 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: <6a82382b-6b81-d07d-157f-a785927d68b9@3kitty.org> References: <6a82382b-6b81-d07d-157f-a785927d68b9@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <69F78D10-3999-48A8-9FA5-9A983DCB75C5@mac.com> Following the funding happens in many disciplines. There were security projects that posed as networking projects, networking projects that posed as security projects, and AI projects that posed (and continue to pose) as everything else. Separate topic. At one point during IPLI development (Internet PLI), I was assigned to get the IPLI interfaced to the Rockwell IPR (improved packet radio). Since IPLI had an HDLC interface this seemed a reasonable project. One rationale I heard for this was survivability, with explicit examples of lonely shelters sprinkled in remote places around the country (with power magically appearing from ?shut up kid, don?t raise issues?). In a way it made sense as IPLI was significantly hardened environmentally and against EMP-like emissions. But the IPR was not. Further IPLI was never tested when attached to an EMP-vulnerable device. Does anyone remember the actual rationale for the IPLI/IPR project ? John Lowry > On Feb 14, 2019, at 13:05, Jack Haverty wrote: > > My recollection is that the "survivability" theme became prominent in > the Reagan Era, with the advent of the "Star Wars" programs, aka > "Strategic Defense Initiative". We found that where we had been > "working on the Internet project" we were suddenly "working on the > Strategic Defense Initiative", or SDI. The main reason for that was > that the funding faucets moved. I recall Danny Cohen giving a talk at > one of the quarterly Internet meetings about what SDI was and why we had > to care. > > This had little noticeable effect on the people writing code and > building things, who mostly just continued to do what they had been > doing. It did have an effect on things like writing proposals (to get > the next round of funding), since the $$s were all being directed at SDI. > > I was involved in both situations. It was interesting and often > challenging translating "what we wanted to build" into "why it's > critical to SDI" and vice versa. > > So the answer to the question "when did people start saying that" will > probably depend strongly on which people you ask. > > /Jack Haverty > > On 2/14/19 7:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> when did people start saying that or what was the reason they said that? >> >> fwiw - I just gave a talk on the latter >> >> http://www.sobco.com/presentations/2019-02-05-Internet-history-bkc.pdf >> >> a video will be posted at some point on youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/BerkmanCenter under 2018-2019 talks >> >> Scott >> >>> On Feb 14, 2019, at 8:44 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >>> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I >>> found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): "Internet >>> (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I >>> know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research >>> network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. >>> >>> My question would be: when the words "designed to survive a nuclear >>> war" appeared for the first time? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> Alejandro, >>> >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From clemc at ccc.com Fri Feb 15 11:23:29 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:23:29 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:58 PM Craig Partridge wrote: > > Dennis' decision to adopt TCP/IP for NSFNET was critical. > Hmmm. It certainly did not hurt and I agree was cleafrly an amplifier and important. But I'm not sure that was as important as the basic economics of the time -> Moore's Law and cheap cycles (i.e. I don't think the NFSNET choice, while helped the effect, was not the high order bit on the success function). This was the time of the beginning of the workstation wars and the dominate OS was UNIX and in particular BSD which came with a known working IP stack (as I said, the USG paid to have that written by BBN). Other stacks were for BSD were available on the market and there were even OSI stack implementations to be found. But the code that was being written at the time assumed BSD sockets, which most naturally mapped to (assumed) IP/TCP. I think the >>user<< code does not get enough of the credit here. Because it was that code that provied the services that we think of as the 'value.' I think the NSFNET choice was driven by the cheap Unix implementations not the other way around. But the HW and SW just used sockets (and TCP under the covers) to do real work. Once those services were there, and they were interconnected, the protocol that provided it all took off. If a different system had been as cheap to use and used OSI (or whatever), I think that would have been the winner. IP road the success wave of the cheap cycles that the UNIX workstations created and provided by Moore's law. I really believe that it Metcalfe's Law made those system more and more valuable because they could be interconnected and the services agregated, but the systems had to start to be in place to get the effect started. That said, the two processes played on each other. The Internet boom absolutely needed cheap HW and SW to be there so that the Noel's observation about the phone to be true. Looking at it from a different and related technology. AT&T made the cheap phone in the 50s and 60s and Metcalfe's law made it useful (remember AT&T spent $200 per American household in 1959 dollars to install that black hand set. But once it was there, then magic happenned). The Internet and IP/TCP needed the moral equiv of cheap cycles to be ubiquitious before it would dominate. ... TCP/IP-based networking engineering expertise and products. By > 1988/1989, the market for TCP/IP products was much bigger (and visibly so) > than OSI and we had (a small number of) thousands of network engineers who > understood how to put together and operate TCP/IP networks. > That's because of Moore's law, UNIX the cheap workstation etc.... Clem ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Feb 15 12:17:01 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:17:01 +1300 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <66416d66-bad2-da90-0189-c0c20455b2a5@gmail.com> On 2019-02-16 08:23, Clem Cole wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:58 PM Craig Partridge wrote: > >> >> Dennis' decision to adopt TCP/IP for NSFNET was critical. >> > Hmmm. It certainly did not hurt and I agree was cleafrly an amplifier and > important. But I'm not sure that was as important as the basic economics > of the time -> Moore's Law and cheap cycles (i.e. I don't think the NFSNET > choice, while helped the effect, was not the high order bit on the success > function). I took the original question to be about when the success of TCP/IP became formally recognized. You are undoubtedly right that its market success was a result of availability in BSD, with a usable API, just when Unix was taking off. Brian > > This was the time of the beginning of the workstation wars and the dominate > OS was UNIX and in particular BSD which came with a known working IP stack > (as I said, the USG paid to have that written by BBN). Other stacks were > for BSD were available on the market and there were even OSI stack > implementations to be found. > > But the code that was being written at the time assumed BSD sockets, which > most naturally mapped to (assumed) IP/TCP. I think the >>user<< code does > not get enough of the credit here. Because it was that code that provied > the services that we think of as the 'value.' I think the NSFNET choice > was driven by the cheap Unix implementations not the other way around. But > the HW and SW just used sockets (and TCP under the covers) to do real > work. Once those services were there, and they were interconnected, the > protocol that provided it all took off. > > If a different system had been as cheap to use and used OSI (or whatever), > I think that would have been the winner. IP road the success wave of the > cheap cycles that the UNIX workstations created and provided by Moore's law. > > I really believe that it Metcalfe's Law made those system more and more > valuable because they could be interconnected and the services agregated, > but the systems had to start to be in place to get the effect started. > That said, the two processes played on each other. The Internet boom > absolutely needed cheap HW and SW to be there so that the Noel's > observation about the phone to be true. > > Looking at it from a different and related technology. AT&T made the > cheap phone in the 50s and 60s and Metcalfe's law made it useful (remember > AT&T spent $200 per American household in 1959 dollars to install that > black hand set. But once it was there, then magic happenned). The > Internet and IP/TCP needed the moral equiv of cheap cycles to be > ubiquitious before it would dominate. > > > ... TCP/IP-based networking engineering expertise and products. By >> 1988/1989, the market for TCP/IP products was much bigger (and visibly so) >> than OSI and we had (a small number of) thousands of network engineers who >> understood how to put together and operate TCP/IP networks. >> > That's because of Moore's law, UNIX the cheap workstation etc.... > > Clem > ? > ? > From craig at tereschau.net Fri Feb 15 12:38:07 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:38:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:23 PM Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:58 PM Craig Partridge > wrote: > >> >> Dennis' decision to adopt TCP/IP for NSFNET was critical. >> > Hmmm. It certainly did not hurt and I agree was cleafrly an amplifier and > important. But I'm not sure that was as important as the basic economics > of the time -> Moore's Law and cheap cycles (i.e. I don't think the NFSNET > choice, while helped the effect, was not the high order bit on the success > function). > > This was the time of the beginning of the workstation wars and the > dominate OS was UNIX and in particular BSD which came with a known working > IP stack (as I said, the USG paid to have that written by BBN). Other > stacks were for BSD were available on the market and there were even OSI > stack implementations to be found. > > Important historical nit. I was the manager of the BBN UNIX TCP/IP effort after Rob Gurwitz left (I think Rob inherited it from Jack Haverty, but not sure). The BSD stack with sockets *was not written by BBN*. It was written by Bill Joy at Berkeley -- using the earlier BBN 4BSD code as a reference. Entirely new code, but originally bug-for-bug compatible (indeed, years later, when a bug was found in the BSD TCP, the BSD folks stood up and said "that's a bug from BBN"). Craig > ? > ? > -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Fri Feb 15 13:29:57 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:29:57 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: thanks Craig, I was going to point that out. DARPA paid for the BBN effort AND for the Berkeley effort. Clem, I see we are actually talking about two different aspects of the ascendance of TCP/IP. I was speaking to the networking service angle, scaling and investment - NSF had a huge impact in my opinion. Commercialization of the equipment and software arose from a different thread: 1. IBM, Digital and HP all implemented TCP/IP on their commercial operating systems - but it was their Research Groups who did that (I encouraged this). 2. I also encouraged the UNIX TCP/IP development at 3COM for which Metcalfe never forgave me because after he implemented that offering, the Berkeley release came out for free 3. INTEROP made Internet visible to a much larger, non-academic audience, had training sessions and allowed a lot of product vendors to demonstration the interoperability of their software/hardware - a major sales point when you are trying to decide what to buy. 4. there were very few implementations of OSI and none that I know of were commercially successful 5. In 1992, NIST was persuaded to do an analysis of TCP/IP and OSI and concluded that it was OK for government users to procure TCP/IP despite previous guidance to use OSI according to the Government OSI Profile (GOSIP). 6. MOSAIC hits about 1993 followed by Netscape Communications and its IPO. 7. Cisco, Proteon and later, Juniper, produce commercial routers. Sun Microsystems produces Work stations and they all use TCP/IP. 8. Novell tries to use IPX and XNS but just doesn't have the traction. i don't think our views are necessarily at odds - but I am curious about your reaction to the 8 points above. vint On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:59 PM Craig Partridge wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:23 PM Clem Cole wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:58 PM Craig Partridge >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Dennis' decision to adopt TCP/IP for NSFNET was critical. >>> >> Hmmm. It certainly did not hurt and I agree was cleafrly an amplifier >> and important. But I'm not sure that was as important as the basic >> economics of the time -> Moore's Law and cheap cycles (i.e. I don't think >> the NFSNET choice, while helped the effect, was not the high order bit on >> the success function). >> >> This was the time of the beginning of the workstation wars and the >> dominate OS was UNIX and in particular BSD which came with a known working >> IP stack (as I said, the USG paid to have that written by BBN). Other >> stacks were for BSD were available on the market and there were even OSI >> stack implementations to be found. >> >> > Important historical nit. I was the manager of the BBN UNIX TCP/IP effort > after Rob Gurwitz left (I think Rob inherited it from Jack Haverty, but not > sure). The BSD stack with sockets *was not written by BBN*. It was > written by Bill Joy at Berkeley -- using the earlier BBN 4BSD code as a > reference. Entirely new code, but originally bug-for-bug compatible > (indeed, years later, when a bug was found in the BSD TCP, the BSD folks > stood up and said "that's a bug from BBN"). > > Craig > >> ? >> ? >> > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and > mailing lists. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael at kjorling.se Sat Feb 16 05:03:04 2019 From: michael at kjorling.se (Michael =?utf-8?B?S2rDtnJsaW5n?=) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> On 15 Feb 2019 16:29 -0500, from vint at google.com (Vint Cerf): > 6. MOSAIC hits about 1993 followed by Netscape Communications and its IPO. I'm curious about this point of yours. Why do you say that this was an important deciding factor in the choice between OSI vs TCP/IP, or in the commercialization of TCP/IP over OSI? I'm not saying that the Web was unimportant -- it absolutely was, and is (just look at how many people think that the Internet _is_ the World Wide Web) -- but is there something about the protocols which makes it much easier to run HTTP over TCP/IP than over OSI? Or was it just the fact that by the time the Web came about, the world was somewhat firmly established in the TCP/IP camp and so it became a natural choice to focus on running HTTP over TCP/IP? I'll readily admit that my knowledge of the OSI stack is limited at best. -- Michael Kj?rling ? https://michael.kjorling.se ? michael at kjorling.se ?The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person is to think you know what you?re doing.? (Bret Victor) From vint at google.com Sat Feb 16 06:22:42 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:22:42 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> Message-ID: The WWW made the Internet substantially more useful and easier to use. TCP/IP was widespread by that time and inherited the benefits of the WWW. At that point, it did not seem very necessary to deploy a competing internetwork protocol given widespread deployment and availability of TCP/IP. The OSI and TCP/IP stacks were, in principle, comparable - that is what the NIST decision concluded. But that equivalence took the wind out of further efforts to deploy OSI. v On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 8:13 AM Michael Kj?rling wrote: > On 15 Feb 2019 16:29 -0500, from vint at google.com (Vint Cerf): > > 6. MOSAIC hits about 1993 followed by Netscape Communications and its > IPO. > > I'm curious about this point of yours. Why do you say that this was an > important deciding factor in the choice between OSI vs TCP/IP, or in > the commercialization of TCP/IP over OSI? > > I'm not saying that the Web was unimportant -- it absolutely was, and > is (just look at how many people think that the Internet _is_ the > World Wide Web) -- but is there something about the protocols which > makes it much easier to run HTTP over TCP/IP than over OSI? Or was it > just the fact that by the time the Web came about, the world was > somewhat firmly established in the TCP/IP camp and so it became a > natural choice to focus on running HTTP over TCP/IP? > > I'll readily admit that my knowledge of the OSI stack is limited at > best. > > -- > Michael Kj?rling ? https://michael.kjorling.se ? michael at kjorling.se > ?The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person > is to think you know what you?re doing.? (Bret Victor) > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bob.hinden at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 08:23:58 2019 From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 08:23:58 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: Craig, > On Feb 15, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: > > Important historical nit. I was the manager of the BBN UNIX TCP/IP effort after Rob Gurwitz left (I think Rob inherited it from Jack Haverty, but not sure). The BSD stack with sockets *was not written by BBN*. It was written by Bill Joy at Berkeley -- using the earlier BBN 4BSD code as a reference. Entirely new code, but originally bug-for-bug compatible (indeed, years later, when a bug was found in the BSD TCP, the BSD folks stood up and said "that's a bug from BBN?) My memory is that they both were maintained in parallel for several years. Also, Bill Joy's TCP stack also had the ?trailers? feature where the headers were at the end of the packet. Documented in RFC893 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc893). Probably not so good for packet switching, but better performance on some host implementations. That faded away at some point. Bob From steve at shinkuro.com Sat Feb 16 08:25:05 2019 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 11:25:05 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My brother forwarded the appended thread. It reminded me that I had previously been unsuccessful at joining this list, but I am now on the list. Over the years I have heard many times from many different people and also seen in print the idea that the Arpanet was motivated and built for nuclear survivability. Moreover, Steve Lukasik, the director of (D)ARPA for several of the critical years, included this as one of his reasons for signing the checks for the Arpanet. I think it will be helpful to make a couple of distinctions regarding network survivability. Let me offer two dimensions and at least two levels of disruption for each. *Equipment outage*: When a link or a router becomes unusable, it's necessary to route around the loss. It makes a big difference if only a few links or routers are down versus a significant fraction are down. In normal circumstances, it is expected some lines and some routers will be out of service from time to time. In contrast, if there is an attack, the outages might be substantial and perhaps purposefully coordinated. *Traffic level*: In normal operation, the total traffic is within the capacity of the network. In extraordinary times, the traffic level surges beyond the capacity of the system. Surges happen for various reasons. There might be a very popular web site, e.g. the Victoria Secrets incident, or a DDoS attack. Arguably the Arpanet design addressed survivability for the case when a small number of links or routers were out and traffic levels were normal. Alex colorfully describes Frank Heart's concerns for the risks to individual IMPs placed in the very risky environments of universities. The Arpanet design did not address the issue of large scale outages nor did it include strategies for dealing with overload. In contrast, a serious design to address post-nuclear operation would have had to address the combination of substantial loss of equipment and a huge spike in urgent traffic. In the conversations I've had with Lukasik on this matter, he says he had in mind the technology could lead to designs that would have that level of survivability, and that it was helpful to include this in defending the funding for the network. And, as Vint says, subsequent projects explored reconstitution in the event of certain kinds of disconnections. However, I believe the level of outages explored in those projects were well below the levels that would have occurred in a large scale nuclear confrontation. In 2017, I ran this question past Larry Roberts. His short reply was he would have had to connect each IMP to four others instead of only two or three others. Steve -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:30:36 -0500 From: Vint Cerf To: Alex McKenzie CC: internet history Alex is essentially correct. Paul Baran's work WAS aimed at post-nuclear survival but he never got to try his ideas out as they were rejected as unimplementable or uninteresting by a circuit-switching oriented Defense Communications Agency. Larry Roberts was clear that the ARPANET was intended to support resource sharing. By the time Bob Kahn and I started working on Internet with its focus on command/control, the issue of survivability was back on the table. The multi-network design contemplated multiple networks operated by distinct entities (in the DoD perspective it was multiple countries or aggregates like NATO) and resilience was important. I went so far as to commission a test in which we flew packet radios in Strategic Air Command aircraft, artificially "broke" the ARPANET up into fragments and re-integrated them through ground to air packet radio connectivity. I was particularly worried about the partitioning of a constituent network which would cause great confusion for the routing algorithm (a source gateway might know know to which "half" of the fragmented network a packet should be sent. My hazy recollection is that Radia Perlman came up with a way to solve that problem that involved creating new autonomous systems out of each "piece" and re-enabling routing algorithms. vint On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:18 PM Alex McKenzie > wrote: Miles, I believe the emphasis on survivability came from Frank Heart. Building the early ARPAnet was a very risky project, in the sense that there was a tight deadline, it would be easy to see if it worked or not, and most people didn't believe it would work. Frank's reputation was very much on the line. The ruggedized IMP cabinet was part of his emphasis on controlling everything the team could control, to minimize risk. But the particular risks the ruggedized cabinet was intended to protect against were: - careless site personnel, who cared about their own computers but might be expected to stick the IMP in a storage closet where maintenance workers would bump it, and - graduate students who might be inclined to study it, perhaps with destructive results. (Lest this seem outlandish, the TIP in Hawaii was a sore spot of unreliability when I was running the NCC - turned out a graduate student was crashing it every day by taping into its power supply which was just right for his project. The TIP was NOT in a ruggedized box.) The group was not trying to protect against EMP. More generally, if the ARPAnet had been designed to survive a nuclear attack it would have been necessary to insure that the IMP-to_IMP circuits did not go through the small number of Telco offices which made up the Telco backbone. No effort was made to influence the provisioning of these circuits, and it can be presumed that loss of only a few major cities would have resulted in most of the leased lines disappearing. Cheers, Alex On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:48 AM Miles Fidelman > wrote: Bernie, On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta > > wrote: > >> >> Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of >> them I >> found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): >> "Internet >> (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as >> far as I >> know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as >> a research >> network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > my take on that is that there were two lines of thought > leading up to the > ARPAnet. very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was > thinking > about how the military command and control might be able to > continue functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR > Licklider, who was thinking > about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas > and results > to better collaborate. > > when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the > easier to > understand to the average person, raather than the more > diaphanous idea > of researcher collaboration. so Baran's take kinda caught the > public > imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was > the it was > {somehow :o)} to be a research tool. > You were involved a lot earlier than I was. Perhaps you could comment on how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the early days. It's always struck me that things like continuity-of-operations, in the face of node & link outages, and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to survive everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and coincidentally, nuclear war. On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes (not so much C/30s and such). Were any of the IMPs built to withstand EMP? Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra _______ internet-history mailing list internet-history at postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. _______ internet-history mailing list internet-history at postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______ internet-history mailing list internet-history at postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From craig at tereschau.net Sat Feb 16 08:35:10 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:35:10 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bob: You are right about the implementations being in parallel for a while. I'm going to get the dates slightly wrong but Bill's code came out in 4.1c (1982?) and BBN kept maintaining its implementation (Dennis Rockwell and then Bob Walsh) until c. 1985. Indeed, as I recall there was a debate c. 1985 at DARPA about whether to force Berkeley to use the BBN code (which had been modified to use the sockets API, which everyone agreed was better -- I had a small part in the port to sockets). I believe that when the TCP/IP project transitioned to me (c. 1987?), I stopped effort on the BBN TCP/IP. I think we had to maintain it a bit as we'd licensed it to a workstation vendor (Apollo????). Karen Lam and David Waitzman switched to the BSD TCP/IP and we did things like help Steve Deering implement multicast and such. Thanks! Craig On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:24 AM Bob Hinden wrote: > Craig, > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Craig Partridge > wrote: > > > > Important historical nit. I was the manager of the BBN UNIX TCP/IP > effort after Rob Gurwitz left (I think Rob inherited it from Jack Haverty, > but not sure). The BSD stack with sockets *was not written by BBN*. It > was written by Bill Joy at Berkeley -- using the earlier BBN 4BSD code as a > reference. Entirely new code, but originally bug-for-bug compatible > (indeed, years later, when a bug was found in the BSD TCP, the BSD folks > stood up and said "that's a bug from BBN?) > > My memory is that they both were maintained in parallel for several > years. Also, Bill Joy's TCP stack also had the ?trailers? feature where > the headers were at the end of the packet. Documented in RFC893 ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc893). Probably not so good for packet > switching, but better performance on some host implementations. That faded > away at some point. > > Bob > > -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Sat Feb 16 09:18:27 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:18:27 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32E6E6ED-2C77-47A4-B374-EAB335638B69@comcast.net> In the FWIW category, I remember that network partitions (between the East and West Coasts) occurred, not often but often enough to be noticeable, until the 3rd cross-country line went in. Then they were pretty much a rarity, if they occurred at all. Illinois was one of the jumping off points between East and West, so perhaps we just noticed them more. John > On Feb 16, 2019, at 11:25, Steve Crocker wrote: > > My brother forwarded the appended thread. It reminded me that I had previously been unsuccessful at joining this list, but I am now on the list. > > Over the years I have heard many times from many different people and also seen in print the idea that the Arpanet was motivated and built for nuclear survivability. Moreover, Steve Lukasik, the director of (D)ARPA for several of the critical years, included this as one of his reasons for signing the checks for the Arpanet. > > I think it will be helpful to make a couple of distinctions regarding network survivability. Let me offer two dimensions and at least two levels of disruption for each. > > Equipment outage: When a link or a router becomes unusable, it's necessary to route around the loss. It makes a big difference if only a few links or routers are down versus a significant fraction are down. In normal circumstances, it is expected some lines and some routers will be out of service from time to time. In contrast, if there is an attack, the outages might be substantial and perhaps purposefully coordinated. > > Traffic level: In normal operation, the total traffic is within the capacity of the network. In extraordinary times, the traffic level surges beyond the capacity of the system. Surges happen for various reasons. There might be a very popular web site, e.g. the Victoria Secrets incident, or a DDoS attack. > > Arguably the Arpanet design addressed survivability for the case when a small number of links or routers were out and traffic levels were normal. Alex colorfully describes Frank Heart's concerns for the risks to individual IMPs placed in the very risky environments of universities. > > The Arpanet design did not address the issue of large scale outages nor did it include strategies for dealing with overload. In contrast, a serious design to address post-nuclear operation would have had to address the combination of substantial loss of equipment and a huge spike in urgent traffic. > > In the conversations I've had with Lukasik on this matter, he says he had in mind the technology could lead to designs that would have that level of survivability, and that it was helpful to include this in defending the funding for the network. And, as Vint says, subsequent projects explored reconstitution in the event of certain kinds of disconnections. However, I believe the level of outages explored in those projects were well below the levels that would have occurred in a large scale nuclear confrontation. > > In 2017, I ran this question past Larry Roberts. His short reply was he would have had to connect each IMP to four others instead of only two or three others. > > Steve > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a > nuclear war appeared for the first time? > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:30:36 -0500 > From: Vint Cerf > > To: Alex McKenzie > > CC: internet history > > > > > Alex is essentially correct. Paul Baran's work WAS aimed at post-nuclear > survival but he never got to try his ideas out as they > were rejected as unimplementable or uninteresting by a circuit-switching > oriented Defense Communications Agency. > > Larry Roberts was clear that the ARPANET was intended to support > resource sharing. > > By the time Bob Kahn and I started working on Internet with its focus on > command/control, the issue of survivability > was back on the table. The multi-network design contemplated multiple > networks operated by distinct entities > (in the DoD perspective it was multiple countries or aggregates like > NATO) and resilience was important. I went > so far as to commission a test in which we flew packet radios in > Strategic Air Command aircraft, artificially "broke" > the ARPANET up into fragments and re-integrated them through ground to > air packet radio connectivity. I was > particularly worried about the partitioning of a constituent network > which would cause great confusion for the > routing algorithm (a source gateway might know know to which "half" of > the fragmented network a packet should > be sent. My hazy recollection is that Radia Perlman came up with a way > to solve that problem that involved > creating new autonomous systems out of each "piece" and re-enabling > routing algorithms. > > vint > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:18 PM Alex McKenzie > >> wrote: > > Miles, > > I believe the emphasis on survivability came from Frank Heart. > Building the early ARPAnet was a very risky project, in the sense > that there was a tight deadline, it would be easy to see if it > worked or not, and most people didn't believe it would work. > Frank's reputation was very much on the line. The ruggedized IMP > cabinet was part of his emphasis on controlling everything the team > could control, to minimize risk. But the particular risks the > ruggedized cabinet was intended to protect against were: > - careless site personnel, who cared about their own computers but > might be expected to stick the IMP in a storage closet where > maintenance workers would bump it, and > - graduate students who might be inclined to study it, perhaps with > destructive results. (Lest this seem outlandish, the TIP in Hawaii > was a sore spot of unreliability when I was running the NCC - > turned out a graduate student was crashing it every day by taping > into its power supply which was just right for his project. The TIP > was NOT in a ruggedized box.) > The group was not trying to protect against EMP. > > More generally, if the ARPAnet had been designed to survive a > nuclear attack it would have been necessary to insure that the > IMP-to_IMP circuits did not go through the small number of Telco > offices which made up the Telco backbone. No effort was made to > influence the provisioning of these circuits, and it can be presumed > that loss of only a few major cities would have resulted in most of > the leased lines disappearing. > > Cheers, > Alex > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:48 AM Miles Fidelman > >> wrote: > > Bernie, > > On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > > On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > >> Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of > >> them I > >> found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): > >> "Internet > >> (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as > >> far as I > >> know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as > >> a research > >> network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > > > my take on that is that there were two lines of thought > > leading up to the > > ARPAnet. very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was > > thinking > > about how the military command and control might be able to > > continue functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR > > Licklider, who was thinking > > about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas > > and results > > to better collaborate. > > > > when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the > > easier to > > understand to the average person, raather than the more > > diaphanous idea > > of researcher collaboration. so Baran's take kinda caught the > > public > > imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was > > the it was > > {somehow :o)} to be a research tool. > > > You were involved a lot earlier than I was. Perhaps you could > comment on how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the > early days. It's always struck me that things like > continuity-of-operations, in the face of node & link outages, > and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the > beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to > survive everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and > coincidentally, nuclear war. > > On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes > (not so much C/30s and such). Were any of the IMPs built to > withstand EMP? > > Miles > > > > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and > practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org > for > assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org > for > assistance. > > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 11:36:12 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 08:36:12 +1300 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> Message-ID: On 2019-02-17 02:03, Michael Kj?rling wrote: > On 15 Feb 2019 16:29 -0500, from vint at google.com (Vint Cerf): >> 6. MOSAIC hits about 1993 followed by Netscape Communications and its IPO. > > I'm curious about this point of yours. Why do you say that this was an > important deciding factor in the choice between OSI vs TCP/IP, or in > the commercialization of TCP/IP over OSI? > > I'm not saying that the Web was unimportant -- it absolutely was, and > is (just look at how many people think that the Internet _is_ the > World Wide Web) -- but is there something about the protocols which > makes it much easier to run HTTP over TCP/IP than over OSI? At the relevant time (1991, when the first line-mode web browser was developed, along with HTTP itself) the only general-purpose substrate that Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Cailliau and Nicola Pellow found at their disposal was TCP/IP. So most simply put, they had no choice. Running HTTP over OSI was never an option in the real world. fwiw, it was by then two years after the rant** which marked my own epiphany. Tim, Robert and Nicola were just users... Brian ** B.E. Carpenter, Is OSI Too Late?, RARE Networkshop 1989, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 17 (1989) 284-286, DOI 10.1016/0169-7552(89)90040-8 > Or was it > just the fact that by the time the Web came about, the world was > somewhat firmly established in the TCP/IP camp and so it became a > natural choice to focus on running HTTP over TCP/IP? > > I'll readily admit that my knowledge of the OSI stack is limited at > best. > From richard at bennett.com Sat Feb 16 12:02:02 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 13:02:02 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> Message-ID: <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> TCP/IP had an army, but OSI had nothing but civilians. It never was a fair fight. > On Feb 16, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2019-02-17 02:03, Michael Kj?rling wrote: >> On 15 Feb 2019 16:29 -0500, from vint at google.com (Vint Cerf): >>> 6. MOSAIC hits about 1993 followed by Netscape Communications and its IPO. >> >> I'm curious about this point of yours. Why do you say that this was an >> important deciding factor in the choice between OSI vs TCP/IP, or in >> the commercialization of TCP/IP over OSI? >> >> I'm not saying that the Web was unimportant -- it absolutely was, and >> is (just look at how many people think that the Internet _is_ the >> World Wide Web) -- but is there something about the protocols which >> makes it much easier to run HTTP over TCP/IP than over OSI? > > At the relevant time (1991, when the first line-mode web browser was > developed, along with HTTP itself) the only general-purpose substrate > that Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Cailliau and Nicola Pellow found at their > disposal was TCP/IP. So most simply put, they had no choice. Running > HTTP over OSI was never an option in the real world. > > fwiw, it was by then two years after the rant** which marked my own > epiphany. Tim, Robert and Nicola were just users... > > Brian > > ** B.E. Carpenter, Is OSI Too Late?, RARE Networkshop 1989, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 17 (1989) 284-286, DOI 10.1016/0169-7552(89)90040-8 > > >> Or was it >> just the fact that by the time the Web came about, the world was >> somewhat firmly established in the TCP/IP camp and so it became a >> natural choice to focus on running HTTP over TCP/IP? >> >> I'll readily admit that my knowledge of the OSI stack is limited at >> best. >> > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Sat Feb 16 12:26:00 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:26:00 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> [Thread renamed to better reflect topic...] I agree with all of Vint's thread, but I'd like to add to it.? I think there were several other situations and activities that I think also drove commercialization of "The Internet" 1) The Proliferation of Private internets (aka Intranets) 2) Parallel Creation of Other internets (aka Othernets) 3) Deployment of Multi-Protocol internets (aka Multinets) 4) Establishment of a Internet Technician pipeline 5) Adoption of Web technology as a Client/Server standard Intranets While "The Internet" was growing, and steered by decisions by organizations such as NSF, NIST, etc., the same hardware and software was used to build private internets, totally disjoint from "The Internet".? This probably occurred first in governmental arenas, where it was straightforward for a non-research group to simply buy some routers and hook them together as a private intranet.? The same was soon true in commercial environments.? I personally encountered this in 1989-90 while consulting for a large Wall Street investment house, who were struggling to deploy their own TCP-based intranet connecting LANs and Sun workstations in New York, London, and Tokyo.? But there were many types of Intranets, not based on TCP, because of Othernets. Othernets While "The Internet" was evolving, other organizations were building and promoting their own technology.? Some of these were driven by "standards bodies" like ISO or CCITT.? Others were driven by corporations who each had their own version of a "global network".? IBM, DEC, Xerox, Wang, Novell, Banyan, Apple, and probably others I've forgotten all had their own technology for creating a global network.? All of these would work great in a global installation, at least according to Marketing, especially if you only used their hardware and software. Multinets With so many choices, people made different decisions.?? Engineering seemed to like DECNET.? Finance was true-blue with IBM SNA.? Marketing often had Appletalk.? Departments with lots of PCs had multiple choices, e.g., Novell, Banyan, etc.? The weird guys in the Lab had something called TCP (which, if you were in the UK, was a mouthwash).? There were X.25 networks in use, and perhaps someone was talking about ISO for the long-term solution, but they were still waiting for something they could install. Multi-protocol routers, bridges, and other such pieces of the Tinker Toy networking kit allowed you to run as many different Othernets as you liked, all over the same physical wires and circuits.? Instead of picking one of the choices as your corporate standard, you could just have them all.? You could have your own private Multinet. The Technician Pipeline With all of these different network technologies and products, staffing an IT department was a formidable challenge.?? You could hire people, and them send them to the various vendors' training to learn how to use each particular technology and products.? Of course everyone would need retraining frequently as all the technologies were evolved.?? And then the best people might disappear, lured off to some other IT department. The exception was the TCP world.? Somehow it seemed that new graduates were continually emerging from Academia already trained and experienced in using TCP-based systems.? There seemed to be a pipeline through the schools around the world that was pumping TCP-qualified potential IT staff out into the world, who could get a TCP-based system up and running while other technologies advocates were still in networking school. Web Technology as Client-server Standard By the early 90s, the networking started by the ARPANET had evolved for 20 years.? But over those decades, the search for the next "killer app" hadn't produced much.? File transfer, remote terminal access, and electronic mail were still the primary "apps" used broadly, and had been for 20 years. With the advent of The Web, that changed in the early/mid 90s.? Suddenly there was a new "protocol on the wire" technology that enabled people to create and consume content, without the requirement to have the identical word-processing, graphics, or other "user interface" software on every machine.? The first new "killer app" in 20 years had appeared. In the general business world, people wrote and read documents, but they also did a lot of other tasks with their IT systems.? They did inventory control.? They ran analyses, in financial, sales, marketing, engineering, and every other business discipline.? They modelled physical systems such as weather or economics.?? They did everything associated with their business operations, using computers. Although the Web technology began as a way to collaborate on documents, it had the requisite "hooks" to enable "documents" to be generated on the fly, tailored by instructions gathered from the human user who would be viewing the result.?? This enabled many of the broader business tasks to be done using Web technology.?? Instead of viewing a Quarterly Analysis using an application on your workstation, you could view that same analysis as a "web page" that had just been created by a program as you just specified. In effect, the Web technology brought a wire-protocol standard for "Client-Server" interactions to the TCP technology arsenal.?? That was a capability none of the "Othernet" players had. ====================================================== All of the above reflects only what I personally experienced.? So there's probably a lot more that was going as well that should be included when looking at the Commercialization aspect of Internet History. Note that everything I just mentioned happened outside of the topics that are most often discussed here as "Internet History" - RFCs, IENs, IETF, IAB, ISO, NIST.?? Those were all important, but I think there was lots of other things going on, like the ones I listed, that also strongly influenced the growth of the Internet. It seems to me that there's quite a lot of material recorded in things like the RFCs and even academic papers, but very, very little about the myriad "Othernet" technologies, or about what was going on in the "User" (i.e., Commercial) business world as it struggled to actually use all of this stuff.? Back in the early 90s, Oracle had recruited me as "Internet Architect" with the rather vague direction to "get us into the Internet business".?? I recall one meeting, circa 1991-2 (pre-Web), where I finally realized that TCP had won.? We had a "Customer Council" which was composed of senior staff (CIO, CTO, etc.) of a diverse group of customers.? They were all from non-techology companies, e.g., Finance, Manufacturing, Transportation, etc., and from different countries and continents.? Their common mission was to figure out how to use IT technology in their business operations. One of our meetings focussed on networking.? We went around the room, and everyone briefly described their existing networking.? There were "IBM shops", "DEC shops", and the like, but they all had smatterings of other stuff, e.g., PC-based LANs of some ilk, etc.? They were all becoming de facto Multinet IT departments.?? More accurately, they were struggling to get it all to work. We went around the room again, and got everyone to describe their corporate strategy - their vision of where they wanted to get to. I was absolutely blown away by the response.? Several dozen large corporations, in many industries, across many geographies ... every one of them said their future target was TCP.? It might take them years, but that was the destination. I had to ask "Why TCP?".... There were a few common themes in the answers: - This multi-technology stuff is driving us nuts.? - TCP works.? We can see it running in the Internet (e.g., at Interop).? We have it running in our lab.? We can see other people using it successfully.? It's here.? We can use it. - TCP is under our control.? [Bet you thought IETF was in charge...] TCP is an open de facto "standard", unencumbered by secrecy, patents, or vendors' business strategies and changing plans.? We can buy products from many vendors, and we could, if we really had to, even build missing pieces ourselves. - TCP is well-supported.? In particular, we can hire people, even just out of college, who already know about TCP and often already have several years operational experience with it.? They "hit the ground running" in our IT department, saving us lots of time, and money. No one brought up anything resembling a technical issue.? No "the XYZ routing protocol is better than the "JKL" one, or anything like that. These themes tie back to events in the technology world.? For example, DARPA's choice to make TCP technology "open", and to create free implementations, coupled with NSF, CSNET, and other decisions to inject TCP into the academic machinery were likely crucial in creating that "pipeline" of qualified IT staff. Similarly, the technology industry's decision to proliferate competing technologies, and never coalesce into a standard, put the user communities in the position of having to deal with Multinets, which were a world-class arena for vendor finger-pointing.?? If you think building an operating a TCP Intranet is challenging, think about a Multinet (been there, done that...) This led to the User community taking the lead, if inadvertently and reluctantly. E.g., the Web came from a User environment, driven by the need to share documents and data. =================== There was really a lot that happened outside of the more visible activities of the technical and standards worlds of IETF et al, much of which had significant effects on the growth and evolution of the Internet.? I only saw a small part of course, and haven't run across much else written about the networking experience in the "real world" back in the 80s/90s and even today.? Maybe I really should write down some more of at least what I remember..... /Jack Haverty On 2/15/19 1:29 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > Commercialization of the equipment and software arose from a different > thread: > > 1. IBM, Digital and HP all implemented TCP/IP on their commercial > operating systems - but it was their Research Groups > who did that (I encouraged this). > 2. I also encouraged the UNIX TCP/IP development at 3COM for which > Metcalfe never forgave me because after > he implemented that offering, the Berkeley release came out for free > 3. INTEROP made Internet visible to a much larger, non-academic > audience, had training sessions and allowed > a lot of product vendors to demonstration the interoperability of > their software/hardware - a major sales point? > when you are trying to decide what to buy.? > 4. there were very few implementations of OSI and none that I know of > were commercially successful > 5. In 1992, NIST was persuaded to do an analysis of TCP/IP and OSI and > concluded that it was OK > for government users to procure TCP/IP despite previous guidance to > use OSI according to the > Government OSI Profile (GOSIP).?? > 6. MOSAIC hits about 1993 followed by Netscape Communications and its IPO. > 7. Cisco, Proteon and later, Juniper, produce commercial routers. Sun > Microsystems produces Work stations and they > all use TCP/IP. > 8. Novell tries to use IPX and XNS but just doesn't have the traction.? > From vint at google.com Sat Feb 16 12:43:21 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:43:21 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> Message-ID: most of us were just students or academics. v On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 3:14 PM Richard Bennett wrote: > TCP/IP had an army, but OSI had nothing but civilians. It never was a fair > fight. > > On Feb 16, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2019-02-17 02:03, Michael Kj?rling wrote: > > On 15 Feb 2019 16:29 -0500, from vint at google.com (Vint Cerf): > > 6. MOSAIC hits about 1993 followed by Netscape Communications and its IPO. > > > I'm curious about this point of yours. Why do you say that this was an > important deciding factor in the choice between OSI vs TCP/IP, or in > the commercialization of TCP/IP over OSI? > > I'm not saying that the Web was unimportant -- it absolutely was, and > is (just look at how many people think that the Internet _is_ the > World Wide Web) -- but is there something about the protocols which > makes it much easier to run HTTP over TCP/IP than over OSI? > > > At the relevant time (1991, when the first line-mode web browser was > developed, along with HTTP itself) the only general-purpose substrate > that Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Cailliau and Nicola Pellow found at their > disposal was TCP/IP. So most simply put, they had no choice. Running > HTTP over OSI was never an option in the real world. > > fwiw, it was by then two years after the rant** which marked my own > epiphany. Tim, Robert and Nicola were just users... > > Brian > > ** B.E. Carpenter, Is OSI Too Late?, RARE Networkshop 1989, Computer > Networks and ISDN Systems, 17 (1989) 284-286, DOI > 10.1016/0169-7552(89)90040-8 > > > Or was it > just the fact that by the time the Web came about, the world was > somewhat firmly established in the TCP/IP camp and so it became a > natural choice to focus on running HTTP over TCP/IP? > > I'll readily admit that my knowledge of the OSI stack is limited at > best. > > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Sat Feb 16 12:58:15 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:58:15 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Good points, Jack - and certainly add color to the tenor of the times. v On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 3:51 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > [Thread renamed to better reflect topic...] > > I agree with all of Vint's thread, but I'd like to add to it. I think > there were several other situations and activities that I think also > drove commercialization of "The Internet" > > 1) The Proliferation of Private internets (aka Intranets) > > 2) Parallel Creation of Other internets (aka Othernets) > > 3) Deployment of Multi-Protocol internets (aka Multinets) > > 4) Establishment of a Internet Technician pipeline > > 5) Adoption of Web technology as a Client/Server standard > > Intranets > > While "The Internet" was growing, and steered by decisions by > organizations such as NSF, NIST, etc., the same hardware and software > was used to build private internets, totally disjoint from "The > Internet". This probably occurred first in governmental arenas, where > it was straightforward for a non-research group to simply buy some > routers and hook them together as a private intranet. The same was soon > true in commercial environments. I personally encountered this in > 1989-90 while consulting for a large Wall Street investment house, who > were struggling to deploy their own TCP-based intranet connecting LANs > and Sun workstations in New York, London, and Tokyo. But there were > many types of Intranets, not based on TCP, because of Othernets. > > Othernets > > While "The Internet" was evolving, other organizations were building and > promoting their own technology. Some of these were driven by "standards > bodies" like ISO or CCITT. Others were driven by corporations who each > had their own version of a "global network". IBM, DEC, Xerox, Wang, > Novell, Banyan, Apple, and probably others I've forgotten all had their > own technology for creating a global network. All of these would work > great in a global installation, at least according to Marketing, > especially if you only used their hardware and software. > > Multinets > > With so many choices, people made different decisions. Engineering > seemed to like DECNET. Finance was true-blue with IBM SNA. Marketing > often had Appletalk. Departments with lots of PCs had multiple choices, > e.g., Novell, Banyan, etc. The weird guys in the Lab had something > called TCP (which, if you were in the UK, was a mouthwash). There were > X.25 networks in use, and perhaps someone was talking about ISO for the > long-term solution, but they were still waiting for something they could > install. > > Multi-protocol routers, bridges, and other such pieces of the Tinker Toy > networking kit allowed you to run as many different Othernets as you > liked, all over the same physical wires and circuits. Instead of > picking one of the choices as your corporate standard, you could just > have them all. You could have your own private Multinet. > > The Technician Pipeline > > With all of these different network technologies and products, staffing > an IT department was a formidable challenge. You could hire people, > and them send them to the various vendors' training to learn how to use > each particular technology and products. Of course everyone would need > retraining frequently as all the technologies were evolved. And then > the best people might disappear, lured off to some other IT department. > > The exception was the TCP world. Somehow it seemed that new graduates > were continually emerging from Academia already trained and experienced > in using TCP-based systems. There seemed to be a pipeline through the > schools around the world that was pumping TCP-qualified potential IT > staff out into the world, who could get a TCP-based system up and > running while other technologies advocates were still in networking school. > > Web Technology as Client-server Standard > > By the early 90s, the networking started by the ARPANET had evolved for > 20 years. But over those decades, the search for the next "killer app" > hadn't produced much. File transfer, remote terminal access, and > electronic mail were still the primary "apps" used broadly, and had been > for 20 years. > > With the advent of The Web, that changed in the early/mid 90s. Suddenly > there was a new "protocol on the wire" technology that enabled people to > create and consume content, without the requirement to have the > identical word-processing, graphics, or other "user interface" software > on every machine. The first new "killer app" in 20 years had appeared. > > In the general business world, people wrote and read documents, but they > also did a lot of other tasks with their IT systems. They did inventory > control. They ran analyses, in financial, sales, marketing, > engineering, and every other business discipline. They modelled > physical systems such as weather or economics. They did everything > associated with their business operations, using computers. > > Although the Web technology began as a way to collaborate on documents, > it had the requisite "hooks" to enable "documents" to be generated on > the fly, tailored by instructions gathered from the human user who would > be viewing the result. This enabled many of the broader business tasks > to be done using Web technology. Instead of viewing a Quarterly > Analysis using an application on your workstation, you could view that > same analysis as a "web page" that had just been created by a program as > you just specified. > > In effect, the Web technology brought a wire-protocol standard for > "Client-Server" interactions to the TCP technology arsenal. That was a > capability none of the "Othernet" players had. > > ====================================================== > > All of the above reflects only what I personally experienced. So > there's probably a lot more that was going as well that should be > included when looking at the Commercialization aspect of Internet History. > > Note that everything I just mentioned happened outside of the topics > that are most often discussed here as "Internet History" - RFCs, IENs, > IETF, IAB, ISO, NIST. Those were all important, but I think there was > lots of other things going on, like the ones I listed, that also > strongly influenced the growth of the Internet. > > It seems to me that there's quite a lot of material recorded in things > like the RFCs and even academic papers, but very, very little about the > myriad "Othernet" technologies, or about what was going on in the "User" > (i.e., Commercial) business world as it struggled to actually use all of > this stuff. > > Back in the early 90s, Oracle had recruited me as "Internet Architect" > with the rather vague direction to "get us into the Internet > business". I recall one meeting, circa 1991-2 (pre-Web), where I > finally realized that TCP had won. > > We had a "Customer Council" which was composed of senior staff (CIO, > CTO, etc.) of a diverse group of customers. They were all from > non-techology companies, e.g., Finance, Manufacturing, Transportation, > etc., and from different countries and continents. Their common mission > was to figure out how to use IT technology in their business operations. > > One of our meetings focussed on networking. We went around the room, > and everyone briefly described their existing networking. There were > "IBM shops", "DEC shops", and the like, but they all had smatterings of > other stuff, e.g., PC-based LANs of some ilk, etc. They were all > becoming de facto Multinet IT departments. More accurately, they were > struggling to get it all to work. > > We went around the room again, and got everyone to describe their > corporate strategy - their vision of where they wanted to get to. > > I was absolutely blown away by the response. Several dozen large > corporations, in many industries, across many geographies ... every one > of them said their future target was TCP. It might take them years, but > that was the destination. > > I had to ask "Why TCP?".... > > There were a few common themes in the answers: > > - This multi-technology stuff is driving us nuts. > > - TCP works. We can see it running in the Internet (e.g., at Interop). > We have it running in our lab. We can see other people using it > successfully. It's here. We can use it. > > - TCP is under our control. [Bet you thought IETF was in charge...] TCP > is an open de facto "standard", unencumbered by secrecy, patents, or > vendors' business strategies and changing plans. We can buy products > from many vendors, and we could, if we really had to, even build missing > pieces ourselves. > > - TCP is well-supported. In particular, we can hire people, even just > out of college, who already know about TCP and often already have > several years operational experience with it. They "hit the ground > running" in our IT department, saving us lots of time, and money. > > No one brought up anything resembling a technical issue. No "the XYZ > routing protocol is better than the "JKL" one, or anything like that. > > These themes tie back to events in the technology world. For example, > DARPA's choice to make TCP technology "open", and to create free > implementations, coupled with NSF, CSNET, and other decisions to inject > TCP into the academic machinery were likely crucial in creating that > "pipeline" of qualified IT staff. > > Similarly, the technology industry's decision to proliferate competing > technologies, and never coalesce into a standard, put the user > communities in the position of having to deal with Multinets, which were > a world-class arena for vendor finger-pointing. If you think building > an operating a TCP Intranet is challenging, think about a Multinet (been > there, done that...) > > This led to the User community taking the lead, if inadvertently and > reluctantly. E.g., the Web came from a User environment, driven by the > need to share documents and data. > > =================== > > There was really a lot that happened outside of the more visible > activities of the technical and standards worlds of IETF et al, much of > which had significant effects on the growth and evolution of the > Internet. I only saw a small part of course, and haven't run across > much else written about the networking experience in the "real world" > back in the 80s/90s and even today. Maybe I really should write down > some more of at least what I remember..... > > /Jack Haverty > > > On 2/15/19 1:29 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > Commercialization of the equipment and software arose from a different > > thread: > > > > 1. IBM, Digital and HP all implemented TCP/IP on their commercial > > operating systems - but it was their Research Groups > > who did that (I encouraged this). > > 2. I also encouraged the UNIX TCP/IP development at 3COM for which > > Metcalfe never forgave me because after > > he implemented that offering, the Berkeley release came out for free > > 3. INTEROP made Internet visible to a much larger, non-academic > > audience, had training sessions and allowed > > a lot of product vendors to demonstration the interoperability of > > their software/hardware - a major sales point > > when you are trying to decide what to buy. > > 4. there were very few implementations of OSI and none that I know of > > were commercially successful > > 5. In 1992, NIST was persuaded to do an analysis of TCP/IP and OSI and > > concluded that it was OK > > for government users to procure TCP/IP despite previous guidance to > > use OSI according to the > > Government OSI Profile (GOSIP). > > 6. MOSAIC hits about 1993 followed by Netscape Communications and its > IPO. > > 7. Cisco, Proteon and later, Juniper, produce commercial routers. Sun > > Microsystems produces Work stations and they > > all use TCP/IP. > > 8. Novell tries to use IPX and XNS but just doesn't have the traction. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc at dcrocker.net Sat Feb 16 13:29:36 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 13:29:36 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> Message-ID: <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> On 2/16/2019 12:02 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > TCP/IP had an army, but OSI had nothing but civilians. It never was a > fair fight. OSI had masses of techs from masses of companies, such as Digital Equipment. I suspect you won't be claiming that DEC didn't know the relevant tech. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From clemc at ccc.com Sat Feb 16 13:40:12 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:40:12 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: Internet History - Commercialization In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> Message-ID: I'll apologize for my dyslexia before I start. I've been less active on this list so many of you are not aware of my issues with communications in my email. I hope my message is parsable, but frankly, I don't see the typo's in my email until a day or two later or have someone else check them. I wanted to get this message out while they were fresh so I did not sit on them for a day in hopes to clean them up a little more. Anyway ... I agree with most everything Jack and Vint have mentioned but .... I think HBS Professor Christensen explains what happen more succinctly. The other networking systems were examples of what he calls *sustaining technology *in his book* "The Innovator's Dilema"*. IP/TCP got traction in two places which we not being served by the traditional computer firms: Workstations (and the rise of the technical Unix system) and eventually the PC. Simply it won because it was the most economic solution. Hopefully, you have all read his books completely, but sadly many folks have not (although I hear people using his terms without really understanding what he said). To remind you/recap his thesis, Christensen observes a few important facts about successful disruptions: 1. The Leaders (the sustaining systems) are doing excellent engineering of their products *listening to their customers* and providing what *those customers are telling them.* 2. The disruptors technology when viewed by the sustainers is a 'lessor' or *inferior technology* that does not provide something(s) that the leaders consider valuable to those customers so they are able to ignore the disruptor. 3. The new technology* is cheaper *and easier to access to some group of people. 4. And this the new technology is *embraced by a new market* made up of those people that does not care about the 'issues.' 5. The new market *grows much faster rate* than the old market, to the point that it eventually passes the old market. I personally loved the IP/TCP technology and was a 'true believer' in it at the time, but looking back on the experience (*i.e.* as an old guy that lived it) why I believe the commercial success of IP was based on economics, not as much as the technical success. So let me explain my thinking. IP was developed by folks like Vint and Jack for the ARPA community and made available to folks to like me (what Jack talked about those bring young engineers coming out of school that new the technology). I certainly was brainwashed with it at CMU in the mid to late 1970s and would go on to write the first VMS implementation of it for Tektronix upon graduation. In our case, Stan Smith and I picked it because we had nothing that supported UNIX, VMS, RT-11 and the CDC/Cybers which were the bulk the cycles at Tek at the time. None of DECnet nor SNA were going to solve our problem and we needed something. IP's specs were published. We had examples of the code from MIT for Multics and I had worked on the CMU Front End, so I had seen IP. Plus Tek was certainly not completely ignorant of networking/interconnect technology. FWIW: Tek (i.e. Maurice Graube) was chairing what would become IEEE 802 - so we knew about LANS (in fact folks in my lab had created something we called the NIBB - Network Interface Black Box using 75-ohm coax because there was nothing like Ethernet chips yet. 3M Xerox ethernet existed but you could not commercial buy the boards). The truth is that implementations like Jack's at BBN or mine at Tek were not 'supported' product like DECnet, SNA or the like. The commercial folks did not trust it - it was an 'inferior' under those definitions. Hey, it was referred to as a 'research experiment' in the RFCs and the like. So it was easy for sales types to tell managers - You should use DECnet (or whatever) its a 'real' product with DEC/IBM/Wang ... behind it. But roll time forward to the early 80s. By the time the Unix Wars on the workstations, I'm at Masscomp, we needed something for networking. This is true across the workstation industry. IP was cheap (i.e. point 3 - it was free with BSD Unix, plus there were example implementations from a number of places by then). BTW: I took a lot of heat at Masscomp who was mostly ex-DEC folks for that choice. DECnet was the installed base at our customers!!! DECnet supported remote files, remote devices *etc*. We had none of that with IP [yet]. But IP worked good enough for us. We needed file copy, remote login, and email. It was super at solving that for us. And we ended up with lots of UNIX boxes, far more than DECnet systems in the wild. What is happening we all are selling a lot of UNIX systems, far more than the mini-computers. The 'inferior tech' is 'good enough' for us, i.e. point 4 comes into play. Let time go even further. The PC's did not start out with IP. They started with Novell (over ARCnet to start, transitioning to Ethernet when Nat Semi creates 'CheaperNet.'). But each of these was local networks. As the need to interconnect (i.e. Metcalf's law) begins to come into play, the cheap solution for them is IP. Eventually, Microsoft joins the fray. What is interesting is when the PC displaces the UNIX workstation, by the PC is based on IP, not Novell. This is when point 5 becomes important, the new market has now exceeded the old market in growth. Clem ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bob.hinden at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 14:02:14 2019 From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:02:14 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <19BD4D4C-7A32-4781-80BC-ED3AE6B67E97@gmail.com> Craig, > On Feb 16, 2019, at 8:35 AM, Craig Partridge wrote: > > Hi Bob: > > You are right about the implementations being in parallel for a while. I'm going to get the dates slightly wrong but Bill's code came out in 4.1c (1982?) and BBN kept maintaining its implementation (Dennis Rockwell and then Bob Walsh) until c. 1985. Indeed, as I recall there was a debate c. 1985 at DARPA about whether to force Berkeley to use the BBN code (which had been modified to use the sockets API, which everyone agreed was better -- I had a small part in the port to sockets). I was doing the TCP/IP implementation at BBN for the TAC around the same time that the BBN Unix TCP/IP was being developed. I suspect Rob and I did some testing of our implementations, but don?t remember any details. I do remember having to deal with doing 32-bit sequence number arithmetic on a 15 bit machine :-) Thanks, Bob > > I believe that when the TCP/IP project transitioned to me (c. 1987?), I stopped effort on the BBN TCP/IP. I think we had to maintain it a bit as we'd licensed it to a workstation vendor (Apollo????). Karen Lam and David Waitzman switched to the BSD TCP/IP and we did things like help Steve Deering implement multicast and such. > > Thanks! > > Craig > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:24 AM Bob Hinden wrote: > Craig, > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: > > > > Important historical nit. I was the manager of the BBN UNIX TCP/IP effort after Rob Gurwitz left (I think Rob inherited it from Jack Haverty, but not sure). The BSD stack with sockets *was not written by BBN*. It was written by Bill Joy at Berkeley -- using the earlier BBN 4BSD code as a reference. Entirely new code, but originally bug-for-bug compatible (indeed, years later, when a bug was found in the BSD TCP, the BSD folks stood up and said "that's a bug from BBN?) > > My memory is that they both were maintained in parallel for several years. Also, Bill Joy's TCP stack also had the ?trailers? feature where the headers were at the end of the packet. Documented in RFC893 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc893). Probably not so good for packet switching, but better performance on some host implementations. That faded away at some point. > > Bob > > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. From joly at punkcast.com Sat Feb 16 14:44:53 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:44:53 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Speaking as someone who was entirely outside the mainstream of Internet development, and just looking to swap media with other folks, even trumpet winsock etc was beyond our grasp. The walls fell with the release of Netcom's Netcruiser in 94, essentially ip/tcp, mosaic, archie, gopher, irc, telnet, ftp in a box. That, combined with a 386 system, and the world was your oyster. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 14:53:23 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 11:53:23 +1300 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> On 2019-02-17 10:29, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/16/2019 12:02 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >> TCP/IP had an army, but OSI had nothing but civilians. It never was a >> fair fight. > > > OSI had masses of techs from masses of companies, such as Digital > Equipment. I suspect you won't be claiming that DEC didn't know the > relevant tech. They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of investment in product development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile And OSI had one convincing argument: bigger addresses, for those who already believed that 32 bits was insufficient. Brian From dhc at dcrocker.net Sat Feb 16 15:07:24 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:07:24 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/16/2019 2:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > And OSI had one convincing argument: bigger addresses, for those > who already believed that 32 bits was insufficient. When I was managing parallel development efforts of both TCP and OSI stacks, I don't recall hearing from any of my customers that they were concerned about address space. This was in the late 1980s, long before the Web. They were concerned about turn-key operations and interoperability. They got that from the TCP stack. They never really got it from OSI. Since OSI was the official strategic choice of countries and companies, but some had been using TCP, we started asking about their needs to tools to support their transition from TCP to OSI. What we got back was a resounding and strong request that, instead, we provide for their accomplishing OSI to TCP transitions... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dave at taht.net Sat Feb 16 15:50:08 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:50:08 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <20190214164627.B09EE18C0AB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> (Noel Chiappa's message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:46:27 -0500 (EST)") References: <20190214164627.B09EE18C0AB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <878syf70pb.fsf@taht.net> jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes: > > From: Paul Ruizendaal > > > There was no broadcast-based discovery of other gateways on the same > > local net(s). > > There _weren't_ any LANs in the very earliest Internet (although packet radio > networks were close); that why the earliest IP address had only 8 bits of > 'network number', to support the small number of WANs. > > > the PUP Gateway Information Protocol, which in turn seems to have been > > influenced by the routing protocols used inside IMP's. > > The very earliest ARPANET routing protocol, perhaps - both it, and the Xerox > routing protocols, were Destination Vector. The ARPANET transitioned to a > Link State design fairly early. I'd have to check the dates for PUP, and that > transition; my my sense is that the latter happened first. > > > RIP for tcp/ip itself was only codified in an RFC in 1988; not sure why > > it took 5 years to do so. > > A number of reasons, but part of it was a feeling on some people's part (e.g. > me) that DV algorithms had been shown by the ARPANet work to have issues. The > BBN report by McQuillan et al that introduced the idea of LS (might have been > "ARPANet Routing Algorithm Improvments", No. 3803 - I can't find my copy) > went into great detail about the problems they were seeing with DV > prototocols. > > In retrospect, the concern over DV was probably excessive; the original > ARPANET routing was load-sensitive, so the inputs to the path selection were > orders of magnitude more dynamic, which probably forced a lot of the DV issues > out into the light. These days I periodically work on the babeld DV routing protocol. Among other things it now has an RTT based metric (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jonglez-babel-rtt-extension-01) It's generally been my hope, that with the addition of fair queuing (which didn't arise until nagle in 85 - and the more implementable forms of SFQ (1990) and DRR (1995), that the early experiences with DV being problematic were... early bufferbloat. > > Noel > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From dave at taht.net Sat Feb 16 15:53:05 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:53:05 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: (Grant Taylor's message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:11:11 -0700") References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <874l9370ke.fsf@taht.net> Grant Taylor writes: > On 02/13/2019 08:57 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> Anyway, although I can add a lot more to the arpanet portion of the >> history section, and probably will, my current working draft of the >> history section of this document is now up here: >> >> https://github.com/dtaht/ipv4-cleanup/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt#L117 >> >> Feel free to make suggestions for more (or less!) content, comment as to >> my mental state, ancestry, naivety, and overall correctness of the cites - >> I note that the last cite I added today was rfc1925, which really should >> get cited more often. > > Should the test-networks and / or link-local be included in the martian > lists? > > 169.254.0.0/16 > 192.0.2.0/24 > 198.51.100.0/24 > 203.0.113.0/24 I put them in. thx > > Is the benchmark network, 198.18.0.0/15, still used for such? Or could > it also be reclaimed? I have no idea to what extent it is still used. Most test and benchmark networks today merely leverage rfc1918, so yes, I think it could be reclaimed. It's a small percentage play compared to 240/4, 0/8, or 232/5. > > Aside: Is there a reason that you're using the octothorpe (#) instead > of the section symbol (?) when citing RFC sections? ascii. From sob at sobco.com Sat Feb 16 16:31:08 2019 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 19:31:08 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <874l9370ke.fsf@taht.net> References: <87d0nv10q0.fsf@taht.net> <874l9370ke.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <5510F04C-CD70-498F-97D0-6A003FF8CD2B@sobco.com> there are a number of benchmarking testers that use the address ranges assigned for that purpose - see RFC 2544 C.2.2 Protocol Addresses Two sets of addresses must be defined: first the addresses assigned to the router ports, and second the address that are to be used in the frames themselves and in the routing updates. The network addresses 192.18.0.0 through 198.19.255.255 are have been assigned to the BMWG by the IANA for this purpose. This assignment was made to minimize the chance of conflict in case a testing device were to be accidentally connected to part of the Internet. The specific use of the addresses is detailed below. Scott > On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > Grant Taylor writes: > >> On 02/13/2019 08:57 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> Anyway, although I can add a lot more to the arpanet portion of the >>> history section, and probably will, my current working draft of the >>> history section of this document is now up here: >>> >>> https://github.com/dtaht/ipv4-cleanup/blob/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt#L117 >>> >>> Feel free to make suggestions for more (or less!) content, comment as to >>> my mental state, ancestry, naivety, and overall correctness of the cites - >>> I note that the last cite I added today was rfc1925, which really should >>> get cited more often. >> >> Should the test-networks and / or link-local be included in the martian >> lists? >> >> 169.254.0.0/16 >> 192.0.2.0/24 >> 198.51.100.0/24 >> 203.0.113.0/24 > > I put them in. thx > >> >> Is the benchmark network, 198.18.0.0/15, still used for such? Or could >> it also be reclaimed? > > I have no idea to what extent it is still used. Most test and benchmark > networks today merely leverage rfc1918, so yes, I think it could be > reclaimed. > > It's a small percentage play compared to 240/4, 0/8, or 232/5. > >> >> Aside: Is there a reason that you're using the octothorpe (#) instead >> of the section symbol (?) when citing RFC sections? > > ascii. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sat Feb 16 16:49:20 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 19:49:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section Message-ID: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Dave Taht > These days I periodically work on the babeld DV routing protocol. Among > other things it now has an RTT based metric ... It's generally been my > hope, that with the addition of fair queuing ... that the early > experiences with DV being problematic were... early bufferbloat. I don't think so (and in any events IMPs had such a small amount of buffering that they couldn't do extreme buffer-bloat if they wanted to!) Newer updates being in the processing queue behind older updates (which is kind of the key thing that's going on in buffer-bloat, IIRC) were no doubt an issue, but the problems were more fundamental. The thing is that a DV routing architecture is fundamentally a distributed computation - i.e. node A does a tiny bit of the work, hands its intermediate data output to node B, repeat many times. This is fundamentally different from LS and its descendants, where everyone gets the basic data at about the same time, and then does all the computation _locally_, in parallel. Although both links and processors are _much_ faster than they used to be, the speed of light (IOW point-point transmission delays) hasn't changed. So in whatever equation one uses to describe the settling time (i.e. the amount of time needed for everyone's tables to fully update and settle down), a major term will not have improved. Although the two different approaches are probably not _that_ far off, now, since real-time delay (RTD) in flooding data is also significant. The difference will be if the DV calculation requires multiple intermediate computational steps (i.e. a node having to process more than one incoming routing table update for a given destination), in which the RTD will repeat and accumulate, so it will probably always have a higher settling time than Map Distibution approaches such as LS. Anyway, if one is dealing with a network in which the rate of connectivity change is faster, in real time, than the settling time, hilarity ensues. The ARPANET's use of a poorly smoothed delay metric (well, load-sensitive routing _was_ a goal), which increased the dynamicity of the inputs, made things considerably worse. Now, since then work has been done on DV algorithms, to improve thing like count-to-infinity, etc, which I didn't pay a lot of attention to, since for other reason (policy routing, Byzantine robustness, etc) I decided MD was the way to go. I just did not like the 'distributed computation' aspect (which is fundamental in DV); it just felt less robust. Anyway, IIRC, that DV work reduced the number of multiple intermediate computational steps (above) in many (most? all?) cases, so that would be a big help on that influence on settling time. Alas, I don't remember any key names/titles to look up on that work; maybe some early IGRP thing references it? One name that keep coming up in my mind as associate with it is Zaw-Sing Su. There's someone else who I think did more, but I just can't rember who it was. But clearly BGP 'works', so maybe this is a case where it's 'good enough', and an less capable technology has won out. Anyway, you should read the 'problem analysis' section of BBN 3803; available here: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a053450.pdf and see to what degree it still applies. Noel From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 17:22:25 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 14:22:25 +1300 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <29024773-a6aa-7f44-fe29-ab275261cb41@gmail.com> On 2019-02-17 12:07, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/16/2019 2:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> And OSI had one convincing argument: bigger addresses, for those >> who already believed that 32 bits was insufficient. > > > When I was managing parallel development efforts of both TCP and OSI > stacks, I don't recall hearing from any of my customers that they were > concerned about address space. > > This was in the late 1980s, long before the Web. I completely believe that. But for those of us thinking about intercontinental-scale networking at that time (specifically, in my case, for high-energy physics; but there was also the space science community), scaling was an issue, and our experience of DECnet Phase IV running out of address space was a wake-up call. So the address space offered by CLNP was very definitely an attraction, coupled with the theory that the GOSIP requirements would generate widely available and affordable products. Duh. > They were concerned about turn-key operations and interoperability. > They got that from the TCP stack. They never really got it from OSI. Indeed. And OSI products were in general ridiculously expensive. Fortunately, we never wasted much money on them at CERN; the only serious effort was deploying DECnet Phase V. > Since OSI was the official strategic choice of countries and companies, > but some had been using TCP, we started asking about their needs to > tools to support their transition from TCP to OSI. What we got back was > a resounding and strong request that, instead, we provide for their > accomplishing OSI to TCP transitions... As far as I know that problem never really hit high-energy physics, except in the form of switching off DECnet Phase V when VMS was eventually phased out. But that was after I left CERN, so I don't know the details. [If anyone is interested, there are several versions of how TCP/IP got into CERN, before TimBL chose it for the web: 1. Ben Segal's version: http://cern.ch/cnlart/2001/001/tcpip 2. Olivier Martin's version in: http://ictconsulting.ch/reports/European-Research-Internet-History.pdf 3. My version in chapters 7 & 8 of: https://sites.google.com/site/bcabrc/network-geeks-book 4. Robert Cailliau's version in "How the Web was born" (OUP, 2000) ] Brian From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Sat Feb 16 17:51:08 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 18:51:08 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <1ac8ecac-0bcb-551e-59d3-3edf4ed56dd3@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 2/16/19 5:49 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > Although both links and processors are _much_ faster than they used to be, > the speed of light (IOW point-point transmission delays) hasn't changed. I'll agree that the propagation delay hasn't changed. But the amount of time it takes to send X number of bytes is significantly less today than it was 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago. I have no idea if the time to send X number of bytes has changed enough to fundamentally alter equations or not. But I do remember discussions about ping times across 10 BaseT LAN vs 100 BaseT or even 1000 BaseT. People liked to say it's a small enough amount of data that it shouldn't matter. Yet it does. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From touch at strayalpha.com Sat Feb 16 18:16:21 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 18:16:21 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <1ac8ecac-0bcb-551e-59d3-3edf4ed56dd3@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <1ac8ecac-0bcb-551e-59d3-3edf4ed56dd3@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: > On Feb 16, 2019, at 5:51 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > On 2/16/19 5:49 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> Although both links and processors are _much_ faster than they used to be, >> the speed of light (IOW point-point transmission delays) hasn't changed. > > I'll agree that the propagation delay hasn't changed. But the amount of > time it takes to send X number of bytes is significantly less today than > it was 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Message transfer latency (the only one that matters, IMO), is a combination of: - generation latency - propagation latency - computational latency - aggregation latency - multiplexing latency (I recently gave a tutorial on this at Sigcomm, and it was the focus of my thesis 25+ yrs ago) These contribute to the overall latency of different communication technologies in various ways. I?m glad that you noticed that such latency is *of a message* (of size X), rather than an independent property (i.e., just asking ?what?s the latency?? cannot be answered). > > I have no idea if the time to send X number of bytes has changed enough > to fundamentally alter equations or not. > > But I do remember discussions about ping times across 10 BaseT LAN vs > 100 BaseT or even 1000 BaseT. People liked to say it's a small enough > amount of data that it shouldn't matter. Yet it does. It also takes longer than it looks like it should across modems and RF links, sometimes because of coding delays (aggregation latency above) and channel access latencies. FWIW, propagation delay has gone up (from coax LANs @0.8c to twisted pair @0.6c) then down (newer twisted pair approaches 0.8c again) and fiber is 0.65c. WiFi is very close to 0.99c Joe From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Sat Feb 16 18:48:51 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 19:48:51 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: References: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <1ac8ecac-0bcb-551e-59d3-3edf4ed56dd3@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <01d9fe31-c30c-2036-9098-f033f695a272@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 2/16/19 7:16 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > Message transfer latency (the only one that matters, IMO), is a > combination of: > - generation latency > - propagation latency > - computational latency > - aggregation latency > - multiplexing latency > > (I recently gave a tutorial on this at Sigcomm, and it was the focus of > my thesis 25+ yrs ago) Is there a recording? }:-) > These contribute to the overall latency of different communication > technologies in various ways. I?m glad that you noticed that such > latency is *of a message* (of size X), rather than an independent property > (i.e., just asking ?what?s the latency?? cannot be answered). :-) > It also takes longer than it looks like it should across modems and RF > links, sometimes because of coding delays (aggregation latency above) > and channel access latencies. Agreed. Assuming that some of the coding delays are related to serial data going into a buffer but not filling it, so the modem times out and sends a partial buffer. I wonder if different designs with different buffering or some sort of push / flush signal might help things. But that's more complexity which drives price up. > FWIW, propagation delay has gone up (from coax LANs @0.8c to twisted > pair @0.6c) then down (newer twisted pair approaches 0.8c again) and > fiber is 0.65c. WiFi is very close to 0.99c I think that's signal in medium. If I'm reading your statement correctly, the number closer to 1.0c is better. Is that 0.8c 10Base2 or 10Base5? The 0.8c for coax vs 0.6c for twisted pair matches experiences that I remember. Coax seemed slightly faster than twisted pair. People thought I was crazy seeing as how both were 10Base and 10 Mbps. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From touch at strayalpha.com Sat Feb 16 21:56:12 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 21:56:12 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: <01d9fe31-c30c-2036-9098-f033f695a272@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <1ac8ecac-0bcb-551e-59d3-3edf4ed56dd3@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <01d9fe31-c30c-2036-9098-f033f695a272@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: > On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:48 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > On 2/16/19 7:16 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >> Message transfer latency (the only one that matters, IMO), is a >> combination of: >> - generation latency >> - propagation latency >> - computational latency >> - aggregation latency >> - multiplexing latency >> >> (I recently gave a tutorial on this at Sigcomm, and it was the focus of >> my thesis 25+ yrs ago) > > Is there a recording? }:-) Sorry - neither one. > >> These contribute to the overall latency of different communication >> technologies in various ways. I?m glad that you noticed that such >> latency is *of a message* (of size X), rather than an independent property >> (i.e., just asking ?what?s the latency?? cannot be answered). > > :-) > >> It also takes longer than it looks like it should across modems and RF >> links, sometimes because of coding delays (aggregation latency above) >> and channel access latencies. > > Agreed. > > Assuming that some of the coding delays are related to serial data going > into a buffer but not filling it, so the modem times out and sends a > partial buffer. I wonder if different designs with different buffering > or some sort of push / flush signal might help things. But that's more > complexity which drives price up. That sort of timeout isn?t as much the issue as the block coding that helps reduce the impact of burst errors. It?s the size of the block that often drives large delays in modems, even if they don?t ?wait? to be filled up with data (I am not aware that they do or would - the blocks go out on schedule, filled or not). > >> FWIW, propagation delay has gone up (from coax LANs @0.8c to twisted >> pair @0.6c) then down (newer twisted pair approaches 0.8c again) and >> fiber is 0.65c. WiFi is very close to 0.99c > > I think that's signal in medium. Yes. > If I'm reading your statement > correctly, the number closer to 1.0c is better. Yes. > Is that 0.8c 10Base2 or 10Base5? Both are coax - although they vary, they?re both in that range. > The 0.8c for coax vs 0.6c for twisted pair matches experiences that I > remember. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor TP varies - see the Cat 3, 5, 6, and 7 values. > Coax seemed slightly faster than twisted pair. Generally, yes. Open-ladder is the fastest for metal. > People > thought I was crazy seeing as how both were 10Base and 10 Mbps. The 10 of 10base **is** the 10 Mbps . Higher rates means shorter bits; shorter bits means the *end* of the message arrives more quickly, not the front of the first bit. The shortest Ethernet message (including preamble and SOF) totals 54 bytes, i.e., a transmission delay of 43.2 microseconds at 10 Mbps. The propagation delay, even in a 1500ft cable (the longest possible), is 1.875 microseconds (at 0.8c). In twisted pair the propagation delay is 2.5 microseconds. The difference would be only 0.625 microseconds - or about 1.4% of the transmission delay, not to mention other system delays. That would show up on a scope, but I doubt it would have been noticeable within an operating system, e.g., due to scheduler granularity, etc. Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Sat Feb 16 22:34:05 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 23:34:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet addressing history section In-Reply-To: References: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <1ac8ecac-0bcb-551e-59d3-3edf4ed56dd3@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <01d9fe31-c30c-2036-9098-f033f695a272@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <2d7c580d-6cc1-305e-dcf2-988dda94c1c3@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 2/16/19 10:56 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > That sort of timeout isn?t as much the issue as the block coding that > helps reduce the impact of burst errors. It?s the size of the block that > often drives large delays in modems, even if they don?t ?wait? to be > filled up with data (I am not aware that they do or would - the blocks > go out on schedule, filled or not). > Both are coax - although they vary, they?re both in that range. ACK > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor > > TP varies - see the Cat 3, 5, 6, and 7 values. I now have a reason, other than speed, to use something better than Cat 5e in my house. :-) > Generally, yes. Open-ladder is the fastest for metal. I'm quite familiar with Open Ladder line. I've helped my dad build it more times than I can count. > The 10 of 10base **is** the 10 Mbps . Higher rates means > shorter bits; shorter bits means the *end* of the message arrives more > quickly, not the front of the first bit. ACK > The shortest Ethernet message (including preamble and SOF) totals 54 > bytes, i.e., a transmission delay of 43.2 microseconds at 10 Mbps. The > propagation delay, even in a 1500ft cable (the longest possible), is > 1.875 microseconds (at 0.8c). In twisted pair the propagation delay is > 2.5 microseconds. The difference would be only 0.625 microseconds - or > about 1.4% of the transmission delay, not to mention other system delays. > > That would show up on a scope, but I doubt it would have been noticeable > within an operating system, e.g., due to scheduler granularity, etc. Fair enough. There could have also been an unknown problem that was different between my two tests. I don't think I'm mis-remembering, but it's a possibility as that was probably 20+ years ago. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From dot at dotat.at Mon Feb 18 07:35:42 2019 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:35:42 +0000 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Joly MacFie wrote: > Speaking as someone who was entirely outside the mainstream of Internet > development, and just looking to swap media with other folks, even trumpet > winsock etc was beyond our grasp. > > The walls fell with the release of Netcom's Netcruiser in 94, essentially > ip/tcp, mosaic, archie, gopher, irc, telnet, ftp in a box. That, combined > with a 386 system, and the world was your oyster. I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial Internet users who relied on KA9Q. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ Southeast Iceland: Northerly 6 to gale 8, veering northeasterly 5 to 7. Rough or very rough. Rain or wintry showers. Good, occasionally poor. From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Feb 18 09:07:44 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:07:44 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <4264d170-1477-974b-036f-a3582894c981@dcrocker.net> On 2/18/2019 7:35 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. I believe KA9Q created a lingua franca for PC use of the Internet, within the technical community. That counted as a major improvement, IMO. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dave at taht.net Mon Feb 18 09:24:35 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:24:35 -0800 Subject: [ih] WiFi, DV, and transmission delay In-Reply-To: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> (Noel Chiappa's message of "Sat, 16 Feb 2019 19:49:20 -0500 (EST)") References: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <87va1h57sc.fsf@taht.net> jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes: > > From: Dave Taht > > > These days I periodically work on the babeld DV routing protocol. Among > > other things it now has an RTT based metric ... It's generally been my > > hope, that with the addition of fair queuing ... that the early > > experiences with DV being problematic were... early bufferbloat. > > I don't think so (and in any events IMPs had such a small amount of buffering > that they couldn't do extreme buffer-bloat if they wanted to!) Newer updates > being in the processing queue behind older updates (which is kind of the > key thing that's going on in buffer-bloat, IIRC) were no doubt an issue, but > the problems were more fundamental. The queue may not have been building at the imp but in the app. Didn't arpanet also have some forms of flow control? I see that the size of the listen queue was noted as a potential problem in one of the arpanet documents that I've now read this week, and timeouts in general seem to have been a hard problem to conceptualize and formalize. One big side-effect of the bufferbloat effort is we also switchd the linux world to head drop queuing rather than tail drop, with suitable algorithms (rfc8290 and 8289, sch_fq) to resist starvation. TCP RTOs due to tail drop vanished, stale information such as routing packets or voip rarely gets sent. A lot of folk including myself were very nervous about the stability of this, but so far so good. In terms of tackling many of the problems wifi has - slow bus arbitration, bursty transmits, I'm kind of fiercely proud of what we did in "ending the anomaly": https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00064.pdf > The thing is that a DV routing architecture is fundamentally a distributed > computation - i.e. node A does a tiny bit of the work, hands its intermediate > data output to node B, repeat many times. This is fundamentally different > from LS and its descendants, where everyone gets the basic data at about the > same time, and then does all the computation _locally_, in parallel. > > Although both links and processors are _much_ faster than they used to be, > the speed of light (IOW point-point transmission delays) hasn't changed. > So in whatever equation one uses to describe the settling time (i.e. the > amount of time needed for everyone's tables to fully update and settle down), > a major term will not have improved. Later on in this thread was extrapolation of wired networks speed without enough terms to capture how weird wireless ones are in comparison. > Although the two different approaches are probably not _that_ far off, now, > since real-time delay (RTD) in flooding data is also significant. The > difference will be if the DV calculation requires multiple intermediate > computational steps (i.e. a node having to process more than one incoming > routing table update for a given destination), in which the RTD will repeat > and accumulate, so it will probably always have a higher settling time than > Map Distibution approaches such as LS. > > Anyway, if one is dealing with a network in which the rate of connectivity > change is faster, in real time, than the settling time, hilarity > ensues. Agreed. Add head drop queuing though... > The > ARPANET's use of a poorly smoothed delay metric (well, load-sensitive routing > _was_ a goal), which increased the dynamicity of the inputs, made things > considerably worse. yes! in the fq world though the delay is a function of the number of flows, not packets. Much, much smoother. > > Now, since then work has been done on DV algorithms, to improve > thing like count-to-infinity, etc, which I didn't pay a lot of attention to, > since for other reason (policy routing, Byzantine robustness, etc) I decided > MD was the way to go. I just did not like the 'distributed computation' > aspect (which is fundamental in DV); it just felt less robust. In terms of a referent for DV vs LS, for the last decade or so meshy wireless networks were failng due to excessive (oft infinite) queuing. Now that's fixed trying to figure out if olsrv2 (LS) or babel (DV) or something else is on my mind going forward and as is trying to tease apart "gut historical knowlege" from what we think is fixed in succeding decades. For example packet loss is now a lousy routing metric. Retries at the mac layer largely eliminate that. Being sensitive to RTT - helps. Can we be sensitive to smaller variance in RTT than 10s of ms? don't know. Should we respond to ecn? don't know. should we go control plane and tie things to out of band data, don't know. > > Anyway, IIRC, that DV work reduced the number of multiple intermediate > computational steps (above) in many (most? all?) cases, so that would be > a big help on that influence on settling time. My defense of (at least babel's implementation of) dv in this case is that that individual computation pushes packets in more or less the right direction incrementally, instead of a global "kerchunk" as in LS. > > Alas, I don't remember any key names/titles to look up on that work; maybe > some early IGRP thing references it? One name that keep coming up in my mind > as associate with it is Zaw-Sing Su. There's someone else who I think did > more, but I just can't rember who it was. > > > But clearly BGP 'works', so maybe this is a case where it's 'good enough', > and an less capable technology has won out. > > Anyway, you should read the 'problem analysis' section of BBN 3803; > available here: > > https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a053450.pdf > > and see to what degree it still applies. thx!!!!! I wish I'd join this list decades ago! > Noel From craig at tereschau.net Mon Feb 18 09:48:57 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:48:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] WiFi, DV, and transmission delay In-Reply-To: <87va1h57sc.fsf@taht.net> References: <20190217004920.4A0DB18C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87va1h57sc.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: In the late 1980s Van Jacobson gave a great talk about the interaction between TCP windows and the ARPANET windows (controlled by RFNUM messages as I recall). What I don't remember is whether it was an IETF talk or and End-to-End Task Force talk. If it is an IETF talk, it is in the minutes. Craig On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:41 AM Dave Taht wrote: > jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes: > > > > From: Dave Taht > > > > > These days I periodically work on the babeld DV routing protocol. > Among > > > other things it now has an RTT based metric ... It's generally > been my > > > hope, that with the addition of fair queuing ... that the early > > > experiences with DV being problematic were... early bufferbloat. > > > > I don't think so (and in any events IMPs had such a small amount of > buffering > > that they couldn't do extreme buffer-bloat if they wanted to!) Newer > updates > > being in the processing queue behind older updates (which is kind of the > > key thing that's going on in buffer-bloat, IIRC) were no doubt an issue, > but > > the problems were more fundamental. > > The queue may not have been building at the imp but in the app. Didn't > arpanet also have some forms of flow control? I see that the size of the > listen queue was noted as a potential problem in one of the arpanet > documents > that I've now read this week, and timeouts in general seem to have been > a hard problem to conceptualize and formalize. > > One big side-effect of the bufferbloat effort is we also switchd the > linux world to head drop queuing rather than tail drop, with suitable > algorithms (rfc8290 and 8289, sch_fq) to resist starvation. TCP RTOs due > to tail drop vanished, stale information such as routing packets or voip > rarely gets sent. > > A lot of folk including myself were very nervous about the stability of > this, but so far so good. > > In terms of tackling many of the problems wifi has - slow bus > arbitration, bursty transmits, I'm kind of fiercely proud of what > we did in "ending the anomaly": > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00064.pdf > > > > The thing is that a DV routing architecture is fundamentally a > distributed > > computation - i.e. node A does a tiny bit of the work, hands its > intermediate > > data output to node B, repeat many times. This is fundamentally different > > from LS and its descendants, where everyone gets the basic data at about > the > > same time, and then does all the computation _locally_, in parallel. > > > > Although both links and processors are _much_ faster than they used to > be, > > the speed of light (IOW point-point transmission delays) hasn't changed. > > So in whatever equation one uses to describe the settling time (i.e. the > > amount of time needed for everyone's tables to fully update and settle > down), > > a major term will not have improved. > > Later on in this thread was extrapolation of wired networks speed without > enough terms to capture how weird wireless ones are in comparison. > > > Although the two different approaches are probably not _that_ far off, > now, > > since real-time delay (RTD) in flooding data is also significant. The > > difference will be if the DV calculation requires multiple intermediate > > computational steps (i.e. a node having to process more than one incoming > > routing table update for a given destination), in which the RTD will > repeat > > and accumulate, so it will probably always have a higher settling time > than > > Map Distibution approaches such as LS. > > > > Anyway, if one is dealing with a network in which the rate of > connectivity > > change is faster, in real time, than the settling time, hilarity > > ensues. > > Agreed. Add head drop queuing though... > > > The > > ARPANET's use of a poorly smoothed delay metric (well, load-sensitive > routing > > _was_ a goal), which increased the dynamicity of the inputs, made things > > considerably worse. > > yes! in the fq world though the delay is a function of the number of > flows, not packets. Much, much smoother. > > > > > Now, since then work has been done on DV algorithms, to improve > > thing like count-to-infinity, etc, which I didn't pay a lot of attention > to, > > since for other reason (policy routing, Byzantine robustness, etc) I > decided > > MD was the way to go. I just did not like the 'distributed computation' > > aspect (which is fundamental in DV); it just felt less robust. > > In terms of a referent for DV vs LS, for the last decade or so meshy > wireless networks were failng due to excessive (oft infinite) queuing. > > Now that's fixed trying to figure out if olsrv2 (LS) or babel (DV) or > something else is on my mind going forward and as is trying to tease > apart "gut historical knowlege" from what we think is fixed in succeding > decades. > > For example packet loss is now a lousy routing metric. Retries at the > mac layer largely eliminate that. Being sensitive to RTT - helps. Can we > be sensitive to smaller variance in RTT than 10s of ms? don't > know. Should we respond to ecn? don't know. should we go control plane > and tie things to out of band data, don't know. > > > > > > Anyway, IIRC, that DV work reduced the number of multiple intermediate > > computational steps (above) in many (most? all?) cases, so that would be > > a big help on that influence on settling time. > > My defense of (at least babel's implementation of) dv in this case is > that that individual computation pushes packets in more or less the > right direction incrementally, instead of a global "kerchunk" as in LS. > > > > > Alas, I don't remember any key names/titles to look up on that work; > maybe > > some early IGRP thing references it? One name that keep coming up in my > mind > > as associate with it is Zaw-Sing Su. There's someone else who I think did > > more, but I just can't rember who it was. > > > > > > But clearly BGP 'works', so maybe this is a case where it's 'good > enough', > > and an less capable technology has won out. > > > > Anyway, you should read the 'problem analysis' section of BBN 3803; > > available here: > > > > https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a053450.pdf > > > > and see to what degree it still applies. > > thx!!!!! I wish I'd join this list decades ago! > > > Noel > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Mon Feb 18 10:53:20 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:53:20 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: <4264d170-1477-974b-036f-a3582894c981@dcrocker.net> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> <4264d170-1477-974b-036f-a3582894c981@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:27 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/18/2019 7:35 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up > > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial > > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. > > > I believe KA9Q created a lingua franca for PC use of the Internet, > within the technical community. That counted as a major improvement, IMO. IMO: Phil (who was a friend and former lab partner at CMU) did an outstanding great job; although I would say FTP SW folks in Andover may have been more important from a commercial standpoint. Best I can tell, Phil's implementation was popular in the ham community where he originally released it to use over radio TTY HW. The MIT's guys (I believe for Project Athena) and then created FTP actually made a product that was tuned to PC Ethernet HW (and DOS). I had access to both implementations at the time. For instance, we used the FTP stuff for a project at Mass General Hospital, even though it cost a few hundred dollars and Phil's was 'open source'. But FTP SW's solution was more polished and integrated better into their environment. Phil's stuff was a 'hackers tool kit' and although I personally had it running at home, I can say I was reluctant to use it someplace where I was not there to 'maintain it.' One of the differences is that FTP guys did the important thing of creating a socket implementation for windows and thus were able to port a lot of the UNIX code using the 386 'DOS extender' from Pharlap and early 386/C compiler. For a short time, they seemed to be winning the IP for PC battle until MSFT got the IP religion and included an IP/TCP implementation in Win95. Clem > > ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Mon Feb 18 11:37:33 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:37:33 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> <4264d170-1477-974b-036f-a3582894c981@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: I was on the FTP board when MS released TCP/IP for DOS. It killed the market for FTP. V On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 14:16 Clem Cole > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:27 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > >> On 2/18/2019 7:35 AM, Tony Finch wrote: >> > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up >> > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial >> > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. >> >> >> I believe KA9Q created a lingua franca for PC use of the Internet, >> within the technical community. That counted as a major improvement, IMO. > > IMO: Phil (who was a friend and former lab partner at CMU) did an > outstanding great job; although I would say FTP SW folks in Andover may > have been more important from a commercial standpoint. Best I can tell, > Phil's implementation was popular in the ham community where he originally > released it to use over radio TTY HW. > > The MIT's guys (I believe for Project Athena) and then created FTP > actually made a product that was tuned to PC Ethernet HW (and DOS). I had > access to both implementations at the time. For instance, we used the FTP > stuff for a project at Mass General Hospital, even though it cost a few > hundred dollars and Phil's was 'open source'. But FTP SW's solution was > more polished and integrated better into their environment. Phil's stuff > was a 'hackers tool kit' and although I personally had it running at home, > I can say I was reluctant to use it someplace where I was not there to > 'maintain it.' > > One of the differences is that FTP guys did the important thing of > creating a socket implementation for windows and thus were able to port a > lot of the UNIX code using the 386 'DOS extender' from Pharlap and early > 386/C compiler. For a short time, they seemed to be winning the IP for PC > battle until MSFT got the IP religion and included an IP/TCP implementation > in Win95. > > Clem > > > > > > >> >> > ? > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Mon Feb 18 11:42:12 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:42:12 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials > in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be > a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of > investment in product development. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Feb 18 14:06:23 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:06:23 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter < >brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > >> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >> investment in product development. >> >> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile > > >Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the >coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which >was >OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were >sure it >would not work on a manufacturing floor). > >But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too >expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the >cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like >X.25 >ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to >make it >so it was worth it. > >In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy >something >that cost more and in the end, did less? >? I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. -- Dave Crocker bbiw.net via phone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lyndon at orthanc.ca Mon Feb 18 14:34:56 2019 From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:34:56 -0800 Subject: [ih] KA9Q and Gandalf Technologies In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <42acf3c152b0c60d@orthanc.ca> Tony Finch writes: > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. A (perhaps) little known historical side note, Gandalf Technologies (makers of the infamous PACX), licensed Phil's code to use as the basis of their attempt to move from serial terminal<->host multiplexing (the PACX was just a big RS-232 crossbar switch) to gaining a foothold in the rapidly evolving TCP-based terminal server space. Sadly, the company never made the transition. But, before their demise, their line driver modems connected a hell of a lot of remote terminals and RJE stations to mainframes and mini's all across Canada (at least). --lyndon From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 15:18:05 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:18:05 +1300 Subject: [ih] KA9Q and Gandalf Technologies In-Reply-To: <42acf3c152b0c60d@orthanc.ca> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> <42acf3c152b0c60d@orthanc.ca> Message-ID: <513fecc2-24d9-311a-b03d-a33427732ba6@gmail.com> On 2019-02-19 11:34, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > Tony Finch writes: > >> I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up >> later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial >> Internet users who relied on KA9Q. > > A (perhaps) little known historical side note, Gandalf Technologies > (makers of the infamous PACX), licensed Phil's code to use as the > basis of their attempt to move from serial terminal<->host multiplexing > (the PACX was just a big RS-232 crossbar switch) to gaining a > foothold in the rapidly evolving TCP-based terminal server space. They never had a chance. Everybody wanted a Mac, PC or NCD on their desk, not a dumb terminal, by the time they came by trying to sell what was basically telnet support, iirc. We had quite a few PACXen at CERN, but they were ripped out as fast as we installed Cheapernet. Brian > Sadly, the company never made the transition. But, before their > demise, their line driver modems connected a hell of a lot of remote > terminals and RJE stations to mainframes and mini's all across > Canada (at least). > > --lyndon > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Feb 18 15:25:27 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:25:27 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> <4264d170-1477-974b-036f-a3582894c981@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: In the 90s I was at Oracle, and our products were users of TCP, SPX, OSI, and anything else you had at the time.? Getting something to work in all of those environments was a real hassle. Even just within TCP, it wasn't simple... At one point, I recall that there were over 30 distinct implementations of TCP for the PC.? After the MS release, it wasn't long before there was just a single implementation.?? I think a similar pattern happened in other OSes; multiple implementations eventually melded into a single implementation which came with the OS. TCP was designed to provide great flexibility to the TCP implementer, who could (and had to) choose a packetization strategy, buffer schemes, retransmission timing, and other such parts of a particular implementation. That led to a range of implementations, with differences beyond just cost and usability.?? One might be highly memory-efficient.? Another might be computationally "light".? For the same transfer of a particular dataset across a network, there could be vast differences in the number and sizes of packets produced by different implementations.?? We could see this as we tested with all the different TCP implementations, even on the same computer. When "the" TCP became part of the OS, all of those choices disappeared.?? That simplification was obviously an asset.? But IMHO it was also a liability. /Jack On 2/18/19 11:37 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > I was on the FTP board when MS released TCP/IP for DOS. It killed the > market for FTP. > V > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 14:16 Clem Cole wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:27 PM Dave Crocker > wrote: > > On 2/18/2019 7:35 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I > turned up > > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up > commercial > > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. > > > I believe KA9Q created a lingua franca for PC use of the > Internet, > within the technical community.? That counted as a major > improvement, IMO. > > IMO: Phil (who was a friend and former lab partner at CMU) did an > outstanding great job; although I would say FTP SW folks in > Andover may have been more important from a commercial > standpoint.? ?Best I can tell, Phil's implementation was popular > in the ham community where he originally released it to use over > radio TTY HW. > > The MIT's guys (I believe for Project Athena) and then created FTP > actually made a product that was tuned to PC Ethernet HW (and > DOS).? I had access to both implementations at the time. For > instance, we used the FTP stuff for a project at Mass General > Hospital, even though it cost a few hundred dollars and Phil's was > 'open source'.? ?But FTP SW's solution was more polished and > integrated better into their environment.? ?Phil's stuff was a > 'hackers tool kit' and although I personally had it running at > home, I can say I was reluctant to use it someplace where I was > not there to 'maintain it.' > > One of the differences is that FTP guys did the important thing of > creating a socket implementation for windows and thus were able to > port a lot of the UNIX code using the 386 'DOS extender' from > Pharlap and early 386/C compiler.? ?For a short time, they seemed > to be winning the IP for PC battle until MSFT got the IP religion > and included an IP/TCP implementation in Win95. > > Clem > > > > > ?? > > ? > > ? > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for > assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sob at sobco.com Mon Feb 18 15:26:07 2019 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:26:07 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols Scott > On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: > They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials > in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be > a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of > investment in product development. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile > > Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). > > But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. > > In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? > ? > > I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. > -- > Dave Crocker > bbiw.net > > via phone > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From lyndon at orthanc.ca Mon Feb 18 15:38:49 2019 From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:38:49 -0800 Subject: [ih] KA9Q and Gandalf Technologies In-Reply-To: <513fecc2-24d9-311a-b03d-a33427732ba6@gmail.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> <42acf3c152b0c60d@orthanc.ca> <513fecc2-24d9-311a-b03d-a33427732ba6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <42acf405eb0933fc@orthanc.ca> Brian E Carpenter writes: > > A (perhaps) little known historical side note, Gandalf Technologies > > (makers of the infamous PACX), licensed Phil's code to use as the > > basis of their attempt to move from serial terminal<->host multiplexing > > (the PACX was just a big RS-232 crossbar switch) to gaining a > > foothold in the rapidly evolving TCP-based terminal server space. > > They never had a chance. Everybody wanted a Mac, PC or NCD on their desk, > not a dumb terminal, by the time they came by trying to sell what was > basically telnet support, iirc. As near as I can tell Gandalf was trying to take over the dialup modem interconnect market. They got smoked by the (Livingston?) Portmaster 2, which, while relatively expensive, was nowhere near as expensive as what Gandalf was trying to charge for their equivalent hardware. And then commodity direct-connect T1 modem banks came along, after which Telebit failed as well. --lyndon From clemc at ccc.com Mon Feb 18 16:07:52 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem cole) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:07:52 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> Message-ID: Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. Clem Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code > produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that > was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would > be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead > that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols > > Scott > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >> investment in product development. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >> >> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >> >> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >> >> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >> ? >> >> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> bbiw.net >> >> via phone >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ocl at gih.com Mon Feb 18 16:11:25 2019 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:11:25 +0000 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <02f50fb5-5b5c-ad9f-7674-50398af0ae34@gih.com> On 18/02/2019 15:35, Tony Finch wrote: > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. It was key to the Internet's development in the UK. Cliff Stanford started Demon Internet using Phil's KA9Q stack. Without it, dial-up Internet access at home/work was just not possible. Kindest regards, Olivier (who when he started consulting whilst at university, set-up so many Demon Internet accounts for small organisations :-) ) -- Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arussell at arussell.org Mon Feb 18 16:14:04 2019 From: arussell at arussell.org (Andrew Russell) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:14:04 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> Message-ID: <845BADB9-DE74-46FF-8848-05D9ECE2C407@arussell.org> I?d be very interested to learn the identity of that vendor, and equally interested to hear educated guesses. Andy > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code > produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that > was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would > be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead > that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols > > Scott > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >> investment in product development. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >> >> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >> >> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >> >> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >> ? >> >> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> bbiw.net >> >> via phone >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From sob at sobco.com Mon Feb 18 16:22:46 2019 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:22:46 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <845BADB9-DE74-46FF-8848-05D9ECE2C407@arussell.org> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C 38FF31697@sobco.com> <845BADB9-DE74-46FF-8848-05D9ECE2C407@arussell.org> Message-ID: <57953E29-46F2-49C7-86F0-12FDE45B63C5@sobco.com> Dennis told me & I have forgotten - but it was a major (if not the major) supplier of OSI software at the time Scott > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Andrew Russell wrote: > > I?d be very interested to learn the identity of that vendor, and equally interested to hear educated guesses. > > Andy > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> >> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >> >> Scott >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> >>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>> investment in product development. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>> >>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>> >>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>> >>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>> ? >>> >>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>> -- >>> Dave Crocker >>> bbiw.net >>> >>> via phone >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From sob at sobco.com Mon Feb 18 16:26:33 2019 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:26:33 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> Message-ID: <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe big companies were not comfortable in betting their future on small-company code - but that is just a guess one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have had a government-blessed implementation which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) something to point at to justify their regulations Scott > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole wrote: > > Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment > > It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. > > Clem > > Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > >> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >> >> Scott >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> >>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>> investment in product development. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>> >>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>> >>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>> >>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>> ? >>> >>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>> -- >>> Dave Crocker >>> bbiw.net >>> >>> via phone >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From touch at strayalpha.com Mon Feb 18 16:41:38 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:41:38 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <845BADB9-DE74-46FF-8848-05D9ECE2C407@arussell.org> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <845BADB9-DE74-46FF-8848-05D9ECE2C407@arussell.org> Message-ID: FWIW, there was a version of OSI that anyone could get from UPenn. While I was a grad student there (88-92), I ended up handling requests, which involved making a tape in the format of the requester?s choosing (9-track, 8mm, etc.) and packing it up with a few ?ISO/OSI? enamel pins and shipping it out. I recall only 2-3 such requests, though. Joe > On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:14 PM, Andrew Russell wrote: > > I?d be very interested to learn the identity of that vendor, and equally interested to hear educated guesses. > > Andy > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> >> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >> >> Scott >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> >>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>> investment in product development. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>> >>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>> >>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>> >>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>> ? >>> >>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>> -- >>> Dave Crocker >>> bbiw.net >>> >>> via phone >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From steve at shinkuro.com Mon Feb 18 16:43:08 2019 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:43:08 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <57953E29-46F2-49C7-86F0-12FDE45B63C5@sobco.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C 38FF31697@sobco.com> <845BADB9-DE74-46FF-8848-05D9ECE2C407@arussell.org> <57953E29-46F2-49C7-86F0-12FDE45B63C5@sobco.com> Message-ID: Dennis is likely available. Dennis.Jennings at knous.ie Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:22 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > Dennis told me & I have forgotten - but it was a major (if not the major) supplier of OSI software at the time > > Scott > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Andrew Russell wrote: >> >> I?d be very interested to learn the identity of that vendor, and equally interested to hear educated guesses. >> >> Andy >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >>> >>> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >>> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >>> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >>> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >>> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>> >>>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>>> investment in product development. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>>> >>>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>>> >>>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>>> >>>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>>> ? >>>> >>>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>>> -- >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> bbiw.net >>>> >>>> via phone >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 18 17:15:38 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:15:38 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> Message-ID: <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> ISO/OSI was backed by the Commerce Department, but TCP was the darling of the Defense Department. RB > On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe big companies were not comfortable in betting their > future on small-company code - but that is just a guess > > one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have had a government-blessed implementation > which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) something to point at to justify their > regulations > > Scott > > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole wrote: >> >> Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment >> >> It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. >> >> Clem >> >> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. >> >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> >>> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >>> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >>> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >>> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >>> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>> >>>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>>> investment in product development. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>>> >>>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>>> >>>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>>> >>>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>>> ? >>>> >>>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>>> -- >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> bbiw.net >>>> >>>> via phone >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sob at sobco.com Mon Feb 18 17:20:52 2019 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:20:52 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> Message-ID: <104E4CA4-DD5E-4B79-AD20-DB43E02EB458@sobco.com> and OSI (i.e. GOSIP) was a procurement requirement for a while (at least for government funded projects and some big companies) and pushed as the future by most trade and rags and industry analysts (mostly the same ones that later pushed ATM as the future) Scott > On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > > ISO/OSI was backed by the Commerce Department, but TCP was the darling of the Defense Department. > > RB > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> >> agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe big companies were not comfortable in betting their >> future on small-company code - but that is just a guess >> >> one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have had a government-blessed implementation >> which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) something to point at to justify their >> regulations >> >> Scott >> >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole wrote: >>> >>> Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment >>> >>> It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. >>> >>> Clem >>> >>> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. >>> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >>> >>>> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >>>> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >>>> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >>>> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >>>> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>>>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>>>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>>>> investment in product development. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>>>> >>>>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>>>> >>>>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>>>> >>>>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>> bbiw.net >>>>> >>>>> via phone >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 18 17:35:10 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:35:10 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <104E4CA4-DD5E-4B79-AD20-DB43E02EB458@sobco.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> <104E4CA4-DD5E-4B79-AD20-DB43E02EB458@sobco.com> Message-ID: <8DCD7C9D-A84F-409A-8B09-D81EB663F3B2@bennett.com> OSI is the network of the future and always will be. RB > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:20 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > and OSI (i.e. GOSIP) was a procurement requirement for a while (at least for government funded projects and some big companies) > and pushed as the future by most trade and rags and industry analysts (mostly the same ones that later pushed ATM as the future) > > Scott > > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >> >> ISO/OSI was backed by the Commerce Department, but TCP was the darling of the Defense Department. >> >> RB >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >>> >>> agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe big companies were not comfortable in betting their >>> future on small-company code - but that is just a guess >>> >>> one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have had a government-blessed implementation >>> which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) something to point at to justify their >>> regulations >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole wrote: >>>> >>>> Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment >>>> >>>> It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. >>>> >>>> Clem >>>> >>>> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. >>>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >>>>> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >>>>> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >>>>> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >>>>> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>>>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>>>>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>>>>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>>>>> investment in product development. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>>>>> >>>>>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>>>>> >>>>>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>>> bbiw.net >>>>>> >>>>>> via phone >>>>>> _______ >>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> > ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Mon Feb 18 18:10:02 2019 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 02:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? thanks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1419881554.1321723.1550542202878@mail.yahoo.com> I don't remember Radia Perlman's ideas for supporting network partitioning and coalescing. SRI did have a project where we did a few experiments at SAC demonstrating a solution to this problem using the ARPAnet and Packet Radio networks. We did go out to Offutt for demonstrations? using their aircraft.? This was in the mid 80's.? I also think I may have given a demonstration of the protocols during? IETF 4 at SRI to a few people. I believe Zaw-Sing Su and Jim Mathis worked on the design of the Reconstitution Protocols. I took part in the development and demonstration . Mark Lewis also participated in the project as a developer and maybe more since I was not part of the project initially.? I am pretty sure there was a paper at MILCOM about this work.? I believe there was also a RFP in this same time frame asking for solutions to islands of connectivity that may happen as a result of military conflict.? I worked on the SRI proposal at least twice if my memory is correct. (I? think there may have been a protest to the original award so that is why the second proposal.) I don't remember if this project was ever awarded to anyone. barbara On Saturday, February 16, 2019, 9:26:54 AM PST, internet-history-request at postel.org wrote: Send internet-history mailing list submissions to ??? internet-history at postel.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ??? http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ??? internet-history-request at postel.org You can reach the person managing the list at ??? internet-history-owner at postel.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..." Today's Topics: ? 1. Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? ? ? ? (Craig Partridge) ? 2. Re: Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to survive a ? ? ? nuclear war appeared for the first time? (John Day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:35:10 -0700 From: Craig Partridge Subject: Re: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? To: Bob Hinden Cc: internet history Message-ID: ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Bob: You are right about the implementations being in parallel for a while.? I'm going to get the dates slightly wrong but Bill's code came out in 4.1c (1982?) and BBN kept maintaining its implementation (Dennis Rockwell and then Bob Walsh) until c. 1985.? Indeed, as I recall there was a debate c. 1985 at DARPA about whether to force Berkeley to use the BBN code (which had been modified to use the sockets API, which everyone agreed was better -- I had a small part in the port to sockets). I believe that when the TCP/IP project transitioned to me (c. 1987?), I stopped effort on the BBN TCP/IP.? I think we had to maintain it a bit as we'd licensed it to a workstation vendor (Apollo????).? Karen Lam and David Waitzman switched to the BSD TCP/IP and we did things like help Steve Deering implement multicast and such. Thanks! Craig On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:24 AM Bob Hinden wrote: > Craig, > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Craig Partridge > wrote: > > > > Important historical nit.? I was the manager of the BBN UNIX TCP/IP > effort after Rob Gurwitz left (I think Rob inherited it from Jack Haverty, > but not sure).? The BSD stack with sockets *was not written by BBN*.? It > was written by Bill Joy at Berkeley -- using the earlier BBN 4BSD code as a > reference.? Entirely new code, but originally bug-for-bug compatible > (indeed, years later, when a bug was found in the BSD TCP, the BSD folks > stood up and said "that's a bug from BBN?) > > My memory is that they both were maintained in parallel for several > years.? Also, Bill Joy's TCP stack also had the ?trailers? feature where > the headers were at the end of the packet.? Documented in RFC893 ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc893).? Probably not so good for packet > switching, but better performance on some host implementations.? That faded > away at some point. > > Bob > > -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190216/7f311f34/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:18:27 -0500 From: John Day Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to ??? survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? To: Steve Crocker Cc: internet-history at postel.org Message-ID: <32E6E6ED-2C77-47A4-B374-EAB335638B69 at comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In the FWIW category, I remember that network partitions (between the East and West Coasts) occurred, not often but often enough to be noticeable, until the 3rd cross-country line went in. Then they were pretty much a rarity, if they occurred at all. Illinois was one of the jumping off points between East and West, so perhaps we just noticed them more. John > On Feb 16, 2019, at 11:25, Steve Crocker wrote: > > My brother forwarded the appended thread.? It reminded me that I had previously been unsuccessful at joining this list, but I am now on the list. > > Over the years I have heard many times from many different people and also seen in print the idea that the Arpanet was motivated and built for nuclear survivability.? Moreover, Steve Lukasik, the director of (D)ARPA for several of the critical years, included this as one of his reasons for signing the checks for the Arpanet. > > I think it will be helpful to make a couple of distinctions regarding network survivability.? Let me offer two dimensions and at least two levels of disruption for each. > > Equipment outage: When a link or a router becomes unusable, it's necessary to route around the loss.? It makes a big difference if only a few links or routers are down versus a significant fraction are down.? In normal circumstances, it is expected some lines and some routers will be out of service from time to time.? In contrast, if there is an attack, the outages might be substantial and perhaps purposefully coordinated. > > Traffic level: In normal operation, the total traffic is within the capacity of the network.? In extraordinary times, the traffic level surges beyond the capacity of the system.? Surges happen for various reasons.? There might be a very popular web site, e.g. the Victoria Secrets incident, or a DDoS attack. > > Arguably the Arpanet design addressed survivability for the case when a small number of links or routers were out and traffic levels were normal.? Alex colorfully describes Frank Heart's concerns for the risks to individual IMPs placed in the very risky environments of universities. > > The Arpanet design did not address the issue of large scale outages nor did it include strategies for dealing with overload.? In contrast, a serious design to address post-nuclear operation would have had to address the combination of substantial loss of equipment and a huge spike in urgent traffic. > > In the conversations I've had with Lukasik on this matter, he says he had in mind the technology could lead to designs that would have that level of survivability, and that it was helpful to include this in defending the funding for the network.? And, as Vint says, subsequent projects explored reconstitution in the event of certain kinds of disconnections.? However, I believe the level of outages explored in those projects were well below the levels that would have occurred in a large scale nuclear confrontation. > > In 2017, I ran this question past Larry Roberts.? His short reply was he would have had to connect each IMP to four others instead of only two or three others. > > Steve > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject:? ? ? ? Re: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a > nuclear war appeared for the first time? > Date:? Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:30:36 -0500 > From:? Vint Cerf > > To:? ? Alex McKenzie > > CC:? ? internet history > > > > > Alex is essentially correct. Paul Baran's work WAS aimed at post-nuclear > survival but he never got to try his ideas out as they > were rejected as unimplementable or uninteresting by a circuit-switching > oriented Defense Communications Agency. > > Larry Roberts was clear that the ARPANET was intended to support > resource sharing. > > By the time Bob Kahn and I started working on Internet with its focus on > command/control, the issue of survivability > was back on the table.? The multi-network design contemplated multiple > networks operated by distinct entities > (in the DoD perspective it was multiple countries or aggregates like > NATO) and resilience was important. I went > so far as to commission a test in which we flew packet radios in > Strategic Air Command aircraft, artificially "broke" > the ARPANET up into fragments and re-integrated them through ground to > air packet radio connectivity. I was > particularly worried about the partitioning of a constituent network > which would cause great confusion for? the > routing algorithm (a source gateway might know know to which "half" of > the fragmented network a packet should > be sent. My hazy recollection is that Radia Perlman came up with a way > to solve that problem that involved > creating new autonomous systems out of each "piece" and re-enabling > routing algorithms. > > vint > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:18 PM Alex McKenzie > >> wrote: > >? ? ? Miles, > >? ? ? I believe the emphasis on survivability came from Frank Heart. >? ? ? Building the early ARPAnet was a very risky project, in the sense >? ? ? that there was a tight deadline, it would be easy to see if it >? ? ? worked or not, and most people didn't believe it would work. >? ? ? Frank's reputation was very much on the line.? The ruggedized IMP >? ? ? cabinet was part of his emphasis on controlling everything the team >? ? ? could control, to minimize risk.? But the particular risks the >? ? ? ruggedized cabinet was intended to protect against were: >? ? ? - careless site personnel, who cared about their own computers but >? ? ? might be expected to stick the IMP in a storage closet where >? ? ? maintenance workers would bump it, and >? ? ? - graduate students who might be inclined to study it, perhaps with >? ? ? destructive results. (Lest this seem outlandish, the TIP in Hawaii >? ? ? was a sore spot of unreliability? when I was running the NCC - >? ? ? turned out a graduate student was crashing it every day by taping >? ? ? into its power supply which was just right for his project.? The TIP >? ? ? was NOT in a ruggedized box.) >? ? ? The group was not trying to protect against EMP. > >? ? ? More generally, if the ARPAnet had been designed to survive a >? ? ? nuclear attack it would have been necessary to insure that the >? ? ? IMP-to_IMP circuits did not go through the small number of Telco >? ? ? offices which made up the Telco backbone.? No effort was made to >? ? ? influence the provisioning of these circuits, and it can be presumed >? ? ? that loss of only a few major cities would have resulted in most of >? ? ? the leased lines disappearing. > >? ? ? Cheers, >? ? ? Alex > >? ? ? On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:48 AM Miles Fidelman >? ? ? >> wrote: > >? ? ? ? ? Bernie, > >? ? ? ? ? On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > >? ? ? ? On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta > >? ? ? ? > > >? ? ? ? > wrote: > > > >> > >>? ? ? ? ? Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of > >>? ? ? ? them I > >>? ? ? ? found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): > >>? ? ? ? "Internet > >>? ? ? ? (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as > >>? ? ? ? far as I > >>? ? ? ? know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as > >>? ? ? ? a research > >>? ? ? ? network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > > >? ? ? ? my take on that is that there were two lines of thought > >? ? ? ? leading up to the > >? ? ? ? ARPAnet.? very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was > >? ? ? ? thinking > >? ? ? ? about how the military command and control might be able to > >? ? ? ? continue functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR > >? ? ? ? Licklider, who was thinking > >? ? ? ? about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas > >? ? ? ? and results > >? ? ? ? to better collaborate. > > > >? ? ? ? when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the > >? ? ? ? easier to > >? ? ? ? understand to the average person, raather than the more > >? ? ? ? diaphanous idea > >? ? ? ? of researcher collaboration.? so Baran's take kinda caught the > >? ? ? ? public > >? ? ? ? imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was > >? ? ? ? the it was > >? ? ? ? {somehow? :o)} to be a research tool. > > >? ? ? ? ? You were involved a lot earlier than I was.? Perhaps you could >? ? ? ? ? comment on how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the >? ? ? ? ? early days.? It's always struck me that things like >? ? ? ? ? continuity-of-operations, in the face of node & link outages, >? ? ? ? ? and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the >? ? ? ? ? beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to >? ? ? ? ? survive everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and >? ? ? ? ? coincidentally, nuclear war. > >? ? ? ? ? On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes >? ? ? ? ? (not so much C/30s and such).? Were any of the IMPs built to >? ? ? ? ? withstand EMP? > >? ? ? ? ? Miles > > > >? ? ? ? ? --? ? ? ? In theory, there is no difference between theory and > practice. >? ? ? ? ? In practice, there is.? .... Yogi Berra > >? ? ? ? ? _______ >? ? ? ? ? internet-history mailing list >? ? ? ? ? internet-history at postel.org > >? ? ? ? ? http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >? ? ? ? ? Contact list-owner at postel.org > for >? ? ? ? ? assistance. > >? ? ? _______ >? ? ? internet-history mailing list >? ? ? internet-history at postel.org > >? ? ? http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >? ? ? Contact list-owner at postel.org > for >? ? ? assistance. > > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190216/027e514b/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ internet-history mailing list internet-history at postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. End of internet-history Digest, Vol 126, Issue 24 ************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Mon Feb 18 18:45:20 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:45:20 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> Message-ID: not so richard. By 1983, DOD had officially endorsed OSI. v On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:02 PM Richard Bennett wrote: > ISO/OSI was backed by the Commerce Department, but TCP was the darling of > the Defense Department. > > RB > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe > big companies were not comfortable in betting their > future on small-company code - but that is just a guess > > one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have had > a government-blessed implementation > which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) > something to point at to justify their > regulations > > Scott > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole wrote: > > Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment > > It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. > > Clem > > Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not > quite. > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was > involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code > produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at > the very last minute the vendor that > was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed > out because they thought it would > be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different > if Dennis had succeeded, instead > that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols > > Scott > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials > in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be > a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of > investment in product development. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile > > Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the > coolaid with their MAP/TOP push > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was > OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it > would not work on a manufacturing floor). > > But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too > expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the > cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 > ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it > so it was worth it. > > In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy > something that cost more and in the end, did less? > ? > > I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. > The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected > users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and > reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. > -- > Dave Crocker > bbiw.net > > via phone > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 18 18:54:32 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:54:32 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> Message-ID: <71E15181-F92A-45B9-9D7D-CFEF9E866736@bennett.com> They issued a statement to that effect, yes. But I don?t think they actually stopped supporting TCP. Anyhow, ISO/OSI wasn?t even implementable without the OSI Implementors? Workshop agreements on subsetting the myriad options. RB > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > not so richard. By 1983, DOD had officially endorsed OSI. > > v > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:02 PM Richard Bennett > wrote: > ISO/OSI was backed by the Commerce Department, but TCP was the darling of the Defense Department. > > RB > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner > wrote: >> >> agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe big companies were not comfortable in betting their >> future on small-company code - but that is just a guess >> >> one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have had a government-blessed implementation >> which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) something to point at to justify their >> regulations >> >> Scott >> >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole > wrote: >>> >>> Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment >>> >>> It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. >>> >>> Clem >>> >>> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. >>> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner > wrote: >>> >>>> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >>>> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >>>> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >>>> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >>>> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >>>>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>>>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>>>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>>>> investment in product development. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>>>> >>>>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>>>> >>>>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>>>> >>>>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>> bbiw.net >>>>> >>>>> via phone >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Mon Feb 18 18:58:04 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:58:04 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <71E15181-F92A-45B9-9D7D-CFEF9E866736@bennett.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> <71E15181-F92A-45B9-9D7D-CFEF9E866736@bennett.com> Message-ID: well actually, the procurement side did stop supporting acquisition of TCP. NSF picked up the ball in 1982. It really wasn't until about 1993 that the USG gave up on OSI. Think about GOSIP for example. v On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:54 PM Richard Bennett wrote: > They issued a statement to that effect, yes. But I don?t think they > actually stopped supporting TCP. > > Anyhow, ISO/OSI wasn?t even implementable without the OSI Implementors? > Workshop agreements on subsetting the myriad options. > > RB > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > not so richard. By 1983, DOD had officially endorsed OSI. > > v > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:02 PM Richard Bennett > wrote: > >> ISO/OSI was backed by the Commerce Department, but TCP was the darling of >> the Defense Department. >> >> RB >> >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> >> agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe >> big companies were not comfortable in betting their >> future on small-company code - but that is just a guess >> >> one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have >> had a government-blessed implementation >> which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) >> something to point at to justify their >> regulations >> >> Scott >> >> >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole wrote: >> >> Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment >> >> It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. >> >> Clem >> >> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not >> quite. >> >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> >> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he >> was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but >> at the very last minute the vendor that >> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed >> out because they thought it would >> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been >> different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >> >> Scott >> >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter < >> brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: >> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >> investment in product development. >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >> >> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the >> coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which >> was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were >> sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >> >> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too >> expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the >> cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 >> ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it >> so it was worth it. >> >> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy >> something that cost more and in the end, did less? >> ? >> >> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. >> The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected >> users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and >> reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> bbiw.net >> >> via phone >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Feb 18 19:07:15 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:07:15 -0800 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? thanks In-Reply-To: <1419881554.1321723.1550542202878@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1419881554.1321723.1550542202878@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I vaguely remember being at a meeting sometime in the mid-80s.? Some government/military/contractor site, but can't remember where.? It was a large (15 or 20) group of people, none of whom I knew.? They were using lots of jargon I didn't recognize too.? I had come in a bit late. One of the terms that cropped up was "New Dets Per Second".? I knew what bits/second were, and kilobits/sec., and similar networky things, but had never heard "New Dets Per Second". After a while, the meaning became clear from context....? It was actually "NuDets/Second", shorthand for "Nuclear Detonations Per Second". I then finally realized I was in the wrong meeting. So someone was thinking about such things... /Jack On 2/18/19 6:10 PM, Barbara Denny wrote: > I don't remember Radia Perlman's ideas for supporting network > partitioning and coalescing. > > SRI did have a project where we did a few experiments at SAC > demonstrating a solution to this problem using the ARPAnet and Packet > Radio networks. We did go out to Offutt for demonstrations? using > their aircraft.? This was in the mid 80's.? I also think I may have > given a demonstration of the protocols during? IETF 4 at SRI to a few > people. > > I believe Zaw-Sing Su and Jim Mathis worked on the design of the > Reconstitution Protocols. I took part in the development and > demonstration . Mark Lewis also participated in the project as a > developer and maybe more since I was not part of the project > initially.? I am pretty sure there was a paper at MILCOM about this work.? > > I believe there was also a RFP in this same time frame asking for > solutions to islands of connectivity that may happen as a result of > military conflict.? I worked on the SRI proposal at least twice if my > memory is correct. (I? think there may have been a protest to the > original award so that is why the second proposal.) I don't remember > if this project was ever awarded to anyone. > > barbara > > > On Saturday, February 16, 2019, 9:26:54 AM PST, > internet-history-request at postel.org > wrote: > > > Send internet-history mailing list submissions to > ??? internet-history at postel.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > ??? http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ??? internet-history-request at postel.org > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ??? internet-history-owner at postel.org > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > ? 1. Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? > ? ? ? (Craig Partridge) > ? 2. Re: Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to survive a > ? ? ? nuclear war appeared for the first time? (John Day) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:35:10 -0700 > From: Craig Partridge > > Subject: Re: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? > To: Bob Hinden > > Cc: internet history > > Message-ID: > ??? > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Bob: > > You are right about the implementations being in parallel for a > while.? I'm > going to get the dates slightly wrong but Bill's code came out in 4.1c > (1982?) and BBN kept maintaining its implementation (Dennis Rockwell and > then Bob Walsh) until c. 1985.? Indeed, as I recall there was a debate c. > 1985 at DARPA about whether to force Berkeley to use the BBN code (which > had been modified to use the sockets API, which everyone agreed was better > -- I had a small part in the port to sockets). > > I believe that when the TCP/IP project transitioned to me (c. 1987?), I > stopped effort on the BBN TCP/IP.? I think we had to maintain it a bit as > we'd licensed it to a workstation vendor (Apollo????).? Karen Lam and > David > Waitzman switched to the BSD TCP/IP and we did things like help Steve > Deering implement multicast and such. > > Thanks! > > Craig > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:24 AM Bob Hinden > wrote: > > > Craig, > > > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Craig Partridge > > > wrote: > > > > > > Important historical nit.? I was the manager of the BBN UNIX TCP/IP > > effort after Rob Gurwitz left (I think Rob inherited it from Jack > Haverty, > > but not sure).? The BSD stack with sockets *was not written by BBN*.? It > > was written by Bill Joy at Berkeley -- using the earlier BBN 4BSD > code as a > > reference.? Entirely new code, but originally bug-for-bug compatible > > (indeed, years later, when a bug was found in the BSD TCP, the BSD folks > > stood up and said "that's a bug from BBN?) > > > > My memory is that they both were maintained in parallel for several > > years.? Also, Bill Joy's TCP stack also had the ?trailers? feature where > > the headers were at the end of the packet.? Documented in RFC893 ( > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc893).? Probably not so good for packet > > switching, but better performance on some host implementations.? > That faded > > away at some point. > > > > Bob > > > > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and > mailing lists. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190216/7f311f34/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:18:27 -0500 > From: John Day > > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to > ??? survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? > To: Steve Crocker > > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <32E6E6ED-2C77-47A4-B374-EAB335638B69 at comcast.net > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > In the FWIW category, I remember that network partitions (between the > East and West Coasts) occurred, not often but often enough to be > noticeable, until the 3rd cross-country line went in. Then they were > pretty much a rarity, if they occurred at all. Illinois was one of the > jumping off points between East and West, so perhaps we just noticed > them more. > > John > > > On Feb 16, 2019, at 11:25, Steve Crocker > wrote: > > > > My brother forwarded the appended thread.? It reminded me that I had > previously been unsuccessful at joining this list, but I am now on the > list. > > > > Over the years I have heard many times from many different people > and also seen in print the idea that the Arpanet was motivated and > built for nuclear survivability.? Moreover, Steve Lukasik, the > director of (D)ARPA for several of the critical years, included this > as one of his reasons for signing the checks for the Arpanet. > > > > I think it will be helpful to make a couple of distinctions > regarding network survivability.? Let me offer two dimensions and at > least two levels of disruption for each. > > > > Equipment outage: When a link or a router becomes unusable, it's > necessary to route around the loss.? It makes a big difference if only > a few links or routers are down versus a significant fraction are > down.? In normal circumstances, it is expected some lines and some > routers will be out of service from time to time.? In contrast, if > there is an attack, the outages might be substantial and perhaps > purposefully coordinated. > > > > Traffic level: In normal operation, the total traffic is within the > capacity of the network.? In extraordinary times, the traffic level > surges beyond the capacity of the system.? Surges happen for various > reasons.? There might be a very popular web site, e.g. the Victoria > Secrets incident, or a DDoS attack. > > > > Arguably the Arpanet design addressed survivability for the case > when a small number of links or routers were out and traffic levels > were normal.? Alex colorfully describes Frank Heart's concerns for the > risks to individual IMPs placed in the very risky environments of > universities. > > > > The Arpanet design did not address the issue of large scale outages > nor did it include strategies for dealing with overload.? In contrast, > a serious design to address post-nuclear operation would have had to > address the combination of substantial loss of equipment and a huge > spike in urgent traffic. > > > > In the conversations I've had with Lukasik on this matter, he says > he had in mind the technology could lead to designs that would have > that level of survivability, and that it was helpful to include this > in defending the funding for the network.? And, as Vint says, > subsequent projects explored reconstitution in the event of certain > kinds of disconnections.? However, I believe the level of outages > explored in those projects were well below the levels that would have > occurred in a large scale nuclear confrontation. > > > > In 2017, I ran this question past Larry Roberts.? His short reply > was he would have had to connect each IMP to four others instead of > only two or three others. > > > > Steve > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject:? ? ? ? Re: [ih] When the words Internet was design to > survive a > > nuclear war appeared for the first time? > > Date:? Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:30:36 -0500 > > From:? Vint Cerf > >> > > To:? ? Alex McKenzie >> > > CC:? ? internet history > >> > > > > > > > > Alex is essentially correct. Paul Baran's work WAS aimed at > post-nuclear > > survival but he never got to try his ideas out as they > > were rejected as unimplementable or uninteresting by a > circuit-switching > > oriented Defense Communications Agency. > > > > Larry Roberts was clear that the ARPANET was intended to support > > resource sharing. > > > > By the time Bob Kahn and I started working on Internet with its > focus on > > command/control, the issue of survivability > > was back on the table.? The multi-network design contemplated multiple > > networks operated by distinct entities > > (in the DoD perspective it was multiple countries or aggregates like > > NATO) and resilience was important. I went > > so far as to commission a test in which we flew packet radios in > > Strategic Air Command aircraft, artificially "broke" > > the ARPANET up into fragments and re-integrated them through ground to > > air packet radio connectivity. I was > > particularly worried about the partitioning of a constituent network > > which would cause great confusion for? the > > routing algorithm (a source gateway might know know to which "half" of > > the fragmented network a packet should > > be sent. My hazy recollection is that Radia Perlman came up with a way > > to solve that problem that involved > > creating new autonomous systems out of each "piece" and re-enabling > > routing algorithms. > > > > vint > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:18 PM Alex McKenzie > > > > > > >>> > wrote: > > > >? ? ? Miles, > > > >? ? ? I believe the emphasis on survivability came from Frank Heart. > >? ? ? Building the early ARPAnet was a very risky project, in the sense > >? ? ? that there was a tight deadline, it would be easy to see if it > >? ? ? worked or not, and most people didn't believe it would work. > >? ? ? Frank's reputation was very much on the line.? The ruggedized IMP > >? ? ? cabinet was part of his emphasis on controlling everything the team > >? ? ? could control, to minimize risk.? But the particular risks the > >? ? ? ruggedized cabinet was intended to protect against were: > >? ? ? - careless site personnel, who cared about their own computers but > >? ? ? might be expected to stick the IMP in a storage closet where > >? ? ? maintenance workers would bump it, and > >? ? ? - graduate students who might be inclined to study it, perhaps with > >? ? ? destructive results. (Lest this seem outlandish, the TIP in Hawaii > >? ? ? was a sore spot of unreliability? when I was running the NCC - > >? ? ? turned out a graduate student was crashing it every day by taping > >? ? ? into its power supply which was just right for his project.? > The TIP > >? ? ? was NOT in a ruggedized box.) > >? ? ? The group was not trying to protect against EMP. > > > >? ? ? More generally, if the ARPAnet had been designed to survive a > >? ? ? nuclear attack it would have been necessary to insure that the > >? ? ? IMP-to_IMP circuits did not go through the small number of Telco > >? ? ? offices which made up the Telco backbone.? No effort was made to > >? ? ? influence the provisioning of these circuits, and it can be > presumed > >? ? ? that loss of only a few major cities would have resulted in most of > >? ? ? the leased lines disappearing. > > > >? ? ? Cheers, > >? ? ? Alex > > > >? ? ? On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:48 AM Miles Fidelman > >? ? ? > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >? ? ? ? ? Bernie, > > > >? ? ? ? ? On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > > > >? ? ? ? On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta > > >? ? ? ? > >> > > >? ? ? ? > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>? ? ? ? ? Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of > > >>? ? ? ? them I > > >>? ? ? ? found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): > > >>? ? ? ? "Internet > > >>? ? ? ? (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as > > >>? ? ? ? far as I > > >>? ? ? ? know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as > > >>? ? ? ? a research > > >>? ? ? ? network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > > > > >? ? ? ? my take on that is that there were two lines of thought > > >? ? ? ? leading up to the > > >? ? ? ? ARPAnet.? very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was > > >? ? ? ? thinking > > >? ? ? ? about how the military command and control might be able to > > >? ? ? ? continue functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR > > >? ? ? ? Licklider, who was thinking > > >? ? ? ? about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas > > >? ? ? ? and results > > >? ? ? ? to better collaborate. > > > > > >? ? ? ? when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the > > >? ? ? ? easier to > > >? ? ? ? understand to the average person, raather than the more > > >? ? ? ? diaphanous idea > > >? ? ? ? of researcher collaboration.? so Baran's take kinda caught the > > >? ? ? ? public > > >? ? ? ? imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was > > >? ? ? ? the it was > > >? ? ? ? {somehow? :o)} to be a research tool. > > > > >? ? ? ? ? You were involved a lot earlier than I was.? Perhaps you could > >? ? ? ? ? comment on how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the > >? ? ? ? ? early days.? It's always struck me that things like > >? ? ? ? ? continuity-of-operations, in the face of node & link outages, > >? ? ? ? ? and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the > >? ? ? ? ? beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to > >? ? ? ? ? survive everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and > >? ? ? ? ? coincidentally, nuclear war. > > > >? ? ? ? ? On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes > >? ? ? ? ? (not so much C/30s and such).? Were any of the IMPs built to > >? ? ? ? ? withstand EMP? > > > >? ? ? ? ? Miles > > > > > > > >? ? ? ? ? --? ? ? ? In theory, there is no difference between theory and > > practice. > >? ? ? ? ? In practice, there is.? .... Yogi Berra > > > >? ? ? ? ? _______ > >? ? ? ? ? internet-history mailing list > >? ? ? ? ? internet-history at postel.org > > > > > >> > >? ? ? ? ? http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > >? ? ? ? ? Contact list-owner at postel.org > > >> for > >? ? ? ? ? assistance. > > > >? ? ? _______ > >? ? ? internet-history mailing list > >? ? ? internet-history at postel.org > > > > > >> > >? ? ? http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > >? ? ? Contact list-owner at postel.org > > > > >> for > >? ? ? assistance. > > > > > > > > -- > > New postal address: > > Google > > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > > Reston, VA 20190 > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > bbiw.net > > _______ > > internet-history mailing list > > internet-history at postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > Contact list-owner at postel.org for > assistance. > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190216/027e514b/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for > assistance. > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 126, Issue 24 > ************************************************* > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From craig at tereschau.net Mon Feb 18 19:20:48 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:20:48 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> Message-ID: Remember too that: * OSI was not one protocol stack but multiple stacks (X.25 and TP0 vs. CLNP/TP4 and supposedly choices in between); * For every well-designed protocol (my list has IS-IS, ASN.1 and X.400 - your mileage may vary), there were clunkers (X.500 and CMIP); * The standards cycle (c. 4 years for major revs) just didn't function in a world where we were operating and learning from the Internet daily (protocols could and did change in a matter of months - remembering how slow start swept the 'Net, the SGMP->SNMP transition, and the realization we needed to make timer intervals random). OSI couldn't compete in the places where the stack was evolving. I'd argue IS-IS did well because routing was a largely solved problem (and, insofar as it wasn't solved, the expert solver was Radia and she helped with IS-IS). In other spots the accumulated operational wisdom of the Internet was just too far ahead and, as folks point out, the manpower devoted to the Internet further tilted the balance. Craig On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:01 PM Scott O. Bradner wrote: > agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe > big companies were not comfortable in betting their > future on small-company code - but that is just a guess > > one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have had > a government-blessed implementation > which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) > something to point at to justify their > regulations > > Scott > > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole wrote: > > > > Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment > > > > It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. > > > > Clem > > > > Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not > quite. > > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > > >> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he > was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code > >> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but > at the very last minute the vendor that > >> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, > backed out because they thought it would > >> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been > different if Dennis had succeeded, instead > >> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols > >> > >> Scott > >> > >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > >>> > >>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials > >>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be > >>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of > >>> investment in product development. > >>> > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile > >>> > >>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the > coolaid with their MAP/TOP push > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol > which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they > were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). > >>> > >>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just > too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the > cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 > ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it > so it was worth it. > >>> > >>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy > something that cost more and in the end, did less? > >>> ? > >>> > >>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the > small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of > connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul > and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. > >>> -- > >>> Dave Crocker > >>> bbiw.net > >>> > >>> via phone > >>> _______ > >>> internet-history mailing list > >>> internet-history at postel.org > >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > >> > >> > >> _______ > >> internet-history mailing list > >> internet-history at postel.org > >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 18 19:26:30 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:26:30 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> <71E15181-F92A-45B9-9D7D-CFEF9E866736@bennett.com> Message-ID: How about that. > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:58 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > well actually, the procurement side did stop supporting acquisition of TCP. NSF picked up the ball in 1982. > It really wasn't until about 1993 that the USG gave up on OSI. Think about GOSIP for example. > > v > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:54 PM Richard Bennett > wrote: > They issued a statement to that effect, yes. But I don?t think they actually stopped supporting TCP. > > Anyhow, ISO/OSI wasn?t even implementable without the OSI Implementors? Workshop agreements on subsetting the myriad options. > > RB > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:45 PM, Vint Cerf > wrote: >> >> not so richard. By 1983, DOD had officially endorsed OSI. >> >> v >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:02 PM Richard Bennett > wrote: >> ISO/OSI was backed by the Commerce Department, but TCP was the darling of the Defense Department. >> >> RB >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner > wrote: >>> >>> agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe big companies were not comfortable in betting their >>> future on small-company code - but that is just a guess >>> >>> one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have had a government-blessed implementation >>> which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) something to point at to justify their >>> regulations >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole > wrote: >>>> >>>> Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment >>>> >>>> It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. >>>> >>>> Clem >>>> >>>> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. >>>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >>>>> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >>>>> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >>>>> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >>>>> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >>>>>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>>>>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>>>>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>>>>> investment in product development. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>>>>> >>>>>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>>>>> >>>>>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>>> bbiw.net >>>>>> >>>>>> via phone >>>>>> _______ >>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Mon Feb 18 19:27:40 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:27:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <845BADB9-DE74-46FF-8848-05D9ECE2C407@arussell.org> Message-ID: On 2/18/19 5:41 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > FWIW, there was a version of OSI that anyone could get from UPenn. While > I was a grad student there (88-92), I ended up handling requests, which > involved making a tape in the format of the requester?s choosing > (9-track, 8mm, etc.) and packing it up with a few ?ISO/OSI? enamel > pins and shipping it out. I recall only 2-3 such requests, though. Is it wrong that I'd like to be able to make such a request now? -- Grant. . . . unix || die From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Mon Feb 18 19:35:24 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:35:24 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization (was Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?) In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> <4264d170-1477-974b-036f-a3582894c981@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <0266301a-0556-7b29-eee6-74e0fb9968b3@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 2/18/19 4:25 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > When "the" TCP became part of the OS, all of those choices > disappeared.?? That simplification was obviously an asset.? But IMHO it > was also a liability. And here we are in a day and age when multiple companies are re-introducing TCP/IP stacks in user space along side the kernel's TCP/IP stack. My $EMPLOYER is doing it with their own code. I'm fairly sure that NetFlix and CloudFlare are doing it too. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From bill.n1vux at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 19:35:10 2019 From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:35:10 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> Message-ID: Vint says > not so richard. By 1983, DOD had officially endorsed OSI. Indeed. DoD formal endorsement of OSI was Mike Padlipsky's cross to bear. His portion of our Department at MITRE was on the DODIIS procurement. (DODIIS was the compartmented secure fork of the MILNET fork of the DARPA Internet for "the community".) "They" were very unhappy with his pointed commentary on ISO OSI not being ready for real use, let alone being "bad art". Luckily his pointedest papers were approved for public release in 1982. I erred in replying off-list over the weekend -- remedied below. -- Bill Ricker The Literary Estate of M.A.P. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bill Ricker Date: Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? To: Brian E Carpenter fwiw, it was by then two years after the rant** which marked my own > epiphany. [...] > ** B.E. Carpenter, Is OSI Too Late?, RARE Networkshop 1989, Computer > Networks and ISDN Systems, 17 (1989) 284-286, DOI > 10.1016/0169-7552(89)90040-8 > Now that the words "rant" and "epiphany" have been mentioned, I should mention that such epiphanies were foretold by a ranting prophet, not respected in his own bureaucracy (a metaphoric country, as is traditional since Cassandra): M.A.Padlipsky's *Tea-Bag Papers* of 1982. (The original private-circulation edition of these technical papers came with a coverpage with photocopied Salada tea-bag-tag-lines, hence the sobriquet.) - RFC871: A Perspective on the ARPANet Reference Model - RFC872: TCP-on-a-LAN - RFC873: Illusion of vendor support - RFC874: Critique of X.25 - RFC875: Gateways, architectures, and heffalumps which are summarized by his pastiche of a Tuna advertisement of the day which made it into one of the Quotes files: On Networking Architecture "Do you want protocols that look nice or protocols that work nice?'' Mike Padlipsky, internet architect -- Bitmover Quote file These papers were the "existing draft" that Mike showed to the Prentice-Hall field editor through whom I'd ordered another colleague's book as alternate text for a class -- Unix for Secretaries -- who'd asked me if I'd like to write a technical book, and I said no, but my colleague Mike has the beginnings of one, and thus became the core of *The Elements of Networking Style (& Other Essays & Animadversions of the Art of Intercomputer Networking*), 1985. (So yes, I'm implicated marginally, which is why I'm here.) Alas the Literary Estate of A.A.Milne refused to grant mechanical copyright to include the actual Heffalump quotation in the book. (Possibly they feeling burned by "*The Tao of Poo*"?) IIRC the GOSIPing ISORMites in DODIIS management - his nominal customer at MITRE while continuing to do WG like things - were not most pleased, and his later commentary on ISO OSI RM vis-a-vis TCP/IP had to be "handkerchiefed" to hide the "constructive snottiness" (and/or privately circulated). -- Bill Ricker The Literary Estate of M.A.P. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 20:16:46 2019 From: alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com (Alejandro Acosta) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:16:46 -0400 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a9e78f8-acef-e198-914b-37d989c7a317@gmail.com> Hello.? ? Thanks all for your reply !! very valuable information. Alejandro, El 14/2/19 a las 09:44, Alejandro Acosta escribi?: > Hello All, > > ? Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of them I > found the phrase (that all of you have listened before):? "Internet > (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as far as I > know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as a research > network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > ? My question would be: when the words "designed to survive a nuclear > war" appeared for the first time? > > > Thanks, > > > Alejandro, > > From paf at frobbit.se Mon Feb 18 22:02:14 2019 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:02:14 +0100 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <5858D6CF-D82A-4B3A-8091-36412F4162A2@sobco.com> <94CD7DF4-6541-4B62-B464-F588CD50568C@bennett.com> Message-ID: For a good description of OSI/TCP in Europe, see the travel log in the book by Carl Malamud. It starts with Dublin on page 90 and then continues with Amsterdam which is the really really interesting part. Explains a lot of the situation. Another person to talk with is Bernhard Stockman, the first non-US Area Director of the IETF and instrumental to among other things get the IETF to Stockholm 1995. The most famous quote is in the book from Carl Malamud is from when Bernard kicked off large scale TCP/IP in Europe by stating: "I will take everything you contribute and turn it into something that works." And that was basically what we in Scandinavia promised when we from mid-1980 promised "things that worked" and pushed the IP stack of protocols in parallel with others pushing the OSI stack, including X.400 until the Y2k projects ultimately killed them. Patrik On 19 Feb 2019, at 2:15, Richard Bennett wrote: > ISO/OSI was backed by the Commerce Department, but TCP was the darling of the Defense Department. > > RB > >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> >> agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall?s book behind it - maybe big companies were not comfortable in betting their >> future on small-company code - but that is just a guess >> >> one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have had a government-blessed implementation >> which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US) something to point at to justify their >> regulations >> >> Scott >> >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole wrote: >>> >>> Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment >>> >>> It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. >>> >>> Clem >>> >>> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. >>> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >>> >>>> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code >>>> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that >>>> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would >>>> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead >>>> that vendor?s business died along with the OSI protocols >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials >>>>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be >>>>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of >>>>> investment in product development. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile >>>>> >>>>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). >>>>> >>>>> But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it. >>>>> >>>>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less? >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not. >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>> bbiw.net >>>>> >>>>> via phone >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 256 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gnu at toad.com Tue Feb 19 01:54:51 2019 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 01:54:51 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization In-Reply-To: <02f50fb5-5b5c-ad9f-7674-50398af0ae34@gih.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> <02f50fb5-5b5c-ad9f-7674-50398af0ae34@gih.com> Message-ID: <7964.1550570091@hop.toad.com> On 18/02/2019 15:35, Tony Finch wrote: > > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up > > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial > > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?= wrote: > It was key to the Internet's development in the UK. Cliff Stanford > started Demon Internet using Phil's KA9Q stack. Without it, dial-up > Internet access at home/work was just not possible. We started a prominent San Francisco Bay Area ISP, The Little Garden, using Phil Karn's KA9Q MSDOS software to handle leased lines and dialup modems in 2 locations in August 1990. I was one of the techies who cobbled it together, with a leased line to the very early Alternet, then we hired Tom Jennings, who had also implemented the FIDOnet, to professionalize it for growing to serve other sites. It gradually grew it into a real ISP with ten megabits of upstream connections. The Little Garden offered the first commercial dialup Internet connections in Mountain View and San Francisco, CA, and also offered 56Kbit DS0 and Frame Relay, and 1.5Mbit T1 connections. Because of our libertarian usage policies, low prices, and solid technical chops, we became the backbone for dozens of small ISPs in Northern California, like ScruzNet (Santa Cruz), NBnet (North Bay), etc. We wouldn't have gotten it off the ground without KA9Q, which was the only cheap and modifiable way to gateway multiple dialup or nailed-up modems to the early commercial leased-line Internet. Eventually KA9Q was too flakey for our level of traffic, and we replaced it with commercial routers, but that was after a year or two of KA9Q service. John Gilmore From vint at google.com Tue Feb 19 04:07:39 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:07:39 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization In-Reply-To: <7964.1550570091@hop.toad.com> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <865bc360-e841-0d74-8f75-b25c6dfa0713@3kitty.org> <02f50fb5-5b5c-ad9f-7674-50398af0ae34@gih.com> <7964.1550570091@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: nice story - nostalgic too. v On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:06 AM John Gilmore wrote: > On 18/02/2019 15:35, Tony Finch wrote: > > > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up > > > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial > > > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. > > =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?= wrote: > > It was key to the Internet's development in the UK. Cliff Stanford > > started Demon Internet using Phil's KA9Q stack. Without it, dial-up > > Internet access at home/work was just not possible. > > We started a prominent San Francisco Bay Area ISP, The Little Garden, > using Phil Karn's KA9Q MSDOS software to handle leased lines and dialup > modems in 2 locations in August 1990. I was one of the techies who > cobbled it together, with a leased line to the very early Alternet, then > we hired Tom Jennings, who had also implemented the FIDOnet, to > professionalize it for growing to serve other sites. It gradually grew > it into a real ISP with ten megabits of upstream connections. The > Little Garden offered the first commercial dialup Internet connections > in Mountain View and San Francisco, CA, and also offered 56Kbit DS0 and > Frame Relay, and 1.5Mbit T1 connections. Because of our libertarian > usage policies, low prices, and solid technical chops, we became the > backbone for dozens of small ISPs in Northern California, like ScruzNet > (Santa Cruz), NBnet (North Bay), etc. > > We wouldn't have gotten it off the ground without KA9Q, which was the > only cheap and modifiable way to gateway multiple dialup or nailed-up > modems to the early commercial leased-line Internet. Eventually KA9Q > was too flakey for our level of traffic, and we replaced it with > commercial routers, but that was after a year or two of KA9Q service. > > John Gilmore > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Tue Feb 19 04:38:26 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:38:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? thanks In-Reply-To: References: <1419881554.1321723.1550542202878@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Barbara is right about the SRI role in the SAC tests - I may be misremembering the reconsittution protocol solutions and would be happy to get better information from Jim or Zaw-Sing if they are still around. I think the tests I remember were done in 1982. Charlie Brown was involved as an Air Force officer at the time. Vint On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:18 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > I vaguely remember being at a meeting sometime in the mid-80s. Some > government/military/contractor site, but can't remember where. It was a > large (15 or 20) group of people, none of whom I knew. They were using > lots of jargon I didn't recognize too. I had come in a bit late. > > One of the terms that cropped up was "New Dets Per Second". I knew what > bits/second were, and kilobits/sec., and similar networky things, but had > never heard "New Dets Per Second". > > After a while, the meaning became clear from context.... It was actually > "NuDets/Second", shorthand for "Nuclear Detonations Per Second". > > I then finally realized I was in the wrong meeting. > > So someone was thinking about such things... > > /Jack > On 2/18/19 6:10 PM, Barbara Denny wrote: > > I don't remember Radia Perlman's ideas for supporting network partitioning > and coalescing. > > SRI did have a project where we did a few experiments at SAC demonstrating > a solution to this problem using the ARPAnet and Packet Radio networks. We > did go out to Offutt for demonstrations using their aircraft. This was in > the mid 80's. I also think I may have given a demonstration of the > protocols during IETF 4 at SRI to a few people. > > I believe Zaw-Sing Su and Jim Mathis worked on the design of the > Reconstitution Protocols. I took part in the development and demonstration > . Mark Lewis also participated in the project as a developer and maybe more > since I was not part of the project initially. I am pretty sure there was > a paper at MILCOM about this work. > > I believe there was also a RFP in this same time frame asking for > solutions to islands of connectivity that may happen as a result of > military conflict. I worked on the SRI proposal at least twice if my > memory is correct. (I think there may have been a protest to the original > award so that is why the second proposal.) I don't remember if this project > was ever awarded to anyone. > > barbara > > > On Saturday, February 16, 2019, 9:26:54 AM PST, > internet-history-request at postel.org > wrote: > > > Send internet-history mailing list submissions to > internet-history at postel.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > internet-history-request at postel.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > internet-history-owner at postel.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? > (Craig Partridge) > 2. Re: Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to survive a > nuclear war appeared for the first time? (John Day) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:35:10 -0700 > From: Craig Partridge > Subject: Re: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? > To: Bob Hinden > Cc: internet history > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Bob: > > You are right about the implementations being in parallel for a while. I'm > going to get the dates slightly wrong but Bill's code came out in 4.1c > (1982?) and BBN kept maintaining its implementation (Dennis Rockwell and > then Bob Walsh) until c. 1985. Indeed, as I recall there was a debate c. > 1985 at DARPA about whether to force Berkeley to use the BBN code (which > had been modified to use the sockets API, which everyone agreed was better > -- I had a small part in the port to sockets). > > I believe that when the TCP/IP project transitioned to me (c. 1987?), I > stopped effort on the BBN TCP/IP. I think we had to maintain it a bit as > we'd licensed it to a workstation vendor (Apollo????). Karen Lam and David > Waitzman switched to the BSD TCP/IP and we did things like help Steve > Deering implement multicast and such. > > Thanks! > > Craig > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:24 AM Bob Hinden wrote: > > > Craig, > > > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Craig Partridge > > wrote: > > > > > > Important historical nit. I was the manager of the BBN UNIX TCP/IP > > effort after Rob Gurwitz left (I think Rob inherited it from Jack > Haverty, > > but not sure). The BSD stack with sockets *was not written by BBN*. It > > was written by Bill Joy at Berkeley -- using the earlier BBN 4BSD code > as a > > reference. Entirely new code, but originally bug-for-bug compatible > > (indeed, years later, when a bug was found in the BSD TCP, the BSD folks > > stood up and said "that's a bug from BBN?) > > > > My memory is that they both were maintained in parallel for several > > years. Also, Bill Joy's TCP stack also had the ?trailers? feature where > > the headers were at the end of the packet. Documented in RFC893 ( > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc893). Probably not so good for packet > > switching, but better performance on some host implementations. That > faded > > away at some point. > > > > Bob > > > > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and > mailing lists. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190216/7f311f34/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:18:27 -0500 > From: John Day > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to > survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? > To: Steve Crocker > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <32E6E6ED-2C77-47A4-B374-EAB335638B69 at comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > In the FWIW category, I remember that network partitions (between the East > and West Coasts) occurred, not often but often enough to be noticeable, > until the 3rd cross-country line went in. Then they were pretty much a > rarity, if they occurred at all. Illinois was one of the jumping off points > between East and West, so perhaps we just noticed them more. > > John > > > On Feb 16, 2019, at 11:25, Steve Crocker wrote: > > > > My brother forwarded the appended thread. It reminded me that I had > previously been unsuccessful at joining this list, but I am now on the list. > > > > Over the years I have heard many times from many different people and > also seen in print the idea that the Arpanet was motivated and built for > nuclear survivability. Moreover, Steve Lukasik, the director of (D)ARPA > for several of the critical years, included this as one of his reasons for > signing the checks for the Arpanet. > > > > I think it will be helpful to make a couple of distinctions regarding > network survivability. Let me offer two dimensions and at least two levels > of disruption for each. > > > > Equipment outage: When a link or a router becomes unusable, it's > necessary to route around the loss. It makes a big difference if only a > few links or routers are down versus a significant fraction are down. In > normal circumstances, it is expected some lines and some routers will be > out of service from time to time. In contrast, if there is an attack, the > outages might be substantial and perhaps purposefully coordinated. > > > > Traffic level: In normal operation, the total traffic is within the > capacity of the network. In extraordinary times, the traffic level surges > beyond the capacity of the system. Surges happen for various reasons. > There might be a very popular web site, e.g. the Victoria Secrets incident, > or a DDoS attack. > > > > Arguably the Arpanet design addressed survivability for the case when a > small number of links or routers were out and traffic levels were normal. > Alex colorfully describes Frank Heart's concerns for the risks to > individual IMPs placed in the very risky environments of universities. > > > > The Arpanet design did not address the issue of large scale outages nor > did it include strategies for dealing with overload. In contrast, a > serious design to address post-nuclear operation would have had to address > the combination of substantial loss of equipment and a huge spike in urgent > traffic. > > > > In the conversations I've had with Lukasik on this matter, he says he > had in mind the technology could lead to designs that would have that level > of survivability, and that it was helpful to include this in defending the > funding for the network. And, as Vint says, subsequent projects explored > reconstitution in the event of certain kinds of disconnections. However, I > believe the level of outages explored in those projects were well below the > levels that would have occurred in a large scale nuclear confrontation. > > > > In 2017, I ran this question past Larry Roberts. His short reply was he > would have had to connect each IMP to four others instead of only two or > three others. > > > > Steve > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a > > nuclear war appeared for the first time? > > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:30:36 -0500 > > From: Vint Cerf > > > To: Alex McKenzie aamsendonly396 at gmail.com>> > > CC: internet history internet-history at postel.org>> > > > > > > > > Alex is essentially correct. Paul Baran's work WAS aimed at post-nuclear > > survival but he never got to try his ideas out as they > > were rejected as unimplementable or uninteresting by a circuit-switching > > oriented Defense Communications Agency. > > > > Larry Roberts was clear that the ARPANET was intended to support > > resource sharing. > > > > By the time Bob Kahn and I started working on Internet with its focus on > > command/control, the issue of survivability > > was back on the table. The multi-network design contemplated multiple > > networks operated by distinct entities > > (in the DoD perspective it was multiple countries or aggregates like > > NATO) and resilience was important. I went > > so far as to commission a test in which we flew packet radios in > > Strategic Air Command aircraft, artificially "broke" > > the ARPANET up into fragments and re-integrated them through ground to > > air packet radio connectivity. I was > > particularly worried about the partitioning of a constituent network > > which would cause great confusion for the > > routing algorithm (a source gateway might know know to which "half" of > > the fragmented network a packet should > > be sent. My hazy recollection is that Radia Perlman came up with a way > > to solve that problem that involved > > creating new autonomous systems out of each "piece" and re-enabling > > routing algorithms. > > > > vint > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:18 PM Alex McKenzie > > >> > wrote: > > > > Miles, > > > > I believe the emphasis on survivability came from Frank Heart. > > Building the early ARPAnet was a very risky project, in the sense > > that there was a tight deadline, it would be easy to see if it > > worked or not, and most people didn't believe it would work. > > Frank's reputation was very much on the line. The ruggedized IMP > > cabinet was part of his emphasis on controlling everything the team > > could control, to minimize risk. But the particular risks the > > ruggedized cabinet was intended to protect against were: > > - careless site personnel, who cared about their own computers but > > might be expected to stick the IMP in a storage closet where > > maintenance workers would bump it, and > > - graduate students who might be inclined to study it, perhaps with > > destructive results. (Lest this seem outlandish, the TIP in Hawaii > > was a sore spot of unreliability when I was running the NCC - > > turned out a graduate student was crashing it every day by taping > > into its power supply which was just right for his project. The TIP > > was NOT in a ruggedized box.) > > The group was not trying to protect against EMP. > > > > More generally, if the ARPAnet had been designed to survive a > > nuclear attack it would have been necessary to insure that the > > IMP-to_IMP circuits did not go through the small number of Telco > > offices which made up the Telco backbone. No effort was made to > > influence the provisioning of these circuits, and it can be presumed > > that loss of only a few major cities would have resulted in most of > > the leased lines disappearing. > > > > Cheers, > > Alex > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:48 AM Miles Fidelman > > > >> > wrote: > > > > Bernie, > > > > On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > > > > On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta > > > alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com>> > > > alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of > > >> them I > > >> found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): > > >> "Internet > > >> (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as > > >> far as I > > >> know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as > > >> a research > > >> network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > > > > > my take on that is that there were two lines of thought > > > leading up to the > > > ARPAnet. very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was > > > thinking > > > about how the military command and control might be able to > > > continue functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR > > > Licklider, who was thinking > > > about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas > > > and results > > > to better collaborate. > > > > > > when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the > > > easier to > > > understand to the average person, raather than the more > > > diaphanous idea > > > of researcher collaboration. so Baran's take kinda caught the > > > public > > > imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was > > > the it was > > > {somehow :o)} to be a research tool. > > > > > You were involved a lot earlier than I was. Perhaps you could > > comment on how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the > > early days. It's always struck me that things like > > continuity-of-operations, in the face of node & link outages, > > and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the > > beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to > > survive everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and > > coincidentally, nuclear war. > > > > On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes > > (not so much C/30s and such). Were any of the IMPs built to > > withstand EMP? > > > > Miles > > > > > > > > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and > > practice. > > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > > > _______ > > internet-history mailing list > > internet-history at postel.org > > > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history < > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> > > Contact list-owner at postel.org > > for > > assistance. > > > > _______ > > internet-history mailing list > > internet-history at postel.org > > > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history < > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> > > Contact list-owner at postel.org > > for > > assistance. > > > > > > > > -- > > New postal address: > > Google > > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > > Reston, VA 20190 > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > bbiw.net > > _______ > > internet-history mailing list > > internet-history at postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190216/027e514b/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 126, Issue 24 > ************************************************* > > _______ > internet-history mailing listinternet-history at postel.orghttp://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dot at dotat.at Tue Feb 19 06:06:43 2019 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:06:43 +0000 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> Message-ID: <412F1991-8FF5-4631-A2DA-EC6ED745AA04@dotat.at> > On 19 Feb 2019, at 00:07, Clem cole wrote: > > Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose?s ISODE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment > > It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. There is still https://www.isode.com/ - one of their staff, Alexey Melnikov is on the IESG. I believe their X.400 server is a descendent of PP, which in turn came from MMDF. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Tue Feb 19 06:50:54 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:50:54 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <412F1991-8FF5-4631-A2DA-EC6ED745AA04@dotat.at> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <412F1991-8FF5-4631-A2DA-EC6ED745AA04@dotat.at> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:06 AM Tony Finch wrote: > PP, which in turn came from MMDF. > Tony - are you sure its that order? I was under the impression MMDF came first and PP was the descendant, but I'm interested in being enlighted and why you think that was order. FWIW: We ran both at Locus in the late 80s/early 90s. I know we replaced MMDF with PP at one point. IIRC the combined reasons were DNS was changing and the MMDF code was not tracking the user mode API fast enough; plus we needed an interface to X.500 for one of the customers and MMDF could not do it and PP had the code in it already. Like many sites, we distrusted sendmail for a number of reasons (security being high on the list, but being a monolithic solution did not help either). Locus needed a mail system that was flexible and could talk to a number of different custom mail transport agents since our customers were the major computer companies and at that point, each had its own way of doing things. In those days, we could not put our customers' code out on the Internet due to intellectual property issues, as the legal folks were concerned that they could lose their rights because of the store and forward nature. Hence, Locus set up private connections over leased lines or in some cases microwave, to each. Anyway, the email work was done for us in the Boston office by an ex-Pat Scotsman; whose name I now am blanking (grrr - I can picture his face but his name is just not coming -- which is bad we worked together at 3 different firms). Clem ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 19 07:06:30 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:06:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] WiFi, DV, and transmission delay Message-ID: <20190219150630.00EAD18C087@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Dave Taht > The queue may not have been building at the imp but in the app. What app? Sorry, I'm confused by this. The routing was a somewhat low-level function in the IMPs; the hosts never saw it, or knew of it. Or did you mean that user traffic queues were building in the IMP, and the routing updates got buried behind them? I don't recall any more, but routing, liveness, etc packets may have had priority over user traffic; 3803 might mention it. > Didn't arpanet also have some forms of flow control? Yes, RFNM's - a network-level ACK for the delivery of a 'message' (the ARPANET term for a user packet) to the host at the far end. 'Messages' were broken up into smaller packets (I'm not positive of the term used for them, but I think it may - confusingly! - have been 'packet' - let me call them 'frames here) inside the network, so at the destination IMP a 're-assembly buffer' had to be allocated for messages longer than a frame. RFNM's helped prevent the network from being overloaded - but see: J.M. McQuillan, W.R. Crowther, B.P. Cosell, D.C. Walden, and F.E. Heart, "Improvements in the Design and Performance of the ARPA Network", Proceedings AFIPS, 1972 FJCC, Vol. 40, pp. 741-754. for a problem which causes IMPs to wedge. (I'm pretty sure that's available online. If not, let us know.) >> Alas, I don't remember any key names/titles to look up on that work >> ... One name that keep coming up in my mind as associate with it is >> Zaw-Sing Su. There's someone else who I think did more, but I just >> can't rember who it was. Finally remembered who it was; Jose Garcia-Luna. He added a mechanism to DV that basically prevented the formation of loops. I don't recall the details of how it worked, but if you visualize a network as a pool of water, and a connectivity change is a stone dropped into the pool, then the routing updates are like the ripples that spread out from the point of impact. Anyway, IIRC, Jose's mechanism limits changes to a single ripple, so it's even better than loop prevention, it bounds the time to respond to a connectivity change (I _think_ - it's been decades since I looked at it). Anyway, just Google 'routing "garcia-luna"" and a bunch of his stuff will pop up. Anyone using a DV routing system without using his algorithm (or an equivalent) is really missing. RIP doesn't have it because his work post-dates RIP. Noel From clemc at ccc.com Tue Feb 19 08:05:11 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:05:11 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> <98EB53BF-F64D-450B-BEC1-155BB49E1AB8@bennett.com> <40458eda-6221-4a2a-48d7-f06350e1a158@dcrocker.net> <4f193cba-b174-9c0a-2f10-01d49f38478c@gmail.com> <93ADB4DC-CC02-4ABA-83B2-D5E1855FFD87@dcrocker.net> <820D6D91-0865-43BF-9AFF-67C38FF31697@sobco.com> <412F1991-8FF5-4631-A2DA-EC6ED745AA04@dotat.at> Message-ID: Sigh -- parsing error. Re-read that. You did say PP came from MMDF. ? On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:50 AM Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:06 AM Tony Finch wrote: > >> PP, which in turn came from MMDF. >> > Tony - are you sure its that order? I was under the impression MMDF came > first and PP was the descendant, but I'm interested in being enlighted and > why you think that was order. > > FWIW: We ran both at Locus in the late 80s/early 90s. I know we replaced > MMDF with PP at one point. IIRC the combined reasons were DNS was > changing and the MMDF code was not tracking the user mode API fast enough; > plus we needed an interface to X.500 for one of the customers and MMDF > could not do it and PP had the code in it already. > > Like many sites, we distrusted sendmail for a number of reasons (security > being high on the list, but being a monolithic solution did not help > either). Locus needed a mail system that was flexible and could talk to a > number of different custom mail transport agents since our customers were > the major computer companies and at that point, each had its own way of > doing things. In those days, we could not put our customers' code out on > the Internet due to intellectual property issues, as the legal folks were > concerned that they could lose their rights because of the store and > forward nature. Hence, Locus set up private connections over leased lines > or in some cases microwave, to each. > > Anyway, the email work was done for us in the Boston office by an ex-Pat > Scotsman; whose name I now am blanking (grrr - I can picture his face but > his name is just not coming -- which is bad we worked together at 3 > different firms). > > Clem > > ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Tue Feb 19 11:48:08 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:48:08 +1300 Subject: [ih] Fwd: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <20190216130301.gjhtgngoph2bxzal@h-174-65.A328.priv.bahnhof.se> Message-ID: On 2019-02-19 16:35, Bill Ricker wrote: > Vint says >> not so richard. By 1983, DOD had officially endorsed OSI. > > Indeed. > DoD formal endorsement of OSI was Mike Padlipsky's cross to bear. > His portion of our Department at MITRE was on the DODIIS procurement. > (DODIIS was the compartmented secure fork of the MILNET fork of the DARPA > Internet for "the community".) > "They" were very unhappy with his pointed commentary on ISO OSI not being > ready for real use, let alone being "bad art". > Luckily his pointedest papers were approved for public release in 1982. > > I erred in replying off-list over the weekend -- remedied below. And an updated version of my off-list reply is inserted below... > -- > Bill Ricker > The Literary Estate of M.A.P. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Bill Ricker > Date: Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 3:50 PM > Subject: Re: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? > To: Brian E Carpenter > > > > fwiw, it was by then two years after the rant** which marked my own >> epiphany. [...] >> ** B.E. Carpenter, Is OSI Too Late?, RARE Networkshop 1989, Computer >> Networks and ISDN Systems, 17 (1989) 284-286, DOI >> 10.1016/0169-7552(89)90040-8 >> > > Now that the words "rant" and "epiphany" have been mentioned, I should > mention that such epiphanies were foretold by a ranting prophet, not > respected in his own bureaucracy (a metaphoric country, as is traditional > since Cassandra): > > M.A.Padlipsky's *Tea-Bag Papers* of 1982. They still make fun reads. Two points: 1) Most of his arguments equate OSI with X.25/X.75 at layer 3. Of course, those of us actually trying to adopt OSI for research networking mainly rejected that approach and were only interested in CLNP. ISO/IEC 8473:1986 was the first formal CLNP standard, but it was surely in discussion by 1982. I implemented a toy version of ISO DIS 8473 in early 1984, where the tricky bit was fragmentation and reassembly, since our in-house network at CERN had a criminally small MTU size. Unfortunately I have no archives from that period. A little bit of virtual dumpster diving reveals that the ballot version of DIS 8473 was also numbered SC6/N1534, but I haven't found exactly when it was posted for the committee ballot. However, being in Geneva we had no great trouble getting hold of early drafts. 2) The analysis in RFC873 "THE ILLUSION OF VENDOR SUPPORT" was spot on. Many of us were in fact fooled into believing that the products would come at a reasonable cost. Brian > > (The original private-circulation edition of these technical papers came > with a coverpage with photocopied Salada tea-bag-tag-lines, hence the > sobriquet.) > > - RFC871: A Perspective on the > ARPANet Reference Model > - RFC872: TCP-on-a-LAN > - RFC873: Illusion of vendor support > - RFC874: Critique of X.25 > - RFC875: Gateways, architectures, > and heffalumps > > which are summarized by his pastiche of a Tuna advertisement of the day > which made it into one of the Quotes files: > > On Networking Architecture > "Do you want protocols that look nice or protocols that work nice?'' > Mike Padlipsky, internet architect -- Bitmover Quote file > > > These papers were the "existing draft" that Mike showed to the > Prentice-Hall field editor through whom I'd ordered another colleague's > book as alternate text for a class -- Unix for Secretaries -- who'd asked > me if I'd like to write a technical book, and I said no, but my colleague > Mike has the beginnings of one, and thus became the core of *The Elements > of Networking Style (& Other Essays & Animadversions of the Art of > Intercomputer Networking*), 1985. (So yes, I'm implicated marginally, which > is why I'm here.) Alas the Literary Estate of A.A.Milne refused to grant > mechanical copyright to include the actual Heffalump quotation in the book. > (Possibly they feeling burned by "*The Tao of Poo*"?) > > IIRC the GOSIPing ISORMites in DODIIS management - his nominal customer at > MITRE while continuing to do WG like things - were not most pleased, and > his later commentary on ISO OSI RM vis-a-vis TCP/IP had to be > "handkerchiefed" to hide the "constructive snottiness" (and/or privately > circulated). From agmalis at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 10:23:44 2019 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:23:44 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others Message-ID: This is definitely of interest to this list, great video. Cheers, Andy ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Walden Date: Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 5:01 AM Subject: [xbbn] ARPANET 50-year anniversary To: BBN Alumni This year various commemorative activities are happening. One happened this past Sunday at the annual meeting of the AAAS. See https://meetings.aaas.org/arpanet-livestream/ The title frame stops about 1:15 into the video. The repeatable live stream at the URL is supposed to go away at some point but with the URL then reconnecting to a permanent archive location for the video. I don't know if there will be any gap in availability. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Feb 22 12:49:39 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:49:39 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Seems to me that it 50 years might be a good time for many of us to write essays on things we've observed and learned - as network users & builders. We've certainly seen entire industries & societal segments radically reshape themselves around network-centricity - some better than others, some not at all. Me, I've been working on a series of blog posts titled "Notes of a Network Watcher" - focused on how organizations have changed, particularly in how we plan & organize complex activities (mission planning & battle management, political campaigns, transit operations, virtual businesses) in particular - reflecting my own experiences). I'd sure like to see somebody write something on how the management of movie production has changed - just looking at the credits for a modern movie suggests that making a modern movie might be the only human activity more complex than planning & waging war. Anybody out there want to collaborate on a series of chapters to collect into a book on "50 Years of a Network-Centric Society?" (Before we all die off, and leave people to repeat mistakes that we've already made and learned from.) Cheers, Miles Fidelman On 2/22/19 1:23 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > This is definitely of interest to this list, great video. > > Cheers, > Andy > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *David Walden* > > Date: Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 5:01 AM > Subject: [xbbn] ARPANET 50-year anniversary > To: BBN Alumni > > > This year various commemorative activities are happening.? One > happened this past Sunday at the annual meeting of the AAAS. See > https://meetings.aaas.org/arpanet-livestream/ > The title frame stops about 1:15 into the video. > > The repeatable live stream at the URL is supposed to go away at some > point but with the URL then reconnecting to a permanent archive > location for the video. I don't know if there will be any gap in > availability. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galmes at tamu.edu Fri Feb 22 13:42:55 2019 From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:42:55 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andy, It is indeed. The discussion does a great job at exploring the pre-history and early history of the ARPAnet. Quite a bit was new to me, -- Guy On 2/22/19 13:23, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > This is definitely of interest to this list, great video. > > Cheers, > Andy > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *David Walden* > > Date: Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 5:01 AM > Subject: [xbbn] ARPANET 50-year anniversary > To: BBN Alumni > > > This year various commemorative activities are happening.? One happened > this past Sunday at the annual meeting of the AAAS.? See > https://meetings.aaas.org/arpanet-livestream/ > > The title frame stops about 1:15 into the video. > > The repeatable live stream at the URL is supposed to go away at some > point but with the URL then reconnecting to a permanent archive location > for the video. I don't know if there will be any gap in availability. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From dave at taht.net Fri Feb 22 13:55:12 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:55:12 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: (Craig Partridge's message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:34:34 -0700") References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87r2bz5vzz.fsf@taht.net> Craig Partridge writes: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:29 AM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > Responding to two messages in one: > > >> I wonder when (and if) the Internet ever graduated from > "interim > >> solution" status... > >> > >> /Jack Haverty > > In Europe, it was somewhat official when RARE, the research > networks' > association (later renamed TERENA and now named G?ANT) recognized > TCP/IP > as an acceptable solution in January 1990 "without putting into > question > its OSI policy." I think that Dennis Jennings' choice of TCP/IP > for NSFnet > in 1986 (?) was determinant in the US. > > A related question is when the various OSI strategies were > formally dropped. > Possibly never, because of the amour-propre of civil servants. > > > I've argued that the OSI vs. TCP/IP process went through multiple > stages. > > Dennis' decision to adopt TCP/IP for NSFNET was critical. What it led > to was a boom in TCP/IP deployment and thus TCP/IP-based networking > engineering expertise and products. By 1988/1989, the market for > TCP/IP products was much bigger (and visibly so) than OSI and we had > (a small number of) thousands of network engineers who understood how > to put together and operate TCP/IP networks. Furthermore, it was clear > that Novell's solutions didn't scale nicely, so the world-wide network > interconnection space was TCP/IP's, barring unexpected bumps. > > But saying that out loud was a good way to invite retribution. I > suffered one such case in 1989 when in a public forum about network > management, I wanted to point out that the OSI network management > protocols wouldn't work. But I inadvertently said "OSI won't work", It was almost a firing offense at two companies I worked at to say anything bad about OSI in the 85-94 timeframe. It was a massive geek vs management disconnect. TCP/ip kept working, kept evolving, kept spreading. OSI, kept drowning us in documents and marketing materials, and even the IPX/SPX ruled my part of the world and they'd solve long distance communication "real soon now". It was far from the first time "word from above" was disregarded by geeks not on the golf course. I'm a big fan of the kelly johnson rules for engineering, particularly the one about the designers being on the "shop floor" as the thing is built. https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/legendary-skunk-work-founder-kelly-johnsons-rules-of-ma-1708050659 Not just the internet as we know it, but so many other projects have been doomed or delayed in places where the devs go home at 5 and throw the "finished" code over the wall to the sysadmins to deploy. The disconnect nowadays between "rough consensus" in the ietf vs "running code" is one thing that makes me nine kinds of crazy. If it were up to me I'd cut ietf meetings to half a day discussing things and the other half to developing them, much like the linaro conferences do. actually... given the deployment backlog from "established standards" to actual deployment, maybe code should be 9/10s of the work for a while. ... in retrospect ... I think one of the things that helped kill novell was their attempt at selling x.500 services in 92, in an overcomplicated, underworking design. they made the wrong bet here. > which was understood in context, but got picked up by a reporter... As > late as 1991/1992, the IAB still felt it needed to nod towards OSI in > official statements, even though it was clear OSI was dead. It took a > while for that need to be politic to go away. > > Notably, post-Kobe, the IETF promptly killed all its OSI-centered WGs. Learning more about kobe is on my todo list. > Craig From arussell at arussell.org Fri Feb 22 14:24:31 2019 From: arussell at arussell.org (Andrew Russell) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:24:31 -0500 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <87r2bz5vzz.fsf@taht.net> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <87r2bz5vzz.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <1CF4E442-0744-4CB0-A57B-9031B62955CA@arussell.org> Dave - I wrote about Kobe and OSI-Internet stuff in my book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age ?, chapter 7 and 8. You may find that my interpretation there departs from the familiar view espoused by TCP/IP advocates, which is why Shane Greenstein titled his review ?Networking Standards and Russell?s Revisionism ." Andy > On Feb 22, 2019, at 4:55 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > Learning more about kobe is on my todo list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at taht.net Fri Feb 22 14:30:57 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 14:30:57 -0800 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <66416d66-bad2-da90-0189-c0c20455b2a5@gmail.com> (Brian E. Carpenter's message of "Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:17:01 +1300") References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <66416d66-bad2-da90-0189-c0c20455b2a5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87mumn5uce.fsf@taht.net> Brian E Carpenter writes: > On 2019-02-16 08:23, Clem Cole wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:58 PM Craig Partridge wrote: >> >>> >>> Dennis' decision to adopt TCP/IP for NSFNET was critical. >>> >> Hmmm. It certainly did not hurt and I agree was cleafrly an amplifier and >> important. But I'm not sure that was as important as the basic economics >> of the time -> Moore's Law and cheap cycles (i.e. I don't think the NFSNET >> choice, while helped the effect, was not the high order bit on the success >> function). > > I took the original question to be about when the success of TCP/IP became > formally recognized. You are undoubtedly right that its market success was > a result of availability in BSD, with a usable API, just when Unix was taking > off. My original question was kind of overly vague - we'd found a netnews conversation in 89 between jon postel, vint and others that seemingly led to both CIDR and ipv6 ("toaster-net"), as "32 bits is not enough") >From a formal perspective the class B exhaustion documents mentioned on these threads, at two ietfs, kicked restructuring the internet to handle more addresses into higher gear, and it was realized that OSI had no future benefit once that was addressed. ... The writing on the wall moment for IP over OSI seems to be from around the time of the "kobe revolt" from what I've been reading here. All the events in 1992-94 - not just the rework of address spaces, but the opening up of the internet, ISPs getting off the ground, cheap modems, al gore, etc, etc.... ... going off topic yet again: I do think people overstate the early impact of the web nowadays. It was being able to talk to more people you had something in common with than ever before. When I started my ISP in 94, it was netnews and email that were the primary draws, and the web thing was... well... a "browser". Yes, it turned out folk had a huge appetite for cat videos, but huge numbers of folk in college had been exposed to "real email" and netnews and wanted that at home and it was within reach of the average geek, finally. Everybody already had modems to contact compuserve and BBSes, (didn't the first laptops also have integral modems?) so when slip started working, BBSes started to die. There were very few Unix based BBSes (I had a hand in one in 86, and this one in 1990, which amazingly still exists: https://cellar.org/faq.php ) and their draw became "being multiuser". we had real apps also (client/server databases and so on), that helped drive corporate adoption of IP vs ipx. Dialup access to big databases for remote offices was done not via browser but a huge host of tools (now departed) that created a custom UI element over that sql database. I've been sitting here trying to remember some of those. Borland had some, there was a really popular one (power-something) - hundreds and hundreds of dollars per seat that corps were willing to spend to get their remote offices online. It was a heady time! ... OK, here's a story that I rarely tell and is OT: in late 1993 I'd been having a bad time on every front and hadn't slept well for a few months, and my network was under attack, and I was essentially seeing snakes under the bed. I had a discussion with a shrink, and at some point I said something like "my machines talk to millions of people every day". (I was trying to explain netnews). She wrote (and I read, upside down): "The patient is grandiose and delusional". (Thankfully I escaped from that particular interview relatively unscathed and later found a shrink with a physics background that I could actually talk to which straightened me out a lot) A year later we'd found funding for ICANECT and a few months after that we had 16,000 people online doing the same things that clueless shrink had dismissed as fantasy. Me, grandiose? *always* Delusional? Sometimes I worry, but not very often, anymore. From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 15:05:49 2019 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (David Walden) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:05:49 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others Message-ID: On February 22, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >Seems to me that it 50 years might be a good time for many of us to write essays on things we've observed and learned - as network users & builders. >We've certainly seen entire industries & societal segments radically reshape themselves around network-centricity - some better than others, some not at all. For improving the odds that what is written is available to future historians, I hope people consider publishing in explicit journals. The on-line journal Internet Histories might be a place to publish: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showMostReadArticles?journalCode=rint20 The IEEE Annals of the History of Computing is another place. The Annals has several several departments to which different kinds of articles might be a submitted: Feature articles -- https://history.computer.org/annals/ Departments -- https://history.computer.org/annals/departments/ - Biographies, https://history.computer.org/annals/bios/#ref-alphalist - Interviews, https://history.computer.org/annals/interviews/ - Think Piece, https://history.computer.org/annals/departments/ - Anecdotes, https://history.computer.org/annals/anecdotes/writing/ https://history.computer.org/annals/anecdotes/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Feb 22 15:14:56 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:14:56 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'd kind of like to see a special issue of the IEEE annals, or write a collection that present it as a book to MIT press. Then again, Dave - you're one to talk.? Can you say http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/??? :-) Cheers, Miles On 2/22/19 6:05 PM, David Walden wrote: > > On February 22, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: > >Seems to me that it 50 years might be a good time for many of us to write essays on things we've > observed and learned - as network users & builders. > >We've certainly seen entire industries & societal segments radically reshape themselves around > network-centricity- some better than others, some not at all. > > For improving the odds that what is written is available to future > historians, Ihope people consider publishing in explicit journals. > > The on-line journal Internet Histories might be a place to publish: > https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showMostReadArticles?journalCode=rint20 > > The IEEE Annals of the History of Computing is another place.? The > Annals has several several departments to which different kinds of > articles might be a submitted: > Feature articles -- https://history.computer.org/annals/ > Departments -- https://history.computer.org/annals/departments/ > -Biographies, https://history.computer.org/annals/bios/#ref-alphalist > - Interviews, https://history.computer.org/annals/interviews/ > - Think Piece, https://history.computer.org/annals/departments/ > - Anecdotes, https://history.computer.org/annals/anecdotes/writing/ > https://history.computer.org/annals/anecdotes/ > > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Feb 22 15:51:02 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:51:02 -0800 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/22/2019 3:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > I'd kind of like to see a special issue of the IEEE annals, or write a > collection that present it as a book to MIT press. That requires quite a bit of centralized work, as well as filtering out quite a bit. At this point, what is needed is the distributed effort to generate what amounts to source data. Better throughput and reliability... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Feb 22 16:18:16 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:18:16 -0800 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8e1403b8-7b49-bbad-94c7-ef5a31216b85@3kitty.org> On 2/22/19 3:05 PM, David Walden wrote: > For improving the odds that what is written is available to future > historians, Ihope people consider publishing in explicit journals.? Are there any such journals which are publicly accessible worldwide and online -- i.e., not behind any kind of "paywall" or equivalent? /Jack Haverty -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 16:52:19 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 13:52:19 +1300 Subject: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? In-Reply-To: <87mumn5uce.fsf@taht.net> References: <20190213220130.E05E318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <584B5C1E-14B2-4C52-93CD-0E42B0B24C90@gmail.com> <66416d66-bad2-da90-0189-c0c20455b2a5@gmail.com> <87mumn5uce.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: On 2019-02-23 11:30, Dave Taht wrote: > Brian E Carpenter writes: > >> On 2019-02-16 08:23, Clem Cole wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:58 PM Craig Partridge wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Dennis' decision to adopt TCP/IP for NSFNET was critical. >>>> >>> Hmmm. It certainly did not hurt and I agree was cleafrly an amplifier and >>> important. But I'm not sure that was as important as the basic economics >>> of the time -> Moore's Law and cheap cycles (i.e. I don't think the NFSNET >>> choice, while helped the effect, was not the high order bit on the success >>> function). >> >> I took the original question to be about when the success of TCP/IP became >> formally recognized. You are undoubtedly right that its market success was >> a result of availability in BSD, with a usable API, just when Unix was taking >> off. > > My original question was kind of overly vague - we'd found a netnews > conversation in 89 between jon postel, vint and others that seemingly > led to both CIDR and ipv6 ("toaster-net"), as "32 bits is not enough") > >>From a formal perspective the class B exhaustion documents mentioned on > these threads, at two ietfs, kicked restructuring the internet to handle > more addresses into higher gear, and it was realized that OSI had no > future benefit once that was addressed. > > ... > > The writing on the wall moment for IP over OSI seems to be from around > the time of the "kobe revolt" from what I've been reading here. All the > events in 1992-94 - not just the rework of address spaces, but the > opening up of the internet, ISPs getting off the ground, cheap modems, > al gore, etc, etc.... Ironically there was a lot of *literally* IP over OSI (where OSI meant CONS, connection-oriented network service, i.e. X.25) during the 1990s. (French-speaking readers will note that this was not necessarily the worst acronym in networking history.) In Europe, in some cases X.25 was the only connectivity you could get or afford. Leased lines were still monopoly-priced. More seriously, we shouldn't ascribe too much importance to the Kobe incident outside the IETF/IAB community. The community reaction was really against the IAB being on the wrong side of history for once. But it was technical and market factors that were driving history, as others have described. > > ... > > going off topic yet again: > > I do think people overstate the early impact of the web nowadays. Well, as I said in my book, the key moment seemed to be around the middle of 1995 when the .com phenomenon really started. After that I'm sure it became a driver. I used to check the ads in each week's Economist. Unfortunately I didn't log the results, but somewhere around late 1995 URLs started to appear instead of email addresses, and within a couple of years an ad without a URL became unusual. > > It was being able to talk to more people you had something in common > with than ever before. > > When I started my ISP in 94, it was netnews and email that were the > primary draws, and the web thing was... well... a "browser". Yes, it > turned out folk had a huge appetite for cat videos, but huge numbers of > folk in college had been exposed to "real email" and netnews and wanted > that at home and it was within reach of the average geek, finally. > > Everybody already had modems to contact compuserve and BBSes, (didn't > the first laptops also have integral modems?) so when slip started > working, BBSes started to die. There were very few Unix based BBSes (I > had a hand in one in 86, and this one in 1990, which amazingly still > exists: https://cellar.org/faq.php ) and their draw became "being > multiuser". > > we had real apps also (client/server databases and so on), that helped > drive corporate adoption of IP vs ipx. Dialup access to big databases > for remote offices was done not via browser but a huge host of tools > (now departed) that created a custom UI element over that sql database. > > I've been sitting here trying to remember some of those. Borland had > some, there was a really popular one (power-something) - hundreds and > hundreds of dollars per seat that corps were willing to spend to get > their remote offices online. > > It was a heady time! > > ... > > OK, here's a story that I rarely tell and is OT: > > in late 1993 I'd been having a bad time on every front and hadn't slept > well for a few months, and my network was under attack, and I was > essentially seeing snakes under the bed. I had a discussion with a > shrink, and at some point I said something like "my machines talk to > millions of people every day". (I was trying to explain netnews). She > wrote (and I read, upside down): > > "The patient is grandiose and delusional". That is possibly the best anecdote ever. Brian > > (Thankfully I escaped from that particular interview relatively unscathed > and later found a shrink with a physics background that I could actually > talk to which straightened me out a lot) > > A year later we'd found funding for ICANECT and a few months after that > we had 16,000 people online doing the same things that clueless shrink > had dismissed as fantasy. > > Me, grandiose? *always* > > Delusional? Sometimes I worry, but not very often, anymore. > > From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Fri Feb 22 20:21:36 2019 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 04:21:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <318458721.3813078.1550895696972@mail.yahoo.com> It has been a long time since I have thought about, and worked on, Packet Radio and the Reconstitution Protocol.? My memory is hazy and I know I haven't pieced together a few things that I wish I remember better. It would be nice to review things with Jim and Zaw-Sing.? In 1982,? I was still at BBN working on Packet Radio. Radia Perlman may have already left BBN for DEC at that point. I went to work at SRI in the fall of 1983 and I worked on a different project when I first went there.? In poking around the net to try to find more things to refresh my memory, I did come across the site discover.dtic.mil.?? Most of the information on this effort is in the technical reports we produced for the client.? I think the contract went through NASA Ames and meeting attendees were mostly personnel from Rome Labs.? Unfortunately, this site contains what they call controlled unclassified documents, but the final report on the Network Reconstitution Protocol is in the public side. The contract dates indicate the effective dates were January 3, 1983 until May 30, 1987 but the period of work covered in the report is slightly shorter.? I think the project was called the Strategic C3 Experiments so there may be more information available under that name. I would like to mention the networking world was very different in the early 80s.? I think our approach was constrained by certain requirements at the time.? I have the impression we were not allowed to change TCP/IP nor require changes to existing ARPAnet hosts .? Using the IP address as a location for routing purposes and an endpoint identifier for TCP connections was a big problem for us but something we could not really address. We had to develop a work around using encapsulation and state-information in the network nodes. Scalability of the protocols was not a big concern.? I think people did not envision the Internet would grow as large as it would and we were focused on military use.? The protocols involved using a gateway centric architectural approach, rather than network,? resulting in injection of more routes in a routing table and using more of the address space for the same number of nodes as I recall.? Security was on people's minds but I believe we made use of ICMP redirects to help hosts find the correct exit gateway (aka router) when the topology changed.? I also think we thought that having a secure, dynamic DNS was important but out of scope for the project: I believe we used host tables for the experiments. Now that I have found the report I should refresh my memory so any errors in the above description are mine. barbara Today's Topics: ? 1. Re: Internet History - Commercialization (John Gilmore) ? 2. Re: Internet History - Commercialization (Vint Cerf) ? 3. Re: When the words Internet was design to survive a nuclear ? ? ? war appeared for the first time? thanks (Vint Cerf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 01:54:51 -0800 From: John Gilmore Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization To: Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond Cc: internet history Message-ID: <7964.1550570091 at hop.toad.com> On 18/02/2019 15:35, Tony Finch wrote: > > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up > > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial > > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?= wrote: > It was key to the Internet's development in the UK. Cliff Stanford > started Demon Internet using Phil's KA9Q stack. Without it, dial-up > Internet access at home/work was just not possible. We started a prominent San Francisco Bay Area ISP, The Little Garden, using Phil Karn's KA9Q MSDOS software to handle leased lines and dialup modems in 2 locations in August 1990.? I was one of the techies who cobbled it together, with a leased line to the very early Alternet, then we hired Tom Jennings, who had also implemented the FIDOnet, to professionalize it for growing to serve other sites.? It gradually grew it into a real ISP with ten megabits of upstream connections.? The Little Garden offered the first commercial dialup Internet connections in Mountain View and San Francisco, CA, and also offered 56Kbit DS0 and Frame Relay, and 1.5Mbit T1 connections.? Because of our libertarian usage policies, low prices, and solid technical chops, we became the backbone for dozens of small ISPs in Northern California, like ScruzNet (Santa Cruz), NBnet (North Bay), etc. We wouldn't have gotten it off the ground without KA9Q, which was the only cheap and modifiable way to gateway multiple dialup or nailed-up modems to the early commercial leased-line Internet.? Eventually KA9Q was too flakey for our level of traffic, and we replaced it with commercial routers, but that was after a year or two of KA9Q service. ??? John Gilmore ??? ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:07:39 -0500 From: Vint Cerf Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History - Commercialization To: John Gilmore Cc: internet history Message-ID: ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" nice story - nostalgic too. v On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:06 AM John Gilmore wrote: > On 18/02/2019 15:35, Tony Finch wrote: > > > I was wondering what effect KA9Q had on low-end adoption. I turned up > > > later, but I remember stories from early (1992 ish) dial-up commercial > > > Internet users who relied on KA9Q. > > =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?= wrote: > > It was key to the Internet's development in the UK. Cliff Stanford > > started Demon Internet using Phil's KA9Q stack. Without it, dial-up > > Internet access at home/work was just not possible. > > We started a prominent San Francisco Bay Area ISP, The Little Garden, > using Phil Karn's KA9Q MSDOS software to handle leased lines and dialup > modems in 2 locations in August 1990.? I was one of the techies who > cobbled it together, with a leased line to the very early Alternet, then > we hired Tom Jennings, who had also implemented the FIDOnet, to > professionalize it for growing to serve other sites.? It gradually grew > it into a real ISP with ten megabits of upstream connections.? The > Little Garden offered the first commercial dialup Internet connections > in Mountain View and San Francisco, CA, and also offered 56Kbit DS0 and > Frame Relay, and 1.5Mbit T1 connections.? Because of our libertarian > usage policies, low prices, and solid technical chops, we became the > backbone for dozens of small ISPs in Northern California, like ScruzNet > (Santa Cruz), NBnet (North Bay), etc. > > We wouldn't have gotten it off the ground without KA9Q, which was the > only cheap and modifiable way to gateway multiple dialup or nailed-up > modems to the early commercial leased-line Internet.? Eventually KA9Q > was too flakey for our level of traffic, and we replaced it with > commercial routers, but that was after a year or two of KA9Q service. > >? ? ? ? John Gilmore > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190219/61d07160/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:38:26 -0500 From: Vint Cerf Subject: Re: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a ??? nuclear war appeared for the first time? thanks To: Jack Haverty Cc: internet history Message-ID: ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Barbara is right about the SRI role in the SAC tests - I may be misremembering the reconsittution protocol solutions and would be happy to get better information from Jim or Zaw-Sing if they are still around. I think the tests I remember were done in 1982. Charlie Brown was involved as an Air Force officer at the time. Vint On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:18 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > I vaguely remember being at a meeting sometime in the mid-80s.? Some > government/military/contractor site, but can't remember where.? It was a > large (15 or 20) group of people, none of whom I knew.? They were using > lots of jargon I didn't recognize too.? I had come in a bit late. > > One of the terms that cropped up was "New Dets Per Second".? I knew what > bits/second were, and kilobits/sec., and similar networky things, but had > never heard "New Dets Per Second". > > After a while, the meaning became clear from context....? It was actually > "NuDets/Second", shorthand for "Nuclear Detonations Per Second". > > I then finally realized I was in the wrong meeting. > > So someone was thinking about such things... > > /Jack > On 2/18/19 6:10 PM, Barbara Denny wrote: > > I don't remember Radia Perlman's ideas for supporting network partitioning > and coalescing. > > SRI did have a project where we did a few experiments at SAC demonstrating > a solution to this problem using the ARPAnet and Packet Radio networks. We > did go out to Offutt for demonstrations? using their aircraft.? This was in > the mid 80's.? I also think I may have given a demonstration of the > protocols during? IETF 4 at SRI to a few people. > > I believe Zaw-Sing Su and Jim Mathis worked on the design of the > Reconstitution Protocols. I took part in the development and demonstration > . Mark Lewis also participated in the project as a developer and maybe more > since I was not part of the project initially.? I am pretty sure there was > a paper at MILCOM about this work. > > I believe there was also a RFP in this same time frame asking for > solutions to islands of connectivity that may happen as a result of > military conflict.? I worked on the SRI proposal at least twice if my > memory is correct. (I? think there may have been a protest to the original > award so that is why the second proposal.) I don't remember if this project > was ever awarded to anyone. > > barbara > > > On Saturday, February 16, 2019, 9:26:54 AM PST, > internet-history-request at postel.org > wrote: > > > Send internet-history mailing list submissions to >? ? internet-history at postel.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >? ? http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >? ? internet-history-request at postel.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at >? ? internet-history-owner at postel.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >? 1. Re: When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? >? ? ? (Craig Partridge) >? 2. Re: Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to survive a >? ? ? nuclear war appeared for the first time? (John Day) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:35:10 -0700 > From: Craig Partridge > Subject: Re: [ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"? > To: Bob Hinden > Cc: internet history > Message-ID: >? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Bob: > > You are right about the implementations being in parallel for a while.? I'm > going to get the dates slightly wrong but Bill's code came out in 4.1c > (1982?) and BBN kept maintaining its implementation (Dennis Rockwell and > then Bob Walsh) until c. 1985.? Indeed, as I recall there was a debate c. > 1985 at DARPA about whether to force Berkeley to use the BBN code (which > had been modified to use the sockets API, which everyone agreed was better > -- I had a small part in the port to sockets). > > I believe that when the TCP/IP project transitioned to me (c. 1987?), I > stopped effort on the BBN TCP/IP.? I think we had to maintain it a bit as > we'd licensed it to a workstation vendor (Apollo????).? Karen Lam and David > Waitzman switched to the BSD TCP/IP and we did things like help Steve > Deering implement multicast and such. > > Thanks! > > Craig > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:24 AM Bob Hinden wrote: > > > Craig, > > > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Craig Partridge > > wrote: > > > > > > Important historical nit.? I was the manager of the BBN UNIX TCP/IP > > effort after Rob Gurwitz left (I think Rob inherited it from Jack > Haverty, > > but not sure).? The BSD stack with sockets *was not written by BBN*.? It > > was written by Bill Joy at Berkeley -- using the earlier BBN 4BSD code > as a > > reference.? Entirely new code, but originally bug-for-bug compatible > > (indeed, years later, when a bug was found in the BSD TCP, the BSD folks > > stood up and said "that's a bug from BBN?) > > > > My memory is that they both were maintained in parallel for several > > years.? Also, Bill Joy's TCP stack also had the ?trailers? feature where > > the headers were at the end of the packet.? Documented in RFC893 ( > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc893).? Probably not so good for packet > > switching, but better performance on some host implementations.? That > faded > > away at some point. > > > > Bob > > > > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and > mailing lists. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190216/7f311f34/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:18:27 -0500 > From: John Day > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: Re: When the words Internet was design to >? ? survive a nuclear war appeared for the first time? > To: Steve Crocker > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <32E6E6ED-2C77-47A4-B374-EAB335638B69 at comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > In the FWIW category, I remember that network partitions (between the East > and West Coasts) occurred, not often but often enough to be noticeable, > until the 3rd cross-country line went in. Then they were pretty much a > rarity, if they occurred at all. Illinois was one of the jumping off points > between East and West, so perhaps we just noticed them more. > > John > > > On Feb 16, 2019, at 11:25, Steve Crocker wrote: > > > > My brother forwarded the appended thread.? It reminded me that I had > previously been unsuccessful at joining this list, but I am now on the list. > > > > Over the years I have heard many times from many different people and > also seen in print the idea that the Arpanet was motivated and built for > nuclear survivability.? Moreover, Steve Lukasik, the director of (D)ARPA > for several of the critical years, included this as one of his reasons for > signing the checks for the Arpanet. > > > > I think it will be helpful to make a couple of distinctions regarding > network survivability.? Let me offer two dimensions and at least two levels > of disruption for each. > > > > Equipment outage: When a link or a router becomes unusable, it's > necessary to route around the loss.? It makes a big difference if only a > few links or routers are down versus a significant fraction are down.? In > normal circumstances, it is expected some lines and some routers will be > out of service from time to time.? In contrast, if there is an attack, the > outages might be substantial and perhaps purposefully coordinated. > > > > Traffic level: In normal operation, the total traffic is within the > capacity of the network.? In extraordinary times, the traffic level surges > beyond the capacity of the system.? Surges happen for various reasons. > There might be a very popular web site, e.g. the Victoria Secrets incident, > or a DDoS attack. > > > > Arguably the Arpanet design addressed survivability for the case when a > small number of links or routers were out and traffic levels were normal. > Alex colorfully describes Frank Heart's concerns for the risks to > individual IMPs placed in the very risky environments of universities. > > > > The Arpanet design did not address the issue of large scale outages nor > did it include strategies for dealing with overload.? In contrast, a > serious design to address post-nuclear operation would have had to address > the combination of substantial loss of equipment and a huge spike in urgent > traffic. > > > > In the conversations I've had with Lukasik on this matter, he says he > had in mind the technology could lead to designs that would have that level > of survivability, and that it was helpful to include this in defending the > funding for the network.? And, as Vint says, subsequent projects explored > reconstitution in the event of certain kinds of disconnections.? However, I > believe the level of outages explored in those projects were well below the > levels that would have occurred in a large scale nuclear confrontation. > > > > In 2017, I ran this question past Larry Roberts.? His short reply was he > would have had to connect each IMP to four others instead of only two or > three others. > > > > Steve > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject:? ? ? ? Re: [ih] When the words Internet was design to survive a > > nuclear war appeared for the first time? > > Date:? Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:30:36 -0500 > > From:? Vint Cerf > > > To:? ? Alex McKenzie aamsendonly396 at gmail.com>> > > CC:? ? internet history internet-history at postel.org>> > > > > > > > > Alex is essentially correct. Paul Baran's work WAS aimed at post-nuclear > > survival but he never got to try his ideas out as they > > were rejected as unimplementable or uninteresting by a circuit-switching > > oriented Defense Communications Agency. > > > > Larry Roberts was clear that the ARPANET was intended to support > > resource sharing. > > > > By the time Bob Kahn and I started working on Internet with its focus on > > command/control, the issue of survivability > > was back on the table.? The multi-network design contemplated multiple > > networks operated by distinct entities > > (in the DoD perspective it was multiple countries or aggregates like > > NATO) and resilience was important. I went > > so far as to commission a test in which we flew packet radios in > > Strategic Air Command aircraft, artificially "broke" > > the ARPANET up into fragments and re-integrated them through ground to > > air packet radio connectivity. I was > > particularly worried about the partitioning of a constituent network > > which would cause great confusion for? the > > routing algorithm (a source gateway might know know to which "half" of > > the fragmented network a packet should > > be sent. My hazy recollection is that Radia Perlman came up with a way > > to solve that problem that involved > > creating new autonomous systems out of each "piece" and re-enabling > > routing algorithms. > > > > vint > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:18 PM Alex McKenzie > > >> > wrote: > > > >? ? ? Miles, > > > >? ? ? I believe the emphasis on survivability came from Frank Heart. > >? ? ? Building the early ARPAnet was a very risky project, in the sense > >? ? ? that there was a tight deadline, it would be easy to see if it > >? ? ? worked or not, and most people didn't believe it would work. > >? ? ? Frank's reputation was very much on the line.? The ruggedized IMP > >? ? ? cabinet was part of his emphasis on controlling everything the team > >? ? ? could control, to minimize risk.? But the particular risks the > >? ? ? ruggedized cabinet was intended to protect against were: > >? ? ? - careless site personnel, who cared about their own computers but > >? ? ? might be expected to stick the IMP in a storage closet where > >? ? ? maintenance workers would bump it, and > >? ? ? - graduate students who might be inclined to study it, perhaps with > >? ? ? destructive results. (Lest this seem outlandish, the TIP in Hawaii > >? ? ? was a sore spot of unreliability? when I was running the NCC - > >? ? ? turned out a graduate student was crashing it every day by taping > >? ? ? into its power supply which was just right for his project.? The TIP > >? ? ? was NOT in a ruggedized box.) > >? ? ? The group was not trying to protect against EMP. > > > >? ? ? More generally, if the ARPAnet had been designed to survive a > >? ? ? nuclear attack it would have been necessary to insure that the > >? ? ? IMP-to_IMP circuits did not go through the small number of Telco > >? ? ? offices which made up the Telco backbone.? No effort was made to > >? ? ? influence the provisioning of these circuits, and it can be presumed > >? ? ? that loss of only a few major cities would have resulted in most of > >? ? ? the leased lines disappearing. > > > >? ? ? Cheers, > >? ? ? Alex > > > >? ? ? On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:48 AM Miles Fidelman > >? ? ? > >> > wrote: > > > >? ? ? ? ? Bernie, > > > >? ? ? ? ? On 2/14/19 9:28 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > > > >? ? ? ? On February 14, 2019 09:13:42 Alejandro Acosta > > >? ? ? ? alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com>> > > >? ? ? ? alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>? ? ? ? ? Today I was reading some news about Internet and in one of > > >>? ? ? ? them I > > >>? ? ? ? found the phrase (that all of you have listened before): > > >>? ? ? ? "Internet > > >>? ? ? ? (ARPANET) was intended to survive a nuclear war", however, as > > >>? ? ? ? far as I > > >>? ? ? ? know, this is kind of a myth, right?, ARPANET was intended as > > >>? ? ? ? a research > > >>? ? ? ? network and the "war" part if very far away from the thuth. > > > > > >? ? ? ? my take on that is that there were two lines of thought > > >? ? ? ? leading up to the > > >? ? ? ? ARPAnet.? very very roughly: one was paul baran's, who was > > >? ? ? ? thinking > > >? ? ? ? about how the military command and control might be able to > > >? ? ? ? continue functioning in the event of an attack, and JCR > > >? ? ? ? Licklider, who was thinking > > >? ? ? ? about how wide-spread researchers could share resources, ideas > > >? ? ? ? and results > > >? ? ? ? to better collaborate. > > > > > >? ? ? ? when the ARPAnet got funded by the DoD, Baran's story was the > > >? ? ? ? easier to > > >? ? ? ? understand to the average person, raather than the more > > >? ? ? ? diaphanous idea > > >? ? ? ? of researcher collaboration.? so Baran's take kinda caught the > > >? ? ? ? public > > >? ? ? ? imagination, but the reality for those of us working on it was > > >? ? ? ? the it was > > >? ? ? ? {somehow? :o)} to be a research tool. > > > > >? ? ? ? ? You were involved a lot earlier than I was.? Perhaps you could > >? ? ? ? ? comment on how much folks thought about fault-tolerance in the > >? ? ? ? ? early days.? It's always struck me that things like > >? ? ? ? ? continuity-of-operations, in the face of node & link outages, > >? ? ? ? ? and no-single-point-of-failure, were baked in from the > >? ? ? ? ? beginning. You know - all the stuff that would allow the net to > >? ? ? ? ? survive everything from backhoes to natural disasters, and > >? ? ? ? ? coincidentally, nuclear war. > > > >? ? ? ? ? On the physical side, the early IMPs were pretty rugged boxes > >? ? ? ? ? (not so much C/30s and such).? Were any of the IMPs built to > >? ? ? ? ? withstand EMP? > > > >? ? ? ? ? Miles > > > > > > > >? ? ? ? ? --? ? ? ? In theory, there is no difference between theory and > > practice. > >? ? ? ? ? In practice, there is.? .... Yogi Berra > > > >? ? ? ? ? _______ > >? ? ? ? ? internet-history mailing list > >? ? ? ? ? internet-history at postel.org > > > >? ? ? ? ? http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history < > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> > >? ? ? ? ? Contact list-owner at postel.org > > for > >? ? ? ? ? assistance. > > > >? ? ? _______ > >? ? ? internet-history mailing list > >? ? ? internet-history at postel.org > > > >? ? ? http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history < > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> > >? ? ? Contact list-owner at postel.org > > for > >? ? ? assistance. > > > > > > > > -- > > New postal address: > > Google > > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > > Reston, VA 20190 > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > bbiw.net > > _______ > > internet-history mailing list > > internet-history at postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190216/027e514b/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 126, Issue 24 > ************************************************* > > _______ > internet-history mailing listinternet-history at postel.orghttp://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190219/9184a547/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ internet-history mailing list internet-history at postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. End of internet-history Digest, Vol 126, Issue 40 ************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at taht.net Sat Feb 23 05:03:17 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 05:03:17 -0800 Subject: [ih] WiFi, DV, and transmission delay In-Reply-To: <20190219150630.00EAD18C087@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> (Noel Chiappa's message of "Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:06:30 -0500 (EST)") References: <20190219150630.00EAD18C087@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <87a7im64iy.fsf@taht.net> jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes: > > From: Dave Taht > > > The queue may not have been building at the imp but in the app. > > What app? Sorry, I'm confused by this. The routing was a somewhat low-level > function in the IMPs; the hosts never saw it, or knew of it. > > Or did you mean that user traffic queues were building in the IMP, and > the routing updates got buried behind them? I don't recall any more, but > routing, liveness, etc packets may have had priority over user traffic; > 3803 might mention it. I hadn't read that before posting that message. 3803 ( https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a053450.pdf ) was really, really good, and the many of the problems documented there have recurred today. As one example from that document, although it's somewhat outside the definition of bufferbloat, the IMPs were retrying to send packets an exorbitant number of times, which translates to bufferbloat in time, if not actual packets. (was there a TTL equivalent in arpanet or did that fall out later) so... moving forward in time... early 802.11b was made real by a *couple* retries at the mac layer. We'd learned via the metricom rollout (92-01) and "STRIP" protocol and watching the first 802.11 implementations not scale up (over ipx/spx, not ip)... that with the level of loss we'd got that tcp couldn't scale up without just.a.couple.retries at the mac layer, so the arlan wireless cards did a couple retries, (I don't know to this day when everyone converged on this being a "good idea", but it was about 1998? 9?... and the 802.11b standard, which followed 802.11, took off like a rocket. I talked about the metricom and strip experiments in the second half of this early bufferbloat vs wifi talk at MIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wksh2DPHCDI&feature=youtu.be Over time, retries in wifi - got excessive - nowadays it's somewhere between 10 and 30 retries in most drivers and firmware- and some are *infinite*. Seeing 30 sec worth of wifi retries in tropical rain was what got me off a beach in Nicaragua and into fixing bufferbloat. worse, those retries... are on top of what most rate control wifi algorithms do. "Minstrel", developed in 2008 or so, had made the observation that it was often faster to retry two transmits at a higher rate than to fall back to a lower rate. Minstrel was a really good addition to knowledge about how to make higher speed encodings work in a noisy radio environment, it's a shame that the paper didn't make it past academic review. I keep a copy here: http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/minstrel/ On top of that, radios and dsps got better since 2002, so we needed to retry less, not more... I'm still trying to rip out excessive retries everywhere in wifi and not making much progress. I don't dare think about what lte does. ... The other crazy thing we did in the bufferbloat effort was add FQ with "drop head" rather than fifo with drop tail, at least in much of the stack above the drivers and firmware. that definitely would not have worked in the imp era where queues were too small and fq un-thought-of yet. basic packet prioritization made more sense then with small queues and well defined control messages. > > > Didn't arpanet also have some forms of flow control? > > Yes, RFNM's - a network-level ACK for the delivery of a 'message' (the ARPANET > term for a user packet) to the host at the far end. 'Messages' were broken up > into smaller packets (I'm not positive of the term used for them, but I think > it may - confusingly! - have been 'packet' - let me call them 'frames here) > inside the network, so at the destination IMP a 're-assembly buffer' had to be > allocated for messages longer than a frame. RFNM's helped prevent the > network from being overloaded - but see: > > J.M. McQuillan, W.R. Crowther, B.P. Cosell, D.C. Walden, and F.E. Heart, > "Improvements in the Design and Performance of the ARPA Network", > Proceedings AFIPS, 1972 FJCC, Vol. 40, pp. 741-754. > > for a problem which causes IMPs to wedge. (I'm pretty sure that's available > online. If not, let us know.) I'll look. > > > >> Alas, I don't remember any key names/titles to look up on that work > >> ... One name that keep coming up in my mind as associate with it is > >> Zaw-Sing Su. There's someone else who I think did more, but I just > >> can't rember who it was. > > Finally remembered who it was; Jose Garcia-Luna. He added a mechanism to DV > that basically prevented the formation of loops. I don't recall the details of > how it worked, but if you visualize a network as a pool of water, and a > connectivity change is a stone dropped into the pool, then the routing updates > are like the ripples that spread out from the point of impact. Anyway, IIRC, > Jose's mechanism limits changes to a single ripple, so it's even better than > loop prevention, it bounds the time to respond to a connectivity change (I _think_ - > it's been decades since I looked at it). This is a really good description. I can ask juliusz where babel's loop free "feasibility condition" came from... can't find the relevant paper now. https://www.irif.fr/~jch/software/babel/babel-20140311.pdf > Anyway, just Google 'routing "garcia-luna"" and a bunch of his stuff will pop up. > > Anyone using a DV routing system without using his algorithm (or an equivalent) > is really missing. RIP doesn't have it because his work post-dates RIP. I hope it's something new to me! > Noel From dave at taht.net Sat Feb 23 07:09:47 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 07:09:47 -0800 Subject: [ih] WiFi, DV, and transmission delay In-Reply-To: <877edqk4ps.wl-jch@irif.fr> (Juliusz Chroboczek's message of "Sat, 23 Feb 2019 14:35:27 +0100") References: <20190219150630.00EAD18C087@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87a7im64iy.fsf@taht.net> <877edqk4ps.wl-jch@irif.fr> Message-ID: <874l8u5yo4.fsf@taht.net> Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >>> Finally remembered who it was; Jose Garcia-Luna. He added a mechanism >>> to DV that basically prevented the formation of loops. I don't recall >>> the details of how it worked, but if you visualize a network as a pool >>> of water, and a connectivity change is a stone dropped into the pool, >>> then the routing updates are like the ripples that spread out from the >>> point of impact. Anyway, IIRC, Jose's mechanism limits changes to >>> a single ripple, so it's even better than loop prevention, it bounds >>> the time to respond to a connectivity change (I _think_ - it's been >>> decades since I looked at it). > >> This is a really good description. I can ask juliusz where babel's loop >> free "feasibility condition" came from... > > It's lifted wholesale from DUAL (Garcia-Luna's algorithm). > > The bit that I did not take from DUAL is the diffusing update algorithm > (the elegant bit described above as "a single ripple"), which > unfortunately does not terminate in general: if a router crashes at just > the wrong time, the diffusing computation fails to terminate, and > a timeout is required in order to recover (that's known as the "Stuck in > Active" (SIA) state in EIGRP). Babel avoids the issue by using route > sequencing (lifted from DSDV) augmented with an unreliable recovery > mechanism (seqno requests). In effect, on a very lossy network Babel will > spuriously discard routes where DUAL would deadlock. nice to see you here juliusz! ... And ideas march on, rippling back and forth, results, mis-interpreted, mis-identified, technologic change happens, tests repeated, fixed, re-analyzed, and re-implemented, tested, and re-iterated and progress seeps forward and sideways and backwards. I had not tied the knot between DUAL and babel and - AHA! from rfc6126 Garcia Luna Aceves, J., "Loop-Free Routing Using Diffusing Computations", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 1:1, February 1993. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/615/lunes93.pdf thx for connecting the dots (noel: is the ripples in the pool analogy yours, or sourced from somewhere?) This is later ref to dual and garcia-luna's work I've found so far https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a457720.pdf although all his work is turning out to be fascinating. (https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a461695.pdf) while I'm here, babel's rtt metric extension... (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jonglez-babel-rtt-extension-01) I seem to recall was partially derived from mill's work on ntp. Was it also influenced by the early arpanet routing protocols? Somewhere on these enormous threads here this month was mentioned that unsmoothed RTT issues was another one of DV's problems led to spf and link-state. How's the deployment going? ... You've made the "heretical" claim that shortest path routing is not the best routing mechanism for wireless networks in some paper/preso also. > > -- Juliusz From johnl at iecc.com Sat Feb 23 10:12:15 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 23 Feb 2019 10:12:15 -0800 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: <8e1403b8-7b49-bbad-94c7-ef5a31216b85@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> In article <8e1403b8-7b49-bbad-94c7-ef5a31216b85 at 3kitty.org> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On 2/22/19 3:05 PM, David Walden wrote: > >> For improving the odds that what is written is available to future >> historians, Ihope people consider publishing in explicit journals.? > >Are there any such journals which are publicly accessible worldwide and >online -- i.e., not behind any kind of "paywall" or equivalent? Probably not. Writing, editing, and publishing journal articles is a lot of work, and not everyone can afford to do it for free. R's, John From jack at 3kitty.org Sat Feb 23 12:42:39 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:42:39 -0800 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> Message-ID: <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> On 2/23/19 10:12 AM, John Levine wrote: > Writing, editing, and publishing journal articles is a > lot of work, and not everyone can afford to do it for free. Writing, editing, and publishing thousands of RFCs and IENs, and all of the material on the archives of forum sites like this, is also a lot of work.? People either do it for free, or as part of whatever they are getting paid to do.?? Decades of such material are freely available online in multiple repositories. But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor.? The archives may just disappear someday when some contract expires.? Of course, even professional journals may disappear when their finances dictate. So, ... perhaps the way to publish "a paper" for open access by current and future historians is to make it an RFC...?? Assuming that is even permitted of course.? But it seems contrary to the traditional purpose of RFCs et al.? The format constraints might also be an obstacle. Or, perhaps put it into Amazon with a very low price, where it will be accessible electronically or even on paper by their print-on-demand??? Amazon seems to have longevity. /Jack Haverty From johnl at iecc.com Sat Feb 23 13:15:48 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 23 Feb 2019 13:15:48 -0800 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> Message-ID: > So, ... perhaps the way to publish "a paper" for open access by current > and future historians is to make it an RFC...?? Assuming that is even > permitted of course.? But it seems contrary to the traditional purpose > of RFCs et al.? The format constraints might also be an obstacle. RFCs exist because their publication is subsidized to the tune of $1m/yr by the Internet Society, with the money currently mostly coming from the .org registry. The authors or their employers may donate their time, but the editors and publisher and web servers and so forth do not happen for free. There is an independent submission stream whose editor has broad discretion about what to publish. Arpanet at 50 seems plausible, so why not drop a note to the editor and ask. https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/ Also, you know, there's a reason that a lot of journals are published in both online and paper form. Once copies get into academic libraries, they may be harder to find if you're not physically at the institution, but they are unlikely all to disappear. Regards, John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From richard at bennett.com Sat Feb 23 13:26:17 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 14:26:17 -0700 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <1836BEF7-4853-4098-ABB1-0F6CE9F86AB9@bennett.com> History shows that the best way to preserve documents is to register their copyrights. This insures they will be forever accessible from Pirate Bay. RB > On Feb 23, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > On 2/23/19 10:12 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> Writing, editing, and publishing journal articles is a >> lot of work, and not everyone can afford to do it for free. > > Writing, editing, and publishing thousands of RFCs and IENs, and all of > the material on the archives of forum sites like this, is also a lot of > work. People either do it for free, or as part of whatever they are > getting paid to do. Decades of such material are freely available > online in multiple repositories. > > But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC > repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. The archives > may just disappear someday when some contract expires. Of course, even > professional journals may disappear when their finances dictate. > > So, ... perhaps the way to publish "a paper" for open access by current > and future historians is to make it an RFC...? Assuming that is even > permitted of course. But it seems contrary to the traditional purpose > of RFCs et al. The format constraints might also be an obstacle. > > Or, perhaps put it into Amazon with a very low price, where it will be > accessible electronically or even on paper by their print-on-demand? > Amazon seems to have longevity. > > /Jack Haverty > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Sat Feb 23 21:22:48 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 21:22:48 -0800 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even RFC > repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue of hosting and net access. I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free consulting. PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact me directly off-list). Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at taht.net Sun Feb 24 07:42:11 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:42:11 -0800 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> (Joe Touch's message of "Sat, 23 Feb 2019 21:22:48 -0800") References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> Joe Touch writes: > On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC > repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. > > Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue > of hosting and net access. > > I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC > has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). > > Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend > an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free > consulting. > > PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host > this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact > me directly off-list). My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - how big are these archives? I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. > > Joe > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From jack at 3kitty.org Sun Feb 24 10:39:38 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 10:39:38 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> [Changed the subject line] I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and then I had a dream....literally. There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If historians "followed the money" like many other investigators, they might find some interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today that the IETF is funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me that such mechanisms already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or industry giants try to do so. My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN).? Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand.? No doubt Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the evil could be coopted for good? Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on their computers. So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse.?? Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded.? Or perhaps a plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe an addition to existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the code already exists, as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I suspect many people would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN becomes self-suficient even as people come and go. All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. Dave....? /Jack Haverty On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > Joe Touch writes: > >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >> of hosting and net access. >> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >> consulting. >> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >> me directly off-list). > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. > > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - > how big are these archives? > > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. > > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. > > >> Joe >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Feb 24 11:28:38 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 14:28:38 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET 50-year anniversary panel session with Vint, Steve Crocker, and others In-Reply-To: <1836BEF7-4853-4098-ABB1-0F6CE9F86AB9@bennett.com> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <1836BEF7-4853-4098-ABB1-0F6CE9F86AB9@bennett.com> Message-ID: Not for nothing but the library community has it right:? LOCKSS - i.e., lots of copies, in lots of places! Miles On 2/23/19 4:26 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > History shows that the best way to preserve documents is to register > their copyrights. This insures they will be forever accessible from > Pirate Bay. > > RB > >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Jack Haverty > > wrote: >> >> On 2/23/19 10:12 AM, John Levine wrote: >> >>> Writing, editing, and publishing journal articles is a >>> lot of work, and not everyone can afford to do it for free. >> >> Writing, editing, and publishing thousands of RFCs and IENs, and all of >> the material on the archives of forum sites like this, is also a lot of >> work.? People either do it for free, or as part of whatever they are >> getting paid to do.?? Decades of such material are freely available >> online in multiple repositories. >> >> But "internet-history at postel.org >> ", and others like it, even RFC >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor.? The archives >> may just disappear someday when some contract expires. Of course, even >> professional journals may disappear when their finances dictate. >> >> So, ... perhaps the way to publish "a paper" for open access by current >> and future historians is to make it an RFC...?? Assuming that is even >> permitted of course.? But it seems contrary to the traditional purpose >> of RFCs et al.? The format constraints might also be an obstacle. >> >> Or, perhaps put it into Amazon with a very low price, where it will be >> accessible electronically or even on paper by their print-on-demand? >> Amazon seems to have longevity. >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum ?Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Sun Feb 24 11:33:34 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 11:33:34 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> Message-ID: > On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:39 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > I didn't realize until today that the IETF is > funded by ... Me! You don?t pay for the people who attend or those who work online throughout the year on lists, area directorates, etc. or advise IANA. Those disproportionate financially benefit those who reap the revenues, IMO. The $1 tax on .orgs was a great start, but there ought to be quite different registration fees for for-profits. And other taxes to fund the support services that currently are a silent tax on us all. Joe From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Feb 24 11:36:57 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 14:36:57 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> The whole question of persistent storage remains an unsolved problem. There have been models of distributed publication - like oceanstore and publius (huge, distributed hash tables) - but they tend to fall down if lots of people don't keep maintaining disk space. I keep thinking of the notion of a federation of storage providers where one pays once for either a block of replicated storage, or for publication of a file/document.? These days, a 1TB disk costs $100 (retail) - so 10cents/GB.? Multiply by 5 for replicated copies, and assume a 2-year disk life, and we're talking 25cents/year for a Gig of reliable storage (leaving out networking costs).? $25, at 1% interest, would "endow" a Gig of reliable storage, "forever" (think about how we pay for perpetual care of a gravesite. What's missing is a legal & accounting mechanism for handling the money.? Folks pay to self-publish an e-book - it sure would be nice to be able pay, say $50, once, to make a document available for the life of the Internet. Miles On 2/24/19 1:39 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > [Changed the subject line] > > I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and > then I had a dream....literally. > > There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be > very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", > perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If historians "followed > the money" like many other investigators, they might find some > interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today that the IETF is > funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now > I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. > > But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of > historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial > success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me that such mechanisms > already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, > and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or > industry giants try to do so. > > My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). > Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing > computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, > replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand.? No doubt > Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. > > Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts > to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the > evil could be coopted for good? > > Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and > subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where > people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio > signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on > their computers. > > So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely > downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which > uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical > material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted > historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, > DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. > Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply > placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, > from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. > > Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded.? Or perhaps a > plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe an addition to > existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the code already exists, > as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a > Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. > > Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I suspect many people > would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network > capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you > probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN becomes > self-suficient even as people come and go. > > All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the > code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. > > Dave....? > > /Jack Haverty > > > > On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> Joe Touch writes: >> >>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >>> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>> >>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>> of hosting and net access. >>> >>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>> >>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>> consulting. >>> >>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>> me directly off-list). >> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >> >> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >> how big are these archives? >> >> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >> >> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >> >> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu Sun Feb 24 11:57:02 2019 From: mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu (Michael Greenwald) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 11:57:02 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <6635e6c64374d3a05356d7848dd4a1c7@seas.upenn.edu> Not intending to spark a controversy, but has anyone who is trying to promote some kind of repository for for historical materials related to the development of the Internet, thought about having that historical material being hosted by the Internet Archive? (I mean, explicitly --- presumably some fraction is already covered by the WayBack machine's 300million+ web pages). (It is a non-profit, funded by donations, but I am unaware of details. One issue I would guess, in my ignorance, that might come up is whether people (who may have some moral or legal ownership of the documents) may object to the Internet Archive's advocacy of an open Internet (or Open Internet, or whatever).) On 2019-02-24 10:39, Jack Haverty wrote: > [Changed the subject line] > > I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and > then I had a dream....literally. > > There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be > very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", > perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If historians "followed > the money" like many other investigators, they might find some > interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today that the IETF is > funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by > now > I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. > > But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of > historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial > success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me that such > mechanisms > already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, > and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or > industry giants try to do so. > > My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN).? > Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing > computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, > replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand.? No doubt > Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. > > Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts > to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the > evil could be coopted for good? > > Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and > subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, > where > people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio > signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run > on > their computers. > > So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely > downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which > uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical > material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted > historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines (go Google!, > Bing!, > DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse.?? > Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply > placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, > from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. > > Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded.? Or perhaps a > plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe an addition to > existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the code already exists, > as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in > a > Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. > > Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I suspect many people > would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network > capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you > probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN becomes > self-suficient even as people come and go. > > All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the > code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running > Code. > > Dave....? > > /Jack Haverty > > > > On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> Joe Touch writes: >> >>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >>> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>> >>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the >>> issue >>> of hosting and net access. >>> >>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the >>> ISOC >>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>> >>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>> consulting. >>> >>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know >>> (contact >>> me directly off-list). >> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost >> is >> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >> >> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available >> - >> how big are these archives? >> >> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >> >> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >> >> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From richard at bennett.com Sun Feb 24 12:09:17 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 13:09:17 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <905D9C04-4375-4A8E-BC44-23AE605D6BC1@bennett.com> It?s probably most reliable to pass a bill appropriating some money to the Lib. of Congress to host something like the Internet Archive database. Volunteer efforts always have a limited lifespan but government is forever. RB > On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > The whole question of persistent storage remains an unsolved problem. > > There have been models of distributed publication - like oceanstore and > publius (huge, distributed hash tables) - but they tend to fall down if > lots of people don't keep maintaining disk space. > > I keep thinking of the notion of a federation of storage providers where > one pays once for either a block of replicated storage, or for > publication of a file/document. These days, a 1TB disk costs $100 > (retail) - so 10cents/GB. Multiply by 5 for replicated copies, and > assume a 2-year disk life, and we're talking 25cents/year for a Gig of > reliable storage (leaving out networking costs). $25, at 1% interest, > would "endow" a Gig of reliable storage, "forever" (think about how we > pay for perpetual care of a gravesite. > > What's missing is a legal & accounting mechanism for handling the > money. Folks pay to self-publish an e-book - it sure would be nice to > be able pay, say $50, once, to make a document available for the life of > the Internet. > > Miles > > On 2/24/19 1:39 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> [Changed the subject line] >> >> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >> then I had a dream....literally. >> >> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >> >> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >> industry giants try to do so. >> >> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >> >> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >> evil could be coopted for good? >> >> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >> their computers. >> >> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >> >> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >> >> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >> self-suficient even as people come and go. >> >> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >> >> Dave....? >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> >> >> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> Joe Touch writes: >>> >>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>> >>>> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >>>> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>> >>>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>>> of hosting and net access. >>>> >>>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>> >>>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>> consulting. >>>> >>>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>>> me directly off-list). >>> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>> >>> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>> how big are these archives? >>> >>> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>> >>> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>> >>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wfms at wfms.org Sun Feb 24 12:20:59 2019 From: wfms at wfms.org (wfms at wfms.org) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:20:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: It used to be back in the day that early FTP sites (cdrom.com, wiretap.spies.com, ftp.wustl.edu, etc.) seemed to do this. Even I did this on our FTP server by mirroring such sites and creating a huge document and historical network maps repository. Then the FTP server nd mirror community community was much smaller so the 'burden' to distribute this info was shared. But things change and soon all these fell off the twig... wfms On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Miles Fidelman wrote: > The whole question of persistent storage remains an unsolved problem. > > There have been models of distributed publication - like oceanstore and > publius (huge, distributed hash tables) - but they tend to fall down if > lots of people don't keep maintaining disk space. > > I keep thinking of the notion of a federation of storage providers where > one pays once for either a block of replicated storage, or for > publication of a file/document.? These days, a 1TB disk costs $100 > (retail) - so 10cents/GB.? Multiply by 5 for replicated copies, and > assume a 2-year disk life, and we're talking 25cents/year for a Gig of > reliable storage (leaving out networking costs).? $25, at 1% interest, > would "endow" a Gig of reliable storage, "forever" (think about how we > pay for perpetual care of a gravesite. > > What's missing is a legal & accounting mechanism for handling the > money.? Folks pay to self-publish an e-book - it sure would be nice to > be able pay, say $50, once, to make a document available for the life of > the Internet. > > Miles > > On 2/24/19 1:39 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> [Changed the subject line] >> >> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >> then I had a dream....literally. >> >> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >> very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If historians "followed >> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >> interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >> funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >> >> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >> success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >> industry giants try to do so. >> >> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand.? No doubt >> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >> >> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >> to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >> evil could be coopted for good? >> >> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >> subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >> their computers. >> >> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >> historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >> >> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded.? Or perhaps a >> plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe an addition to >> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the code already exists, >> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >> >> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I suspect many people >> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >> capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >> probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN becomes >> self-suficient even as people come and go. >> >> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >> >> Dave....? >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> >> >> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> Joe Touch writes: >>> >>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>> >>>> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >>>> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>> >>>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>>> of hosting and net access. >>>> >>>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>> >>>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>> consulting. >>>> >>>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>>> me directly off-list). >>> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>> >>> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>> how big are these archives? >>> >>> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>> >>> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>> >>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From jeanjour at comcast.net Sun Feb 24 13:15:53 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 16:15:53 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <905D9C04-4375-4A8E-BC44-23AE605D6BC1@bennett.com> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> <905D9C04-4375-4A8E-BC44-23AE605D6BC1@bennett.com> Message-ID: <9DE789B8-DF9C-4B4A-BB57-039D2046C735@comcast.net> For the timescales we need, we need something that lasts longer than even governments. In some of my other research, I am handling documents that are 400-800 years old. (Some work with even older stuff.) We can?t assume even governments will last that long. John > On Feb 24, 2019, at 15:09, Richard Bennett wrote: > > It?s probably most reliable to pass a bill appropriating some money to the Lib. of Congress to host something like the Internet Archive database. Volunteer efforts always have a limited lifespan but government is forever. > > RB > >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >> >> The whole question of persistent storage remains an unsolved problem. >> >> There have been models of distributed publication - like oceanstore and >> publius (huge, distributed hash tables) - but they tend to fall down if >> lots of people don't keep maintaining disk space. >> >> I keep thinking of the notion of a federation of storage providers where >> one pays once for either a block of replicated storage, or for >> publication of a file/document. These days, a 1TB disk costs $100 >> (retail) - so 10cents/GB. Multiply by 5 for replicated copies, and >> assume a 2-year disk life, and we're talking 25cents/year for a Gig of >> reliable storage (leaving out networking costs). $25, at 1% interest, >> would "endow" a Gig of reliable storage, "forever" (think about how we >> pay for perpetual care of a gravesite. >> >> What's missing is a legal & accounting mechanism for handling the >> money. Folks pay to self-publish an e-book - it sure would be nice to >> be able pay, say $50, once, to make a document available for the life of >> the Internet. >> >> Miles >> >> On 2/24/19 1:39 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> [Changed the subject line] >>> >>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>> then I had a dream....literally. >>> >>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>> >>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>> industry giants try to do so. >>> >>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>> >>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>> evil could be coopted for good? >>> >>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>> their computers. >>> >>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>> >>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>> >>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>> >>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >>> >>> Dave....? >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> Joe Touch > writes: >>>> >>>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even RFC >>>>> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>>>> of hosting and net access. >>>>> >>>>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>>>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>>> >>>>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>>> consulting. >>>>> >>>>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>>>> me directly off-list). >>>> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>>> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>> >>>> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>>> how big are these archives? >>>> >>>> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>> >>>> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> -- >> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at bennett.com Sun Feb 24 13:28:53 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 14:28:53 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <9DE789B8-DF9C-4B4A-BB57-039D2046C735@comcast.net> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> <905D9C04-4375-4A8E-BC44-23AE605D6BC1@bennett.com> <9DE789B8-DF9C-4B4A-BB57-039D2046C735@comcast.net> Message-ID: <90C2AEDB-EF75-4F06-8AA2-1E44C85B47EC@bennett.com> This government will not last forever, but it will be replaced by another and another?but yes, sometimes governments do burn all the books and paper certainly doesn?t last all that long. Only typewriter fonts and ASCII art are permanent. > On Feb 24, 2019, at 2:15 PM, John Day wrote: > > For the timescales we need, we need something that lasts longer than even governments. In some of my other research, I am handling documents that are 400-800 years old. (Some work with even older stuff.) We can?t assume even governments will last that long. > > John > >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 15:09, Richard Bennett > wrote: >> >> It?s probably most reliable to pass a bill appropriating some money to the Lib. of Congress to host something like the Internet Archive database. Volunteer efforts always have a limited lifespan but government is forever. >> >> RB >> >>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>> >>> The whole question of persistent storage remains an unsolved problem. >>> >>> There have been models of distributed publication - like oceanstore and >>> publius (huge, distributed hash tables) - but they tend to fall down if >>> lots of people don't keep maintaining disk space. >>> >>> I keep thinking of the notion of a federation of storage providers where >>> one pays once for either a block of replicated storage, or for >>> publication of a file/document. These days, a 1TB disk costs $100 >>> (retail) - so 10cents/GB. Multiply by 5 for replicated copies, and >>> assume a 2-year disk life, and we're talking 25cents/year for a Gig of >>> reliable storage (leaving out networking costs). $25, at 1% interest, >>> would "endow" a Gig of reliable storage, "forever" (think about how we >>> pay for perpetual care of a gravesite. >>> >>> What's missing is a legal & accounting mechanism for handling the >>> money. Folks pay to self-publish an e-book - it sure would be nice to >>> be able pay, say $50, once, to make a document available for the life of >>> the Internet. >>> >>> Miles >>> >>> On 2/24/19 1:39 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>> >>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>> >>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>> >>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>> >>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>> >>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>> >>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>>> their computers. >>>> >>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>> >>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>> >>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>> >>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >>>> >>>> Dave....? >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>>> Joe Touch > writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even RFC >>>>>> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>>>>> of hosting and net access. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>>>>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>>>> >>>>>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>>>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>>>> consulting. >>>>>> >>>>>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>>>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>>>>> me directly off-list). >>>>> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>>>> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>>> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>>> >>>>> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>>>> how big are these archives? >>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>>> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>>> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>>> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>>> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>>> >>>>> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>>> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Joe >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______ >>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> -- >>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnl at iecc.com Sun Feb 24 14:05:31 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 24 Feb 2019 17:05:31 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <20190224220532.68049200EA3B2D@ary.local> In article <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb at 3kitty.org> you write: >My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN).? >Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. Sounds like Bittorrent. R's, John From johnl at iecc.com Sun Feb 24 14:21:03 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 24 Feb 2019 17:21:03 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190224222104.18227200EA3D1E@ary.local> In article you write: >Those disproportionate financially benefit those who reap the revenues, IMO. The $1 tax on .orgs ... The what? That's not even approximately how ISOC or the IETF is funded. More to the point, this is hardly the first time that it has occurred to anyone that it might be a good idea to try to have a long term archive of historical Internet documents. Rather than trying to reinvent Bittorrent, perhaps it would make more sense to see what people have already done. I happen to know that the RFC Editor has made arrangments to have stable archives of the RFC series at the Computer Museum in California and some university library in northern Europe. The Internet Archive is a reasonable possibility (if you wonder how it's funded, they have this web site with an About Us button) as is the Charles Babbage Institute at the U of Minnesota. If this is important to anyone here, how about contacting some of them, tell them what you've got or could collect, and see if they're interested. R's, John From vint at google.com Sun Feb 24 14:45:29 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 17:45:29 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> Message-ID: isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? v On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > [Changed the subject line] > > I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and > then I had a dream....literally. > > There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be > very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", > perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed > the money" like many other investigators, they might find some > interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is > funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now > I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. > > But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of > historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial > success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms > already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, > and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or > industry giants try to do so. > > My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). > Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing > computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, > replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt > Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. > > Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts > to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the > evil could be coopted for good? > > Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and > subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where > people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio > signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on > their computers. > > So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely > downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which > uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical > material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted > historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, > DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. > Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply > placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, > from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. > > Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a > plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to > existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, > as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a > Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. > > Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people > would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network > capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you > probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes > self-suficient even as people come and go. > > All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the > code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. > > Dave....? > > /Jack Haverty > > > > On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > > Joe Touch writes: > > > >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > >> > >> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC > >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. > >> > >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue > >> of hosting and net access. > >> > >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC > >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). > >> > >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend > >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free > >> consulting. > >> > >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host > >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact > >> me directly off-list). > > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is > > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing > > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. > > > > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - > > how big are these archives? > > > > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago > > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a > > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and > > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The > > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. > > > > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go > > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. > > > > > >> Joe > >> > >> > >> _______ > >> internet-history mailing list > >> internet-history at postel.org > >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Sun Feb 24 15:23:33 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:23:33 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> Message-ID: I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who can access it.?? What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to everyone.? But maybe there's overlap in any implementation.? Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms.? What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars.?? That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now.?? Thinking "outside the box" is a lot easier.? The Internet made the box much bigger.... /Jack On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? > > v > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: > > [Changed the subject line] > > I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to > sleep, and > then I had a dream....literally. > > There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that > might be > very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", > perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If historians "followed > the money" like many other investigators, they might find some > interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today that the IETF is > funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe > by now > I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. > > But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of > historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial > success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me that such > mechanisms > already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, > and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or > industry giants try to do so. > > My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN).? > Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing > computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, > replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand.? No doubt > Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. > > Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts > to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the > evil could be coopted for good? > > Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and > subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, > where > people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio > signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to > run on > their computers. > > So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely > downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which > uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical > material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted > historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines (go Google!, > Bing!, > DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse.?? > Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply > placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've > shared, > from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. > > Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded.? Or perhaps a > plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe an addition to > existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the code already exists, > as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly > participating in a > Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. > > Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I suspect many people > would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network > capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you > probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN becomes > self-suficient even as people come and go. > > All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the > code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and > Running Code. > > Dave....? > > /Jack Haverty > > > > On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > > Joe Touch > > writes: > > > >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: > >> > >>? ? ?But "internet-history at postel.org > ", and others like it, even RFC > >>? ? ?repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. > >> > >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still > the issue > >> of hosting and net access. > >> > >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even > the ISOC > >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). > >> > >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go > attend > >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free > >> consulting. > >> > >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place > to host > >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know > (contact > >> me directly off-list). > > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The > cost is > > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing > > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. > > > > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth > available - > > how big are these archives? > > > > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago > > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a > > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and > > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The > > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. > > > > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, > well, go > > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. > > > > > >> Joe > >> > >> > >> _______ > >> internet-history mailing list > >> internet-history at postel.org > >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> Contact list-owner at postel.org > for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for > assistance. > > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Sun Feb 24 16:07:28 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:07:28 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> Message-ID: not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly accessible. v On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the problem > of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who can > access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data > public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap > in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place > somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the > like. > > The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm > imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the > problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes > rather than euros and dollars. > > That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside the > box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... > > /Jack > > > On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? > > v > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > >> [Changed the subject line] >> >> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >> then I had a dream....literally. >> >> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >> >> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >> industry giants try to do so. >> >> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >> >> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >> evil could be coopted for good? >> >> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >> their computers. >> >> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >> >> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >> >> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >> self-suficient even as people come and go. >> >> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running >> Code. >> >> Dave....? >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> >> >> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> > Joe Touch writes: >> > >> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> >> >> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >> >> >> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >> >> of hosting and net access. >> >> >> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >> >> >> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >> >> consulting. >> >> >> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >> >> me directly off-list). >> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >> > >> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >> > how big are these archives? >> > >> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >> > >> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >> > >> > >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> >> >> _______ >> >> internet-history mailing list >> >> internet-history at postel.org >> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Sun Feb 24 16:09:38 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 16:09:38 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <0327A072-ACE1-4A36-9CBE-F08637E42646@strayalpha.com> > On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > $25, at 1% interest, > would "endow" a Gig of reliable storage, "forever" (think about how we > pay for perpetual care of a gravesite. > > What's missing is a legal & accounting mechanism for handling the > money You?re forgetting the people cost to run it all. And graves aren?t perpetual. https://www.wcpo.com/money/consumer/dont-waste-your-money/perpetual-cemetery-care-its-not-eternal-care Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Sun Feb 24 16:51:44 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:51:44 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <20190224222104.18227200EA3D1E@ary.local> References: <20190224222104.18227200EA3D1E@ary.local> Message-ID: <73766BEA-D2B9-48E4-94F0-24E43B3DE693@comcast.net> Of the ones you mentioned, the Babbage Institute facilities have the best chance of surviving for a very long period. Their archive is in two (expandable to 6) very large caverns hollowed out 80 feet below the Library. As for the Computer Museum in California, it should be a sobering lesson that the HP archives were lost recently in the California wildfires. > On Feb 24, 2019, at 17:21, John Levine wrote: > > In article you write: >> Those disproportionate financially benefit those who reap the revenues, IMO. The $1 tax on .orgs ... > > The what? That's not even approximately how ISOC or the IETF is > funded. > > More to the point, this is hardly the first time that it has occurred > to anyone that it might be a good idea to try to have a long term > archive of historical Internet documents. > > Rather than trying to reinvent Bittorrent, perhaps it would make more > sense to see what people have already done. I happen to know that the > RFC Editor has made arrangments to have stable archives of the RFC > series at the Computer Museum in California and some university > library in northern Europe. > > The Internet Archive is a reasonable possibility (if you wonder how > it's funded, they have this web site with an About Us button) as is > the Charles Babbage Institute at the U of Minnesota. If this is > important to anyone here, how about contacting some of them, tell them > what you've got or could collect, and see if they're interested. > > R's, > John > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From jack at 3kitty.org Sun Feb 24 18:13:10 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:13:10 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <3d1fb581-668a-ba17-83fa-9030135183b1@3kitty.org> I think it's the nature of volunteerism that benefits flow in all sorts of directions.? Whether people volunteer their time, or employers volunteer their employees' time, the benefits aren't restricted to the volunteers.? But they do it anyway, "for the cause", whatever that might be.?? I was a Red Cross volunteer for many years, spent lots of time trudging through rainstorms to reach fire victims (the proper Red Cross term is "client"), and all of the benefits went to them.? It just felt good, and that was enough payback. That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion.? Rather than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by volunteering their excess computing resources.??? After reaching a big enough population, it could survive wildfires, earthquakes, floods, or even collapse of government - as long as the Internet continues to work.? Of course if all, or almost all, of the volunteers lose interest in history, the system dies.? But if there's ever that few people interested in something, it probably deserves to die. There's decades of history of the needed technology already.? The first prototype I can recall was the Altos at Xerox PARC back in the 80s.? I remember John Schoch describing the maintenance program they had created which self-replicated to any Alto it could find to keep itself alive and running diagnostics.?? The only way to kill it was to power down all the machines -- probably not possible on the Internet today, so such a mechanism would survive today as long as there was enough interest in it.??? Botnets, crypto-miners, blockchains, BitTorrents -- seems like a lot of pieces already exist. The Internet enabled social networking, crowdfunding, and other such innovations that have supplanted traditional mechanisms by empowering volunteers to act in consort.? Sometimes good, sometimes bad.? Why not preserving history? An institution on the Internet doesn't have to host an archive and struggle to survive.?? The Internet can become The Archive. /Jack On 2/24/19 11:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:39 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >> funded by ... Me! > You don?t pay for the people who attend or those who work online throughout the year on lists, area directorates, etc. or advise IANA. > > Those disproportionate financially benefit those who reap the revenues, IMO. The $1 tax on .orgs was a great start, but there ought to be quite different registration fees for for-profits. And other taxes to fund the support services that currently are a silent tax on us all. > > Joe From jack at 3kitty.org Sun Feb 24 18:33:10 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:33:10 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public store, which is what I described.??? Perhaps "restricted" material could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials.? Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too common.? There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. ? Probably many more such things to ponder.? IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents.?? They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent store.?? Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations and for sale.? This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning.?? Someone might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. /Jack On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly > accessible. > > v > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: > > I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the > problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and > controlling who can access it.?? What I described was somewhat of > the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to > everyone.? But maybe there's overlap in any implementation.? > Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as > evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. > > The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms.? > What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style > "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where > people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars.?? > > That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now.?? Thinking > "outside the box" is a lot easier.? The Internet made the box much > bigger.... > > /Jack > > > On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >> >> v >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > > wrote: >> >> [Changed the subject line] >> >> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to >> sleep, and >> then I had a dream....literally. >> >> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History >> that might be >> very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built the >> Internet?", >> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If historians >> "followed >> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >> interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today that the >> IETF is >> funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org domain, >> maybe by now >> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >> >> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet >> repository of >> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or >> financial >> success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me that such >> mechanisms >> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are >> self-funded, >> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when >> governments or >> industry giants try to do so. >> >> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma >> mater, BBN).? >> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or >> stealing >> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply >> store, >> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand.? No >> doubt >> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >> >> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite >> serious efforts >> to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for evil, >> perhaps the >> evil could be coopted for good? >> >> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on >> theft and >> subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the SETI >> mechanisms, where >> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze >> radio >> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing >> it to run on >> their computers. >> >> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the >> world, which >> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores >> historical >> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, >> distrubuted >> historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines (go >> Google!, Bing!, >> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the >> warehouse.?? >> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by >> simply >> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that >> they've shared, >> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >> >> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded.? Or >> perhaps a >> plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe an >> addition to >> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the code >> already exists, >> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly >> participating in a >> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >> >> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I suspect many >> people >> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >> capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >> probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN becomes >> self-suficient even as people come and go. >> >> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and >> write the >> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and >> Running Code. >> >> Dave....? >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> >> >> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> > Joe Touch > > writes: >> > >> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty >> > wrote: >> >> >> >>? ? ?But "internet-history at postel.org >> ", and others like it, >> even RFC >> >>? ? ?repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >> >> >> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s >> still the issue >> >> of hosting and net access. >> >> >> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that >> even the ISOC >> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated >> there). >> >> >> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, >> go attend >> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and >> free >> >> consulting. >> >> >> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a >> place to host >> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me >> know (contact >> >> me directly off-list). >> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the >> cloud. The cost is >> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( >> https://www.linode.com/pricing >> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >> > >> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth >> available - >> > how big are these archives? >> > >> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I >> long ago >> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said >> starttls was a >> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on >> spam (and >> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, >> still). The >> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >> > >> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these >> lists/archives, well, go >> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >> > >> > >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> >> >> _______ >> >> internet-history mailing list >> >> internet-history at postel.org >> >> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org >> for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org >> for assistance. >> >> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 > > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnl at iecc.com Sun Feb 24 18:53:25 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 24 Feb 2019 21:53:25 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <3d1fb581-668a-ba17-83fa-9030135183b1@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> >That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion.? Rather >than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >volunteering their excess computing resources.? Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different from what you're proposing. Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. R's, John From richard at bennett.com Sun Feb 24 18:55:28 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:55:28 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <3d1fb581-668a-ba17-83fa-9030135183b1@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <3d1fb581-668a-ba17-83fa-9030135183b1@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <82F43B4C-7179-46F8-965E-87A3E31BBC57@bennett.com> The Red Cross has a serious fundraising department, government contracts, and a large professional staff. It takes all of that to ensure you have volunteers in the pipeline. Wikipedia has a similar apparatus. Regular-old volunteer efforts generally consist of a very small number of unpaid (or underpaid) workers and an army of critics. The botnet idea makes me wonder what happens when a bad actor decides to hijack the network for his or her own purposes. Presumably you?re asking people to run botnet code as well as to host documents. That?s the kind of issue that didn?t get much thought - or have any design impact - on the schemes that were developed during the Internet?s rainbows and unicorns phase. RB > On Feb 24, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > I think it's the nature of volunteerism that benefits flow in all sorts > of directions. Whether people volunteer their time, or employers > volunteer their employees' time, the benefits aren't restricted to the > volunteers. But they do it anyway, "for the cause", whatever that might > be. I was a Red Cross volunteer for many years, spent lots of time > trudging through rainstorms to reach fire victims (the proper Red Cross > term is "client"), and all of the benefits went to them. It just felt > good, and that was enough payback. > > That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather > than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, > and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely > on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by > volunteering their excess computing resources. After reaching a big > enough population, it could survive wildfires, earthquakes, floods, or > even collapse of government - as long as the Internet continues to > work. Of course if all, or almost all, of the volunteers lose interest > in history, the system dies. But if there's ever that few people > interested in something, it probably deserves to die. > > There's decades of history of the needed technology already. The first > prototype I can recall was the Altos at Xerox PARC back in the 80s. I > remember John Schoch describing the maintenance program they had created > which self-replicated to any Alto it could find to keep itself alive and > running diagnostics. The only way to kill it was to power down all the > machines -- probably not possible on the Internet today, so such a > mechanism would survive today as long as there was enough interest in > it. Botnets, crypto-miners, blockchains, BitTorrents -- seems like a > lot of pieces already exist. > > The Internet enabled social networking, crowdfunding, and other such > innovations that have supplanted traditional mechanisms by empowering > volunteers to act in consort. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Why not > preserving history? > > An institution on the Internet doesn't have to host an archive and > struggle to survive. The Internet can become The Archive. > > /Jack > > On 2/24/19 11:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote: >> >>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:39 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>> I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>> funded by ... Me! >> You don?t pay for the people who attend or those who work online throughout the year on lists, area directorates, etc. or advise IANA. >> >> Those disproportionate financially benefit those who reap the revenues, IMO. The $1 tax on .orgs was a great start, but there ought to be quite different registration fees for for-profits. And other taxes to fund the support services that currently are a silent tax on us all. >> >> Joe > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnl at iecc.com Sun Feb 24 20:25:58 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 24 Feb 2019 23:25:58 -0500 Subject: [ih] re-reinventing the wheel, was not really Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <82F43B4C-7179-46F8-965E-87A3E31BBC57@bennett.com> Message-ID: <20190225042559.44772200EA82BA@ary.local> In article <82F43B4C-7179-46F8-965E-87A3E31BBC57 at bennett.com> you write: >The botnet idea makes me wonder what happens when a bad actor decides to hijack the network for his or her own purposes. >Presumably you?re asking people to run botnet code as well as to host documents. That?s the kind of issue that didn?t get >much thought - or have any design impact - on the schemes that were developed during the Internet?s rainbows and unicorns phase. Perhaps if I say Bittorrent another dozen times someone will notice? It's a peer-to-peer network that delivers files piecewise, with the sources all over the Internet. Each node hosts what its owner wants to host. and sends pieces of what it has to whoever wants it. Network operators aren't thrilled, partly because it screws up the upstream/downstream ratios on asymmetric cable systems, partly because of what some of the users host, but it doesn't do anything bad to the computers that use it. R's, John From jack at 3kitty.org Sun Feb 24 20:31:14 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 20:31:14 -0800 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> Message-ID: <9c205325-9f6f-779e-a7ff-cad2f193aac8@3kitty.org> I've never used Bittorrent, but it may already have a lot of the needed technology.? >From what I've read, some of the differences between my "Benevolent BotNet" and BitTorrent seem to be: ??? - Content is stored outside of BitTorrent per se, e.g., on web servers.? Torrent servers essentially act as caches for material in transit.? So if there is no server online which has stored the content you seek, and it's not recently in transit, it's unavailable until a server with that content come online.? That's not persistent.?? BitTorrent is a distribution mechanism, rather than a storage mechanism which does replication of material to achieve persistence. ??? - There isn't any obvious (to me) way to restrict what your personal machine might store or serve.? People willing to donate their resources to, for example, host historical material, might not be willing to handle all the other stuff that zips around in BitTorrent. ??? - BitTorrent has a somewhat dubious reputation as a vehicle for illegal activities.? Again, people may be reluctant to use it for historical purposes. I may be wrong in the above, since I've never dug deeply into the technology.? But clearly BitTorrent has a lot of the underlying technology that could be used to do what I described (which is what I've been trying to say).? People do use it to distribute content, but I believe that they have to handle the persistent storage themselves by keeping the material stored on probably several servers. The other missing pieces might simply be promoting it as a way to store historical material and then start using it.? I suspect some amount of "how-to" documentation appropriate for non-techies might be needed too. /Jack On 2/24/19 6:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion.? Rather >> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >> volunteering their excess computing resources.? > Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different > from what you're proposing. > > Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed > all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also > widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. > > R's, > John > From vint at google.com Mon Feb 25 02:53:28 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 05:53:28 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <9c205325-9f6f-779e-a7ff-cad2f193aac8@3kitty.org> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <9c205325-9f6f-779e-a7ff-cad2f193aac8@3kitty.org> Message-ID: setting aside reputation, bittorrent is a pretty clever scheme for a implementing a distributed cache. I thought it included cacheing so you can find multiple sources but maybe I am wrong about that. v On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 12:03 AM Jack Haverty wrote: > I've never used Bittorrent, but it may already have a lot of the needed > technology. > > From what I've read, some of the differences between my "Benevolent > BotNet" and BitTorrent seem to be: > > - Content is stored outside of BitTorrent per se, e.g., on web > servers. Torrent servers essentially act as caches for material in > transit. So if there is no server online which has stored the content > you seek, and it's not recently in transit, it's unavailable until a > server with that content come online. That's not persistent. > BitTorrent is a distribution mechanism, rather than a storage mechanism > which does replication of material to achieve persistence. > > - There isn't any obvious (to me) way to restrict what your personal > machine might store or serve. People willing to donate their resources > to, for example, host historical material, might not be willing to > handle all the other stuff that zips around in BitTorrent. > > - BitTorrent has a somewhat dubious reputation as a vehicle for > illegal activities. Again, people may be reluctant to use it for > historical purposes. > > I may be wrong in the above, since I've never dug deeply into the > technology. But clearly BitTorrent has a lot of the underlying > technology that could be used to do what I described (which is what I've > been trying to say). People do use it to distribute content, but I > believe that they have to handle the persistent storage themselves by > keeping the material stored on probably several servers. > > The other missing pieces might simply be promoting it as a way to store > historical material and then start using it. I suspect some amount of > "how-to" documentation appropriate for non-techies might be needed too. > > /Jack > > > On 2/24/19 6:53 PM, John Levine wrote: > >> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather > >> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, > >> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely > >> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by > >> volunteering their excess computing resources. > > Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different > > from what you're proposing. > > > > Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed > > all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also > > widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. > > > > R's, > > John > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnl at iecc.com Mon Feb 25 06:46:17 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 25 Feb 2019 09:46:17 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <9c205325-9f6f-779e-a7ff-cad2f193aac8@3kitty.org> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <9c205325-9f6f-779e-a7ff-cad2f193aac8@3kitty.org> Message-ID: > ??? - Content is stored outside of BitTorrent per se, e.g., on web > servers.? Torrent servers essentially act as caches for material in > transit. ... Dunno where you'd have heard that, because that's exactly what bittorrent and other p2p software don't do. Every node serves what it has, including material it's downloaded from other nodes. Each file is divided into smallish pieces which are downloaded and served separately. If you're downloading, say, a linux DVD ISO, which is a thousand pieces, you can watch as it sucks down and reassembles the pieces in whatever order it can find them, and at the same time starts serving the pieces it's already got. If you leave the client running, it'll continue to serve them. One of the reasons that people use p2p for pirated stuff is that there's no central copy, so there's no single place one can make a file go away. It really is your file botnet. > ??? - There isn't any obvious (to me) way to restrict what your personal > machine might store or serve. It only serves what it's got, and it's only got what you've told it to download or added locally. Since you are apparently interested in p2p file distribution, why not install a bittorrent client (the ones at bittorrent.com are OK) and try it out for a few minutes. R's, John PS: I realize this is the Internet History list, but it's like the history stopped 20 years ago. From agmalis at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 08:14:57 2019 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:14:57 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Jack, In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also check out https://decentralizedweb.net . Cheers, Andy On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public store, > which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be simply > stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible only to > people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials. > Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too common. > > There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an > item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came > from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to > ponder. > > IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store as > meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating > their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - > perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be > added as someone gets interested in doing so. > > Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent > store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations > and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store > isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone > might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web > tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. > > /Jack > On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly > accessible. > > v > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > >> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the >> problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who >> can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data >> public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap >> in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place >> somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the >> like. >> >> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm >> imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the >> problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes >> rather than euros and dollars. >> >> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside the >> box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >> >> /Jack >> >> >> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >> >> v >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >> >>> [Changed the subject line] >>> >>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>> then I had a dream....literally. >>> >>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>> >>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>> industry giants try to do so. >>> >>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>> >>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>> evil could be coopted for good? >>> >>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>> their computers. >>> >>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>> >>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>> >>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>> >>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running >>> Code. >>> >>> Dave....? >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> > Joe Touch writes: >>> > >>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >> >>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>> >> >>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>> >> of hosting and net access. >>> >> >>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>> >> >>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>> >> consulting. >>> >> >>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>> >> me directly off-list). >>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost >>> is >>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>> > >>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>> > how big are these archives? >>> > >>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>> > >>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>> > >>> > >>> >> Joe >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______ >>> >> internet-history mailing list >>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> >> > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Feb 25 08:52:39 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:52:39 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <0327A072-ACE1-4A36-9CBE-F08637E42646@strayalpha.com> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> <0327A072-ACE1-4A36-9CBE-F08637E42646@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <9ca76128-bea3-bad3-d46a-5b47c7f510c5@meetinghouse.net> On 2/24/19 7:09 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Miles Fidelman > > wrote: > >> $25, at 1% interest, >> would "endow" a Gig of reliable storage, "forever" (think about how we >> pay for perpetual care of a gravesite. >> >> What's missing is a legal & accounting mechanism for handling the >> money > > You?re forgetting the people cost to run it all. Ok.. the price goes up a little.? I'm also thinking that one can probably get more than 1% interest on long-term investments (unless the world economy tanks, of course). I'm thinking that this one subcontracts to a federation of ISPs, hosting providers, etc. - where the incremental cost of managing larger disk farms is pretty low.? (Hell, Amazon S3 long-term storage is down in that price range).? The key missing piece is the translation from money deposited in interest bearing accounts, to contracts to multiple storage providers.? (There are several self-healing stacks for managing large distributed storage pools. TAHOE-LAFS comes to mind.) > > And graves aren?t perpetual. > https://www.wcpo.com/money/consumer/dont-waste-your-money/perpetual-cemetery-care-its-not-eternal-care Tell me about it.? I'm in the process of setting stuff up for my Dad's grave.? Sigh... Miles > > Joe -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Feb 25 08:55:11 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:55:11 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <9a53b924-69ae-44d0-33b5-f3e8c1dfd6e9@meetinghouse.net> Jack, There have been attempts at this, before - Oceanstore and Publius come to mind.? The problem is that people come and go, and the Federations disappear.? There's also a scaling problem. My take is that, at some point, things have to become institutionalized, and maybe money has to change hands. Miles On 2/24/19 9:33 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public > store, which is what I described.??? Perhaps "restricted" material > could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines > and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe > "permission" credentials.? Volunteers might be reluctant to > participate if that became too common. > > There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an > item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it > came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to > ponder. > > IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent > store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, > associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of > unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the > contents.?? They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. > > Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent > store.?? Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by > corporations and for sale.? This is almost what the Web is, except > that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear > without warning.?? Someone might put a web site "in front of" the > persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access > materials stored there. > > /Jack > > On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly >> accessible. >> >> v >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty > > wrote: >> >> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing >> the problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and >> controlling who can access it.?? What I described was somewhat of >> the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to >> everyone.? But maybe there's overlap in any implementation.? >> Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as >> evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >> >> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms.? >> What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style >> "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where >> people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >> >> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking >> "outside the box" is a lot easier.? The Internet made the box >> much bigger.... >> >> /Jack >> >> >> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty >> > wrote: >>> >>> [Changed the subject line] >>> >>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to >>> sleep, and >>> then I had a dream....literally. >>> >>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History >>> that might be >>> very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built the >>> Internet?", >>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If historians >>> "followed >>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>> interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today that the >>> IETF is >>> funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org domain, >>> maybe by now >>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>> >>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet >>> repository of >>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or >>> financial >>> success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me that >>> such mechanisms >>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are >>> self-funded, >>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when >>> governments or >>> industry giants try to do so. >>> >>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma >>> mater, BBN). >>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or >>> stealing >>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply >>> store, >>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand.? >>> No doubt >>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the >>> dream. >>> >>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite >>> serious efforts >>> to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for evil, >>> perhaps the >>> evil could be coopted for good? >>> >>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on >>> theft and >>> subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the SETI >>> mechanisms, where >>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to >>> analyze radio >>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing >>> it to run on >>> their computers. >>> >>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the >>> world, which >>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores >>> historical >>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, >>> distrubuted >>> historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines (go >>> Google!, Bing!, >>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the >>> warehouse. >>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive >>> by simply >>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that >>> they've shared, >>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>> >>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded.? Or >>> perhaps a >>> plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe an >>> addition to >>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the code >>> already exists, >>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly >>> participating in a >>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>> >>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I suspect >>> many people >>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and >>> network >>> capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>> probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>> >>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and >>> write the >>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus >>> and Running Code. >>> >>> Dave....? >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> > Joe Touch >> > writes: >>> > >>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >>? ? ?But "internet-history at postel.org >>> ", and others like it, >>> even RFC >>> >>? ? ?repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>> >> >>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s >>> still the issue >>> >> of hosting and net access. >>> >> >>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that >>> even the ISOC >>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated >>> there). >>> >> >>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free >>> riders?, go attend >>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training >>> and free >>> >> consulting. >>> >> >>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a >>> place to host >>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me >>> know (contact >>> >> me directly off-list). >>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the >>> cloud. The cost is >>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( >>> https://www.linode.com/pricing >>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>> > >>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the >>> bandwidth available - >>> > how big are these archives? >>> > >>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I >>> long ago >>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said >>> starttls was a >>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on >>> spam (and >>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, >>> still). The >>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>> > >>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these >>> lists/archives, well, go >>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>> > >>> > >>> >> Joe >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______ >>> >> internet-history mailing list >>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>> >>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org >>> for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org >>> for assistance. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >> >> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Feb 25 08:56:43 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:56:43 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <90C2AEDB-EF75-4F06-8AA2-1E44C85B47EC@bennett.com> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> <905D9C04-4375-4A8E-BC44-23AE605D6BC1@bennett.com> <9DE789B8-DF9C-4B4A-BB57-039D2046C735@comcast.net> <90C2AEDB-EF75-4F06-8AA2-1E44C85B47EC@bennett.com> Message-ID: <65538a7d-7894-8382-fcdd-15895240ad46@meetinghouse.net> Stone tablets & well-buried papyrus scrolls seem to be the most persistent storage we have, yet. Miles On 2/24/19 4:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > This government will not last forever, but it will be replaced by > another and another?but yes, sometimes governments do burn all the > books and paper certainly doesn?t last all that long. Only typewriter > fonts and ASCII art are permanent. > >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 2:15 PM, John Day > > wrote: >> >> For the timescales we need, we need something that lasts longer than >> even governments. In some of my other research, I am handling >> documents that are 400-800 years old. (Some work with even older >> stuff.) We can?t assume even governments will last that long. >> >> John >> >>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 15:09, Richard Bennett >> > wrote: >>> >>> It?s probably most reliable to pass a bill appropriating some money >>> to the Lib. of Congress to host something like the Internet Archive >>> database. Volunteer efforts always have a limited lifespan but >>> government is forever. >>> >>> RB >>> >>>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> The whole question of persistent storage remains an unsolved problem. >>>> >>>> There have been models of distributed publication - like oceanstore >>>> and >>>> publius (huge, distributed hash tables) - but they tend to fall >>>> down if >>>> lots of people don't keep maintaining disk space. >>>> >>>> I keep thinking of the notion of a federation of storage providers >>>> where >>>> one pays once for either a block of replicated storage, or for >>>> publication of a file/document. These days, a 1TB disk costs $100 >>>> (retail) - so 10cents/GB.? Multiply by 5 for replicated copies, and >>>> assume a 2-year disk life, and we're talking 25cents/year for a Gig of >>>> reliable storage (leaving out networking costs).? $25, at 1% interest, >>>> would "endow" a Gig of reliable storage, "forever" (think about how we >>>> pay for perpetual care of a gravesite. >>>> >>>> What's missing is a legal & accounting mechanism for handling the >>>> money.? Folks pay to self-publish an e-book - it sure would be nice to >>>> be able pay, say $50, once, to make a document available for the >>>> life of >>>> the Internet. >>>> >>>> Miles >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 1:39 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>>> >>>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to >>>>> sleep, and >>>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>>> >>>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that >>>>> might be >>>>> very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If historians "followed >>>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>>> interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>>> funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe >>>>> by now >>>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>>> >>>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>>> success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me that such >>>>> mechanisms >>>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>>> >>>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>>> >>>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>>> to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>>> >>>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>>> subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, >>>>> where >>>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to >>>>> run on >>>>> their computers. >>>>> >>>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>>> historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines (go Google!, >>>>> Bing!, >>>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've >>>>> shared, >>>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded.? Or perhaps a >>>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe an addition to >>>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the code already exists, >>>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly >>>>> participating in a >>>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>>> >>>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I suspect many people >>>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>>> capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>>> probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>>> >>>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and >>>>> Running Code. >>>>> >>>>> Dave....? >>>>> >>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>>>> Joe Touch > >>>>>> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ????But "internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>> ", and others like it, even RFC >>>>>>> ????repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the >>>>>>> issue >>>>>>> of hosting and net access. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even >>>>>>> the ISOC >>>>>>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>>>>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>>>>> consulting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to >>>>>>> host >>>>>>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know >>>>>>> (contact >>>>>>> me directly off-list). >>>>>> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The >>>>>> cost is >>>>>> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>>>> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth >>>>>> available - >>>>>> how big are these archives? >>>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>>>> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>>>> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>>>> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>>>> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>>>> >>>>>> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>>>> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for >>>>>>> assistance. >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for >>>>> assistance. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for >>>> assistance. >>> >>> ? >>> Richard Bennett >>> High Tech Forum ?Founder >>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>> >>> Internet Policy Consultant >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum ?Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Feb 25 08:59:56 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:59:56 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> Message-ID: <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion.? Rather >> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >> volunteering their excess computing resources. > Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different > from what you're proposing. > > Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed > all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also > widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. > Bit torrent is transient.? It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast streaming.? When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of the file. Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - that's another story entirely. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 25 09:28:25 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:28:25 -0700 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve files, however. RB > On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: > >>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather >>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >> Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >> from what you're proposing. >> >> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >> all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >> > Bit torrent is transient. It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast > streaming. When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of > the file. > > Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that > replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - > that's another story entirely. > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnl at iecc.com Mon Feb 25 09:31:13 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 25 Feb 2019 12:31:13 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <20190225173114.401BD200EAB1EF@ary.local> In article <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c at meetinghouse.net> you write: >Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - >that's another story entirely. There's certainly plenty of other P2P packages that have been written over the past 20 years. I'm reasonably sure that there are ones that could do the file botnet thing if that's what people want. Personally, I have more faith in libraries with librarians who have been thinking about long term archiving. R's, John From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Feb 25 09:33:12 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:33:12 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. Just like it was checked out. What I didn?t hear them talk about was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? Any thoughts? John > On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Jack, > > In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also check out https://decentralizedweb.net . > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: > True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too common. > > There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to ponder. > > IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. > > Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. > > /Jack > > On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly accessible. >> >> v >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >> >> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >> >> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >> >> /Jack >> >> >> >> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>> [Changed the subject line] >>> >>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>> then I had a dream....literally. >>> >>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>> >>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>> industry giants try to do so. >>> >>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>> >>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>> evil could be coopted for good? >>> >>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>> their computers. >>> >>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>> >>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>> >>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>> >>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >>> >>> Dave....? >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> > Joe Touch > writes: >>> > >>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even RFC >>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>> >> >>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>> >> of hosting and net access. >>> >> >>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>> >> >>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>> >> consulting. >>> >> >>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>> >> me directly off-list). >>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>> > >>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>> > how big are these archives? >>> > >>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>> > >>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>> > >>> > >>> >> Joe >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______ >>> >> internet-history mailing list >>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Feb 25 10:12:37 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:12:37 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Message-ID: Take a look at overdrive.com - it's a portal mechanism to "more than 30,000 libraries in 40+ countries".? My own library, in tiny Nevada County in California, is hooked up to Overdrive.? I've borrowed hundreds of books, with a 3-week loan for each.? Occasionally I have to wait for a copy to be returned before I can borrow it, or put a title on their suggestion list and wait until they purchase it.? It takes seconds to borrow a book and have it available on whatever reading devices you happen to have, and the infrastructure also "syncs" your reading between devices.? So you can read a book on your Kindle, put it down, and later pick up your phone, tablet, laptop, et al and continue reading from where you left off.?? Pretty nice.? It's hooked in with the Amazon/Kindle infrastructure, and maybe others too, which enforce the lending rules.? (Not sure how resistant it is to a motivated and talented hacker)? Some items are available in Kindle format, or EPub, or PDF, or some combination.? It even includes audiobooks and videos, although I've only used it for books. It all works very well.? It's even free.? All you need is your library card from your local library.?? The BPL is a member, so if you have a BPL library card that's all you need. That particular wheel has been around for a while.... /Jack On 2/25/19 9:33 AM, John Day wrote: > Not really related to this discussion. ?The head of the Internet > Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public > Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can > check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet Archive > and only one person has access to the material at a time. Just like it > was checked out. ?What I didn?t hear them talk about was when the > ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they ensure the borrower > doesn?t still have a copy? > > Any thoughts? > John > >> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis > > wrote: >> >> Jack, >> >> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should >> also check out?https://decentralizedweb.net >> . >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty > > wrote: >> >> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced >> public store, which is what I described.??? Perhaps "restricted" >> material could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in >> search engines and accessible only to people with the appropriate >> key, or maybe "permission" credentials.? Volunteers might be >> reluctant to participate if that became too common.? >> >> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance >> of an item, so you can tell whether or not something is >> authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. ? >> Probably many more such things to ponder.? >> >> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent >> store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all >> independent, associating their metadata with items in the >> warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough >> hash of each of the contents.?? They could be added as someone >> gets interested in doing so. >> >> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the >> persistent store.?? Some might be built by volunteers and free, >> others by corporations and for sale.? This is almost what the Web >> is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the >> Web disappear without warning.?? Someone might put a web site "in >> front of" the persistent store and use today's web tools pretty >> much as is to access materials stored there. >> >> /Jack >> >> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly >>> accessible. >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty >> > wrote: >>> >>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be >>> addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal >>> private data, and controlling who can access it.?? What I >>> described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, >>> survivable, and accessible to everyone.? But maybe there's >>> overlap in any implementation.? Certainly there are lots of >>> pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the >>> success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >>> >>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social >>> mechanisms.? What I'm imagining is more like applying >>> Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a >>> historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes >>> rather than euros and dollars.?? >>> >>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now.?? Thinking >>> "outside the box" is a lot easier.? The Internet made the >>> box much bigger.... >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>> >>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before >>>> going to sleep, and >>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>> >>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet >>>> History that might be >>>> very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built >>>> the Internet?", >>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If >>>> historians "followed >>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might >>>> find some >>>> interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today >>>> that the IETF is >>>> funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org >>>> domain, maybe by now >>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>> >>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet >>>> repository of >>>> historical materials, not subject to the management >>>> whims or financial >>>> success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me >>>> that such mechanisms >>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, >>>> are self-funded, >>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when >>>> governments or >>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>> >>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my >>>> alma mater, BBN).? >>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, >>>> or stealing >>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would >>>> simply store, >>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on >>>> demand.? No doubt >>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of >>>> the dream. >>>> >>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite >>>> serious efforts >>>> to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for >>>> evil, perhaps the >>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>> >>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely >>>> on theft and >>>> subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the SETI >>>> mechanisms, where >>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to >>>> analyze radio >>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and >>>> allowing it to run on >>>> their computers. >>>> >>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which >>>> is freely >>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around >>>> the world, which >>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores >>>> historical >>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, >>>> distrubuted >>>> historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines >>>> (go Google!, Bing!, >>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the >>>> warehouse.?? >>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical >>>> archive by simply >>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that >>>> they've shared, >>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and >>>> replicated. >>>> >>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be >>>> downloaded.? Or perhaps a >>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe an >>>> addition to >>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the code >>>> already exists, >>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly >>>> participating in a >>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>> >>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I >>>> suspect many people >>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers >>>> and network >>>> capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are >>>> empty...you >>>> probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN >>>> becomes >>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>> >>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down >>>> and write the >>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough >>>> Consensus and Running Code. >>>> >>>> Dave....? >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> > Joe Touch >>> > writes: >>>> > >>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>? ? ?But "internet-history at postel.org >>>> ", and others like >>>> it, even RFC >>>> >>? ? ?repositories, likely exist at the whim of their >>>> sponsor. >>>> >> >>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - >>>> they?re?s still the issue >>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>> >> >>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) >>>> that even the ISOC >>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG >>>> originated there). >>>> >> >>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free >>>> riders?, go attend >>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free >>>> training and free >>>> >> consulting. >>>> >> >>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to >>>> offer a place to host >>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do >>>> let me know (contact >>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the >>>> cloud. The cost is >>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( >>>> https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon >>>> donation. >>>> > >>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the >>>> bandwidth available - >>>> > how big are these archives? >>>> > >>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, >>>> but I long ago >>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said >>>> starttls was a >>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts >>>> down on spam (and >>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential >>>> correspondents, still). The >>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with >>>> spam. >>>> > >>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these >>>> lists/archives, well, go >>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Joe >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______ >>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>> >>>> >> >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org >>>> for assistance. >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org >>>> for assistance. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> New postal address: >>>> Google >>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for >> assistance. >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 25 10:30:46 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:30:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Message-ID: I seem to recall some lawsuits over the Internet Archive?s ?lending library? system. It violates copyright law, of course. RB > On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:33 AM, John Day wrote: > > Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. Just like it was checked out. What I didn?t hear them talk about was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? > > Any thoughts? > John > >> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis > wrote: >> >> Jack, >> >> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also check out https://decentralizedweb.net . >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too common. >> >> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to ponder. >> >> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. >> >> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. >> >> /Jack >> >> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly accessible. >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >>> >>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >>> >>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>> >>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>> >>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>> >>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>> >>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>> >>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>> >>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>>> their computers. >>>> >>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>> >>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>> >>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>> >>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >>>> >>>> Dave....? >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> > Joe Touch > writes: >>>> > >>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even RFC >>>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>> >> >>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>> >> >>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>> >> >>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>> >> consulting. >>>> >> >>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>> > >>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>>> > how big are these archives? >>>> > >>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>> > >>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Joe >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______ >>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> New postal address: >>>> Google >>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu Mon Feb 25 10:55:31 2019 From: mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu (Michael Greenwald) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:55:31 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 2019-02-25 10:30, Richard Bennett wrote: > I seem to recall some lawsuits over the Internet Archive?s > ?lending library? system. It violates copyright law, of course. Probably too off-topic, so feel free to ignore: I thought the Internet Archive only scans books that are in the public domain? > > RB > >> On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:33 AM, John Day wrote: >> >> Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet >> Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public >> Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can >> check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet >> Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. >> Just like it was checked out. What I didn?t hear them talk about >> was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they >> ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? >> >> Any thoughts? >> John >> >> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis >> wrote: >> >> Jack, >> >> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should >> also check out https://decentralizedweb.net [1] . >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty >> wrote: >> >> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public >> store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material >> could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines >> and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe >> "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to >> participate if that became too common. >> >> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of >> an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, >> where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more >> such things to ponder. >> >> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent >> store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all >> independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse >> by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each >> of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in >> doing so. >> >> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent >> store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by >> corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except >> that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear >> without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the >> persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to >> access materials stored there. >> >> /Jack >> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly >> accessible. >> >> v >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty >> wrote: >> >> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the >> problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and >> controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of >> the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to >> everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. >> Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as >> evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >> >> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What >> I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" >> to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute >> cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >> >> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking >> "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much >> bigger.... >> >> /Jack >> >> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >> >> v >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty >> wrote: >> [Changed the subject line] >> >> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, >> and >> then I had a dream....literally. >> >> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might >> be >> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the >> Internet?", >> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians >> "followed >> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by >> now >> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >> >> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or >> financial >> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such >> mechanisms >> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are >> self-funded, >> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >> industry giants try to do so. >> >> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, >> BBN). >> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >> >> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious >> efforts >> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps >> the >> evil could be coopted for good? >> >> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, >> where >> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to >> run on >> their computers. >> >> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, >> which >> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, >> Bing!, >> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've >> shared, >> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >> >> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps >> a >> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already >> exists, >> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating >> in a >> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >> >> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >> self-suficient even as people come and go. >> >> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and >> Running Code. >> >> Dave....? >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> Joe Touch writes: >>> >>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty >> wrote: >>>> >>>> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even >> RFC >>>> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>> >>>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still >> the issue >>>> of hosting and net access. >>>> >>>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the >> ISOC >>>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>> >>>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go >> attend >>>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>> consulting. >>>> >>>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to >> host >>>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know >> (contact >>>> me directly off-list). >>> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The >> cost is >>> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>> >>> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth >> available - >>> how big are these archives? >>> >>> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam >> (and >>> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). >> The >>> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>> >>> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, >> go >>> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>> >>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> -- >> >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 > > -- > > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum [2] Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://decentralizedweb.net/ > [2] http://hightechforum.org > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 25 11:12:26 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:12:26 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <13E24D46-C5E0-493F-808B-8E9D68EF2C82@bennett.com> Here?s a link to a story on the lawsuit: https://teleread.org/2017/12/19/the-internet-archives-openlibrary-project-violates-copyright-the-authors-guild-warns/ RB > On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:55 AM, Michael Greenwald wrote: > > On 2019-02-25 10:30, Richard Bennett wrote: >> I seem to recall some lawsuits over the Internet Archive?s >> ?lending library? system. It violates copyright law, of course. > > Probably too off-topic, so feel free to ignore: > I thought the Internet Archive only scans books that are in the public domain? > >> RB >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:33 AM, John Day wrote: >>> Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet >>> Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public >>> Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can >>> check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet >>> Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. >>> Just like it was checked out. What I didn?t hear them talk about >>> was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they >>> ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? >>> Any thoughts? >>> John >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis >>> wrote: >>> Jack, >>> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should >>> also check out https://decentralizedweb.net [1] . >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty > >>> wrote: >>> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public >>> store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material >>> could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines >>> and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe >>> "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to >>> participate if that became too common. >>> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of >>> an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, >>> where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more >>> such things to ponder. >>> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent >>> store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all >>> independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse >>> by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each >>> of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in >>> doing so. >>> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent >>> store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by >>> corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except >>> that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear >>> without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the >>> persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to >>> access materials stored there. >>> /Jack >>> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly >>> accessible. >>> v >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty > >>> wrote: >>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the >>> problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and >>> controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of >>> the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to >>> everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. >>> Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as >>> evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What >>> I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" >>> to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute >>> cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking >>> "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much >>> bigger.... >>> /Jack >>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>> v >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > >>> wrote: >>> [Changed the subject line] >>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, >>> and >>> then I had a dream....literally. >>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might >>> be >>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the >>> Internet?", >>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians >>> "followed >>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by >>> now >>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or >>> financial >>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such >>> mechanisms >>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are >>> self-funded, >>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>> industry giants try to do so. >>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, >>> BBN). >>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious >>> efforts >>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps >>> the >>> evil could be coopted for good? >>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, >>> where >>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to >>> run on >>> their computers. >>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, >>> which >>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, >>> Bing!, >>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've >>> shared, >>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps >>> a >>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already >>> exists, >>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating >>> in a >>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and >>> Running Code. >>> Dave....? >>> /Jack Haverty >>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> Joe Touch > writes: >>>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > >>> wrote: >>>>> But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even >>> RFC >>>>> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still >>> the issue >>>>> of hosting and net access. >>>>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the >>> ISOC >>>>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go >>> attend >>>>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>>> consulting. >>>>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to >>> host >>>>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know >>> (contact >>>>> me directly off-list). >>>> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The >>> cost is >>>> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth >>> available - >>>> how big are these archives? >>>> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam >>> (and >>>> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). >>> The >>>> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, >>> go >>>> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>>> Joe >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum [2] Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> Internet Policy Consultant >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] https://decentralizedweb.net/ >> [2] http://hightechforum.org >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Feb 25 12:42:36 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:42:36 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files.? It's essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent).? And it's only more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. Miles On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given file > as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve files, however. > > RB > >> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman >> > wrote: >> >> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >> >>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather >>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>> Hi again. ?Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >>> from what you're proposing. >>> >>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>> all over the world. ?It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>> >> Bit torrent is transient.? It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >> streaming.? When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of >> the file. >> >> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - >> that's another story entirely. >> >> -- >> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum ?Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Feb 25 12:48:39 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:48:39 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <91E89C23-E786-4D04-84DB-B5C04F9F760E@comcast.net> I didn?t ask if it worked to check out a book. I asked, what happens when you return a book? Do they delete it from all of your devices? > On Feb 25, 2019, at 13:12, Jack Haverty wrote: > > Take a look at overdrive.com - it's a portal mechanism to "more than 30,000 libraries in 40+ countries". My own library, in tiny Nevada County in Californria, is hooked up to Overdrive. I've borrowed hundreds of books, with a 3-week loan for each. Occasionally I have to wait for a copy to be returned before I can borrow it, or put a title on their suggestion list and wait until they purchase it. > > It takes seconds to borrow a book and have it available on whatever reading devices you happen to have, and the infrastructure also "syncs" your reading between devices. So you can read a book on your Kindle, put it down, and later pick up your phone, tablet, laptop, et al and continue reading from where you left off. Pretty nice. It's hooked in with the Amazon/Kindle infrastructure, and maybe others too, which enforce the lending rules. (Not sure how resistant it is to a motivated and talented hacker) > > Some items are available in Kindle format, or EPub, or PDF, or some combination. It even includes audiobooks and videos, although I've only used it for books. > > It all works very well. It's even free. All you need is your library card from your local library. The BPL is a member, so if you have a BPL library card that's all you need. > > That particular wheel has been around for a while.... > > /Jack > > On 2/25/19 9:33 AM, John Day wrote: >> Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. Just like it was checked out. What I didn?t hear them talk about was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? >> >> Any thoughts? >> John >> >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis > wrote: >>> >>> Jack, >>> >>> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also check out https://decentralizedweb.net . >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too common. >>> >>> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to ponder. >>> >>> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. >>> >>> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly accessible. >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >>>> >>>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >>>> >>>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >>>> >>>> /Jack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>>>> >>>>> v >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>>> >>>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>>> >>>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>>>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>>> >>>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>>> >>>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>>> >>>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>>> >>>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>>>> their computers. >>>>> >>>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>>> >>>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>>> >>>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >>>>> >>>>> Dave....? >>>>> >>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>>> > Joe Touch > writes: >>>>> > >>>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even RFC >>>>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>>> >> consulting. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>>> > >>>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>>>> > how big are these archives? >>>>> > >>>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>>> > >>>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> Joe >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> _______ >>>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> New postal address: >>>>> Google >>>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> New postal address: >>>> Google >>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Feb 25 12:50:01 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:50:01 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Message-ID: The interview addressed that and this one person can check it out at a time is suppose to address that. I still want to know what happens when the ?book? is ?returned.' > On Feb 25, 2019, at 13:30, Richard Bennett wrote: > > I seem to recall some lawsuits over the Internet Archive?s ?lending library? system. It violates copyright law, of course. > > RB > >> On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:33 AM, John Day > wrote: >> >> Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. Just like it was checked out. What I didn?t hear them talk about was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? >> >> Any thoughts? >> John >> >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis > wrote: >>> >>> Jack, >>> >>> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also check out https://decentralizedweb.net . >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too common. >>> >>> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to ponder. >>> >>> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. >>> >>> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly accessible. >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >>>> >>>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >>>> >>>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >>>> >>>> /Jack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>>>> >>>>> v >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>>> >>>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>>> >>>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>>>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>>> >>>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>>> >>>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>>> >>>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>>> >>>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>>>> their computers. >>>>> >>>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>>> >>>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>>> >>>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >>>>> >>>>> Dave....? >>>>> >>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>>> > Joe Touch > writes: >>>>> > >>>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even RFC >>>>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>>> >> consulting. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>>> > >>>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>>>> > how big are these archives? >>>>> > >>>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>>> > >>>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> Joe >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> _______ >>>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> New postal address: >>>>> Google >>>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> New postal address: >>>> Google >>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Feb 25 12:51:47 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:51:47 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Message-ID: (sigh) Go to WGBH.org and find the interview. This is whole aspect of it was what they were discussing. How they could make hard to find books still under copyright available for ?check out? over the Internet. > On Feb 25, 2019, at 13:55, Michael Greenwald wrote: > > On 2019-02-25 10:30, Richard Bennett wrote: >> I seem to recall some lawsuits over the Internet Archive?s >> ?lending library? system. It violates copyright law, of course. > > Probably too off-topic, so feel free to ignore: > I thought the Internet Archive only scans books that are in the public domain? > >> RB >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:33 AM, John Day wrote: >>> Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet >>> Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public >>> Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can >>> check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet >>> Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. >>> Just like it was checked out. What I didn?t hear them talk about >>> was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they >>> ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? >>> Any thoughts? >>> John >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis >>> wrote: >>> Jack, >>> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should >>> also check out https://decentralizedweb.net [1] . >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty >>> wrote: >>> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public >>> store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material >>> could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines >>> and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe >>> "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to >>> participate if that became too common. >>> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of >>> an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, >>> where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more >>> such things to ponder. >>> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent >>> store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all >>> independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse >>> by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each >>> of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in >>> doing so. >>> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent >>> store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by >>> corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except >>> that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear >>> without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the >>> persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to >>> access materials stored there. >>> /Jack >>> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly >>> accessible. >>> v >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty >>> wrote: >>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the >>> problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and >>> controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of >>> the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to >>> everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. >>> Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as >>> evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What >>> I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" >>> to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute >>> cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking >>> "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much >>> bigger.... >>> /Jack >>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>> v >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty >>> wrote: >>> [Changed the subject line] >>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, >>> and >>> then I had a dream....literally. >>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might >>> be >>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the >>> Internet?", >>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians >>> "followed >>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by >>> now >>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or >>> financial >>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such >>> mechanisms >>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are >>> self-funded, >>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>> industry giants try to do so. >>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, >>> BBN). >>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious >>> efforts >>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps >>> the >>> evil could be coopted for good? >>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, >>> where >>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to >>> run on >>> their computers. >>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, >>> which >>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, >>> Bing!, >>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've >>> shared, >>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps >>> a >>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already >>> exists, >>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating >>> in a >>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and >>> Running Code. >>> Dave....? >>> /Jack Haverty >>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> Joe Touch writes: >>>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty >>> wrote: >>>>> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even >>> RFC >>>>> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>>> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still >>> the issue >>>>> of hosting and net access. >>>>> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the >>> ISOC >>>>> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>>> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go >>> attend >>>>> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>>> consulting. >>>>> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to >>> host >>>>> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know >>> (contact >>>>> me directly off-list). >>>> My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The >>> cost is >>>> $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>> ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>> It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth >>> available - >>>> how big are these archives? >>>> I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>> switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>> "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam >>> (and >>>> sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). >>> The >>>> biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>> If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, >>> go >>>> burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>>> Joe >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum [2] Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> Internet Policy Consultant >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] https://decentralizedweb.net/ >> [2] http://hightechforum.org >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Feb 25 13:22:41 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:22:41 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <91E89C23-E786-4D04-84DB-B5C04F9F760E@comcast.net> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> <91E89C23-E786-4D04-84DB-B5C04F9F760E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <3d2ee168-9035-d5d0-0b90-32af37c88286@3kitty.org> Yes, the infrastructure is designed to "enforce the lending rules".? If I return a book, or my 3-week loan period ends, the book is no longer accessible on any of my devices.?? An image (the cover art) of it remains on my "bookshelf" in case I want to borrow it again (or buy it - this is Amazon of course). ? I can delete the bookshelf image if I choose.? But I can't read it any more. Most of what I've read has been in Kindle format, but I believe a similar process happens with PDFs, using Adobe's mechanisms. I don't know whether or not that means it is "deleted from all my devices", including possibly any clouds or such that my device may be syncing with or using for backup.?? For the casual user though, it's gone.? But a sufficiently motivated and talented hacker or forensic computer tech -- maybe they could still extract it somehow.? Or possibly build a "screenscraper" that saves the images of pages as I read them.? But it would probably be easier for such a miscreant to go to the library building and just put the book under a coat. /Jack On 2/25/19 12:48 PM, John Day wrote: > I didn?t ask if it worked to check out a book.? > > I asked, what happens when you return a book? Do they delete it from > all of your devices? > >> On Feb 25, 2019, at 13:12, Jack Haverty > > wrote: >> >> Take a look at overdrive.com - it's a portal >> mechanism to "more than 30,000 libraries in 40+ countries".? My own >> library, in tiny Nevada County in Californria, is hooked up to >> Overdrive.? I've borrowed hundreds of books, with a 3-week loan for >> each.? Occasionally I have to wait for a copy to be returned before I >> can borrow it, or put a title on their suggestion list and wait until >> they purchase it.? >> >> It takes seconds to borrow a book and have it available on whatever >> reading devices you happen to have, and the infrastructure also >> "syncs" your reading between devices.? So you can read a book on your >> Kindle, put it down, and later pick up your phone, tablet, laptop, et >> al and continue reading from where you left off.?? Pretty nice.? It's >> hooked in with the Amazon/Kindle infrastructure, and maybe others >> too, which enforce the lending rules.? (Not sure how resistant it is >> to a motivated and talented hacker)? >> >> Some items are available in Kindle format, or EPub, or PDF, or some >> combination.? It even includes audiobooks and videos, although I've >> only used it for books. >> >> It all works very well.? It's even free.? All you need is your >> library card from your local library.?? The BPL is a member, so if >> you have a BPL library card that's all you need. >> >> That particular wheel has been around for a while.... >> >> /Jack >> >> On 2/25/19 9:33 AM, John Day wrote: >>> Not really related to this discussion. ?The head of the Internet >>> Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public >>> Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can >>> check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet >>> Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. >>> Just like it was checked out. ?What I didn?t hear them talk about >>> was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they ensure >>> the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> John >>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Jack, >>>> >>>> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should >>>> also check out?https://decentralizedweb.net >>>> . >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced >>>> public store, which is what I described.??? Perhaps >>>> "restricted" material could be simply stored encrypted, and >>>> thus visible in search engines and accessible only to people >>>> with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials.? >>>> Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too >>>> common.? >>>> >>>> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the >>>> provenance of an item, so you can tell whether or not something >>>> is authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. ? >>>> Probably many more such things to ponder.? >>>> >>>> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a >>>> persistent store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them >>>> all independent, associating their metadata with items in the >>>> warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a >>>> large-enough hash of each of the contents.?? They could be >>>> added as someone gets interested in doing so. >>>> >>>> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the >>>> persistent store.?? Some might be built by volunteers and free, >>>> others by corporations and for sale.? This is almost what the >>>> Web is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on >>>> the Web disappear without warning.?? Someone might put a web >>>> site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web >>>> tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. >>>> >>>> /Jack >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be >>>>> publicly accessible. >>>>> >>>>> v >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be >>>>> addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal >>>>> private data, and controlling who can access it.?? What I >>>>> described was somewhat of the inverse - making data >>>>> public, survivable, and accessible to everyone.? But maybe >>>>> there's overlap in any implementation.? Certainly there >>>>> are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as >>>>> evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and >>>>> the like. >>>>> >>>>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social >>>>> mechanisms.? What I'm imagining is more like applying >>>>> Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a >>>>> historical archive, where people contribute cycles and >>>>> bytes rather than euros and dollars.?? >>>>> >>>>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now.?? >>>>> Thinking "outside the box" is a lot easier.? The Internet >>>>> made the box much bigger.... >>>>> >>>>> /Jack >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>>>>> >>>>>> v >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>>>> >>>>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before >>>>>> going to sleep, and >>>>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet >>>>>> History that might be >>>>>> very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who built >>>>>> the Internet?", >>>>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? If >>>>>> historians "followed >>>>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might >>>>>> find some >>>>>> interesting insights.? I didn't realize until today >>>>>> that the IETF is >>>>>> funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my .org >>>>>> domain, maybe by now >>>>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet >>>>>> repository of >>>>>> historical materials, not subject to the management >>>>>> whims or financial >>>>>> success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded me >>>>>> that such mechanisms >>>>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, >>>>>> are self-funded, >>>>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when >>>>>> governments or >>>>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my >>>>>> alma mater, BBN).? >>>>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and >>>>>> viruses, or stealing >>>>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would >>>>>> simply store, >>>>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on >>>>>> demand.? No doubt >>>>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part >>>>>> of the dream. >>>>>> >>>>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives >>>>>> despite serious efforts >>>>>> to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted for >>>>>> evil, perhaps the >>>>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't >>>>>> rely on theft and >>>>>> subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to the >>>>>> SETI mechanisms, where >>>>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to >>>>>> analyze radio >>>>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and >>>>>> allowing it to run on >>>>>> their computers. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, >>>>>> which is freely >>>>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around >>>>>> the world, which >>>>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and >>>>>> stores historical >>>>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, >>>>>> persistent, distrubuted >>>>>> historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search engines >>>>>> (go Google!, Bing!, >>>>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in >>>>>> the warehouse.?? >>>>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical >>>>>> archive by simply >>>>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine >>>>>> that they've shared, >>>>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and >>>>>> replicated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be >>>>>> downloaded.? Or perhaps a >>>>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or maybe >>>>>> an addition to >>>>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of the >>>>>> code already exists, >>>>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly >>>>>> participating in a >>>>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I >>>>>> suspect many people >>>>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers >>>>>> and network >>>>>> capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are >>>>>> empty...you >>>>>> probably do too.?? With enough participants, the BBN >>>>>> becomes >>>>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>>>> >>>>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down >>>>>> and write the >>>>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough >>>>>> Consensus and Running Code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave....? >>>>>> >>>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>>>> > Joe Touch >>>>> > writes: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>? ? ?But "internet-history at postel.org >>>>>> ", and others >>>>>> like it, even RFC >>>>>> >>? ? ?repositories, likely exist at the whim of >>>>>> their sponsor. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - >>>>>> they?re?s still the issue >>>>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for >>>>>> one) that even the ISOC >>>>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG >>>>>> originated there). >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free >>>>>> riders?, go attend >>>>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free >>>>>> training and free >>>>>> >> consulting. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to >>>>>> offer a place to host >>>>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do >>>>>> let me know (contact >>>>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in >>>>>> the cloud. The cost is >>>>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( >>>>>> https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon >>>>>> donation. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the >>>>>> bandwidth available - >>>>>> > how big are these archives? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, >>>>>> but I long ago >>>>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said >>>>>> starttls was a >>>>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts >>>>>> down on spam (and >>>>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential >>>>>> correspondents, still). The >>>>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing >>>>>> with spam. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these >>>>>> lists/archives, well, go >>>>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Joe >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> _______ >>>>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org >>>>>> for assistance. >>>>>> _______ >>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>> >>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org >>>>>> for assistance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> New postal address: >>>>>> Google >>>>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> New postal address: >>>>> Google >>>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org >>>> for assistance. >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 25 13:24:02 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:24:02 -0700 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. > On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files. It's essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent). And it's only more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. > > Miles > > On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve files, however. >> >> RB >> >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>> >>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> >>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather >>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>> Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >>>> from what you're proposing. >>>> >>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>>> all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>> >>> Bit torrent is transient. It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>> streaming. When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of >>> the file. >>> >>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - >>> that's another story entirely. >>> >>> -- >>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>> >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agmalis at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 13:27:13 2019 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:27:13 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Message-ID: My local library (Andover) is also a member of Overdrive. Be sure to get the accompanying phone app (Libby) if you use Overdrive. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:12 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > Take a look at overdrive.com - it's a portal mechanism to "more than > 30,000 libraries in 40+ countries". My own library, in tiny Nevada > County in California, is hooked up to Overdrive. I've borrowed hundreds of > books, with a 3-week loan for each. Occasionally I have to wait for a copy > to be returned before I can borrow it, or put a title on their suggestion > list and wait until they purchase it. > > It takes seconds to borrow a book and have it available on whatever > reading devices you happen to have, and the infrastructure also "syncs" > your reading between devices. So you can read a book on your Kindle, put > it down, and later pick up your phone, tablet, laptop, et al and continue > reading from where you left off. Pretty nice. It's hooked in with the > Amazon/Kindle infrastructure, and maybe others too, which enforce the > lending rules. (Not sure how resistant it is to a motivated and talented > hacker) > > Some items are available in Kindle format, or EPub, or PDF, or some > combination. It even includes audiobooks and videos, although I've only > used it for books. > > It all works very well. It's even free. All you need is your library > card from your local library. The BPL is a member, so if you have a BPL > library card that's all you need. > > That particular wheel has been around for a while.... > > /Jack > On 2/25/19 9:33 AM, John Day wrote: > > Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet Archive > and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public Radio last > week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can check-out material > in the BPL collection through the Internet Archive and only one person has > access to the material at a time. Just like it was checked out. What I > didn?t hear them talk about was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, > how is it they ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? > > Any thoughts? > John > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Jack, > > In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also > check out https://decentralizedweb.net . > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > >> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public >> store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be >> simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible >> only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" >> credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became >> too common. >> >> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an >> item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came >> from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to >> ponder. >> >> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store >> as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating >> their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - >> perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be >> added as someone gets interested in doing so. >> >> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent >> store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations >> and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store >> isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone >> might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web >> tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. >> >> /Jack >> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly >> accessible. >> >> v >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >> >>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the >>> problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who >>> can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data >>> public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap >>> in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place >>> somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the >>> like. >>> >>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm >>> imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the >>> problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes >>> rather than euros and dollars. >>> >>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside >>> the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> >>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>> >>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>> >>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>> >>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>> >>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>> >>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>> >>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>>> their computers. >>>> >>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>> >>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>> >>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>> >>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running >>>> Code. >>>> >>>> Dave....? >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> > Joe Touch writes: >>>> > >>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >>>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>> >> >>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the >>>> issue >>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>> >> >>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the >>>> ISOC >>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>> >> >>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>> >> consulting. >>>> >> >>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know >>>> (contact >>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost >>>> is >>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>> > >>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available >>>> - >>>> > how big are these archives? >>>> > >>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>> > >>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Joe >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______ >>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Feb 25 13:29:41 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:29:41 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <3d2ee168-9035-d5d0-0b90-32af37c88286@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> <91E89C23-E786-4D04-84DB-B5C04F9F760E@comcast.net> <3d2ee168-9035-d5d0-0b90-32af37c88286@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <5FCF50B8-275C-415D-8D0D-F344B72C9287@comcast.net> Okay, thanks. I guess with Kindle or other readers they can do that. As you indicate, from a laptop it might be possible to save it. Although, Adobe has added features to make that difficult. John > On Feb 25, 2019, at 16:22, Jack Haverty wrote: > > Yes, the infrastructure is designed to "enforce the lending rules". > > If I return a book, or my 3-week loan period ends, the book is no longer accessible on any of my devices. An image (the cover art) of it remains on my "bookshelf" in case I want to borrow it again (or buy it - this is Amazon of course). I can delete the bookshelf image if I choose. But I can't read it any more. > > Most of what I've read has been in Kindle format, but I believe a similar process happens with PDFs, using Adobe's mechanisms. > > I don't know whether or not that means it is "deleted from all my devices", including possibly any clouds or such that my device may be syncing with or using for backup. For the casual user though, it's gone. > > But a sufficiently motivated and talented hacker or forensic computer tech -- maybe they could still extract it somehow. Or possibly build a "screenscraper" that saves the images of pages as I read them. But it would probably be easier for such a miscreant to go to the library building and just put the book under a coat. > > /Jack > > On 2/25/19 12:48 PM, John Day wrote: >> I didn?t ask if it worked to check out a book. >> >> I asked, what happens when you return a book? Do they delete it from all of your devices? >> >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 13:12, Jack Haverty > wrote: >>> >>> Take a look at overdrive.com - it's a portal mechanism to "more than 30,000 libraries in 40+ countries". My own library, in tiny Nevada County in Californria, is hooked up to Overdrive. I've borrowed hundreds of books, with a 3-week loan for each. Occasionally I have to wait for a copy to be returned before I can borrow it, or put a title on their suggestion list and wait until they purchase it. >>> >>> It takes seconds to borrow a book and have it available on whatever reading devices you happen to have, and the infrastructure also "syncs" your reading between devices. So you can read a book on your Kindle, put it down, and later pick up your phone, tablet, laptop, et al and continue reading from where you left off. Pretty nice. It's hooked in with the Amazon/Kindle infrastructure, and maybe others too, which enforce the lending rules. (Not sure how resistant it is to a motivated and talented hacker) >>> >>> Some items are available in Kindle format, or EPub, or PDF, or some combination. It even includes audiobooks and videos, although I've only used it for books. >>> >>> It all works very well. It's even free. All you need is your library card from your local library. The BPL is a member, so if you have a BPL library card that's all you need. >>> >>> That particular wheel has been around for a while.... >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> On 2/25/19 9:33 AM, John Day wrote: >>>> Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. Just like it was checked out. What I didn?t hear them talk about was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? >>>> >>>> Any thoughts? >>>> John >>>> >>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jack, >>>>> >>>>> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also check out https://decentralizedweb.net . >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too common. >>>>> >>>>> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to ponder. >>>>> >>>>> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. >>>>> >>>>> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. >>>>> >>>>> /Jack >>>>> >>>>> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>>> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly accessible. >>>>>> >>>>>> v >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >>>>>> >>>>>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >>>>>> >>>>>> /Jack >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>>>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> v >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>>>>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>>>>>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>>>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>>>>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>>>>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>>>>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>>>>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>>>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>>>>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>>>>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>>>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>>>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>>>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>>>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>>>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>>>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>>>>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>>>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>>>>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>>>>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>>>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>>>>>> their computers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>>>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>>>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>>>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>>>>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>>>>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>>>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>>>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>>>>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>>>>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>>>>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>>>>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>>>>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>>>>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>>>>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>>>>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>>>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>>>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dave....? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>>>>> > Joe Touch > writes: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even RFC >>>>>>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>>>>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>>>>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>>>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>>>>> >> consulting. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>>>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>>>>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>>>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>>>>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>>>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>>>>>> > how big are these archives? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>>>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>>>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>>>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>>>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>>>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Joe >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> _______ >>>>>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> New postal address: >>>>>>> Google >>>>>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> New postal address: >>>>>> Google >>>>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnl at iecc.com Mon Feb 25 14:58:43 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 25 Feb 2019 17:58:43 -0500 Subject: [ih] borrowing e-books In-Reply-To: <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20190225225843.B0098200EAE1C4@ary.local> In article <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F at comcast.net> you write: >Not really related to this discussion. The head of the Internet Archive and the head of Boston Public Library were on Boston Public >Radio last week. They were announcing a cooperation where you can check-out material in the BPL collection through the Internet >Archive and only one person has access to the material at a time. Just like it was checked out. What I didn?t hear them talk about >was when the ?book? or whatever is returned, how is it they ensure the borrower doesn?t still have a copy? > >Any thoughts? I think you should look at https://openlibrary.org/ and try it out. You can check books out and read them on their web site or download a locked epub or PDF that needs the Adobe Digital Editions app. Time-limited e-books are nothing new. I know of several systems that license books to libraries so they can lend them out to one user at a time, 3M Cloudlibrary, and Rakuten Overdrive which can lend you Kindle or their own Kobo format. There are also locked Adobe PDF and ePub which as far as I can tell no public libraries use. Look at your local public library's web site and they'll likely have a link to some of them. The Internet Archive has an extremely aggressive interpretation of copyright law in which they ship container loads of books to China to be scanned, then ship them back and just stack up the containers. Then they lend out the scans on the theory that it's just like lending out the book. If this went to court they'd probably lose, but at this point no publisher wants to be the bad guy. R's, John PS: if you live anywhere in NY State, you can get a NY Public Library card which gives you access to a stupendous collection of indisputably legal e-books. From johnl at iecc.com Mon Feb 25 15:01:49 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 25 Feb 2019 18:01:49 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190225230150.0C600200EAE224@ary.local> In article you write: >enforce the lending rules.? (Not sure how resistant it is to a motivated >and talented hacker)? Not very. It's easy to find scripts that will take the copy protection off one of them. For that matter, I had a borrowed book on an old Kindle that I didn't connect to the net for a few weeks and it no longer realized that it was supposed to delete the book. >From the publisher's point of view it may be annoying but it costs nothing since it's very unlikely that any of those would otherwise be a lost sale. From johnl at iecc.com Mon Feb 25 15:03:15 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 25 Feb 2019 18:03:15 -0500 Subject: [ih] the pirate archive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190225230316.4F7AF200EAE281@ary.local> In article you write: >Probably too off-topic, so feel free to ignore: >I thought the Internet Archive only scans books that are in the public >domain? You are definitely mistaken. See https://openlibrary.org/ They know which books are P.D., you can download those without restriction. The others have the one borrower at a time limit. From johnl at iecc.com Mon Feb 25 15:07:08 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 25 Feb 2019 18:07:08 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <13E24D46-C5E0-493F-808B-8E9D68EF2C82@bennett.com> Message-ID: <20190225230708.8860A200EAE346@ary.local> In article <13E24D46-C5E0-493F-808B-8E9D68EF2C82 at bennett.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Here?s a link to a story on the lawsuit: > >https://teleread.org/2017/12/19/the-internet-archives-openlibrary-project-violates-copyright-the-authors-guild-warns/ This article says the Authors Guild has been complaining but there's no suit. Is there some other article we missed? Given how thoroughly they got thrashed by the Hathitrust and Google Books suits, I'm not surprised if they're gun shy now. FWIW, the National Writer's Union feels the same way, but can't afford the cost of the suit. Ed Hasbrouck, head of their book subgroup (and I suppose my shop steward) told me so over dinner last year. From johnl at iecc.com Mon Feb 25 15:08:02 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 25 Feb 2019 18:08:02 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190225230802.35FDB200EAE353@ary.local> In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >The interview addressed that and this one person can check it out at a time is suppose to address that. > >I still want to know what happens when the ?book? is ?returned.' If it's a Kindle book, it's automatically deleted. If it's some other format, you can't open it any more unless you crack the DRM. From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 25 15:21:08 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:21:08 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <20190225230708.8860A200EAE346@ary.local> References: <20190225230708.8860A200EAE346@ary.local> Message-ID: <3E75E48E-C242-4DA0-8107-F127E20033CD@bennett.com> The lawsuit is in the ?cease and desist letter? stage at this point and will be filed in the UK. It was in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/22/internet-archives-ebook-loans-face-uk-copyright-challenge The Canadian writers are likely to follow suit, as they say. RB > On Feb 25, 2019, at 4:07 PM, John Levine wrote: > > In article <13E24D46-C5E0-493F-808B-8E9D68EF2C82 at bennett.com> you write: >> -=-=-=-=-=- >> -=-=-=-=-=- >> >> Here?s a link to a story on the lawsuit: >> >> https://teleread.org/2017/12/19/the-internet-archives-openlibrary-project-violates-copyright-the-authors-guild-warns/ > > This article says the Authors Guild has been complaining but there's no suit. Is there some other article we missed? > > Given how thoroughly they got thrashed by the Hathitrust and Google > Books suits, I'm not surprised if they're gun shy now. > > FWIW, the National Writer's Union feels the same way, but can't afford > the cost of the suit. Ed Hasbrouck, head of their book subgroup (and > I suppose my shop steward) told me so over dinner last year. > ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Feb 25 15:34:40 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:34:40 -0800 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <9c205325-9f6f-779e-a7ff-cad2f193aac8@3kitty.org> Message-ID: OK, I'm admittedly illiterate at this BitTorrent Wheel technology.?? I'd be happy to hear that it is the solution to historical archiving.?? I'm willing to set up a BT client and I can probably figure out how to do it and learn.? Wikipedia says that BT had about 150 million active users, with 20 million concurrent, and that statistic was at least 5 years ago.? So I guess I'm coming pretty late to that party. But I've never used these BT Wheels, so perhaps someone who has been an active BT user can help me understand how to do it right.?? I'll make this concrete. It is 2019, the 50th anniversary of the ARPANET (which IIRC is what started this discussion).?? I was part of the crew who put together the "coming out party" for the ARPANET, held in 1972 at a conference with a live demo in a ballroom at the Washington Hilton.? In my basement I still have a folder containing materials I brought home from that event.? For example, I have one of the brochures which was handed out to all attendees - the ARPANET Demo brochure, which contains things like the floor plan of the demo layouts in the ballroom.?? It seems like that might be of interest to some people during the 50th anniversary.?? So I'd like to make it available.? Scanning it produces a few MB of image file. About 4 years ago, I scanned that brochure and emailed it to a professional historian who was looking for ARPANET historical materials.? He was somewhat ecstatic and said that he had never seen that document before and hadn't found it online despite extensive searching.?? Googling it now doesn't seem to find it.?? But perhaps he put it up on BitTorrent (assuming that's the proper terminology), and I just don't know how to spin that wheel. So, once I get a BT client running, I'll try to make sure that artifact is available.? I'm assuming a BT client has some kind of "search" capability, so I can check to see if it's already there.? If not, I'll upload it (or whatever) to BT.? I'm pretty sure I can figure it out. So, here's my questions: 1- How long after uploading do you typically have to wait before a seasoned BT user somewhere else in the world can search and find that brochure file and download it??? When can I say "It's on BitTorrent, go get it there"? 2- For all the BT-illiterate people like me, how long will it typically be before the common search engine spiders crawl through the new BT content and find that brochure file, so that a Google/Bing/etc search will produce it in their search results for downloading?? When can I say "Just Google it." 3- How long do I have to keep my computer with the BT client running before I can turn it off, and be confident that the brochure has gotten into enough other machines that it will remain accessible?? Is there a way for me to tell it's safe to do so?? Is it Hours?? Days?? Months?? Years? 4- How long does material survive within BT if nobody downloads it?? ARPANET artifacts may be popular during 2019, but much less so in the 51st anniversary year.? Very few people may look for them for a long time.? Most computers running today (and their owners) will be long gone when the 100th anniversary of ARPANET revives interest in such things.? It seems likely that the Internet will still be around, even still hosting a parade of BT-enabled computers that has been coming and going continuously for 50 years.? When the AI that's planning the 100th anniversary festivities notices a mention of the 1972 ARPANET brochure in the writeups of the 50th anniversary, will it still be able to find that brochure file on BT in 2069 and download it??? That's what I mean by a Persistent Store... an Internet-based system that stores data continuously, regardless of how frequently or widely it gets used, and how many times the physical computers and storage devices and people come and go, as long as there are always enough computers and storage in the system at any time. (Like a BotNet, or the PARC worm).? People who are interested in History can donate their excess computer time and memory to "Help Save History" by downloading some software (like SETI). If that's what BT already does, all we all have to do is put all our old stuff into it.?? I'm still skeptical but I'll try BT and learn about it.? It is pretty clever technology, but my gut feeling is that there's more needed.? I suspect, hope, that perhaps some clever mashup of the technology already in BT, Botnet, Blockchain, and the like would do the trick. /Jack On 2/25/19 6:46 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >> ??? - Content is stored outside of BitTorrent per se, e.g., on web >> servers.? Torrent servers essentially act as caches for material in >> transit. ... > > Dunno where you'd have heard that, because that's exactly what > bittorrent and other p2p software don't do.? Every node serves what it > has, including material it's downloaded from other nodes.? Each file > is divided into smallish pieces which are downloaded and served > separately.? If you're downloading, say, a linux DVD ISO, which is a > thousand pieces, you can watch as it sucks down and reassembles the > pieces in whatever order it can find them, and at the same time starts > serving the pieces it's already got.? If you leave the client running, > it'll continue to serve them. > > One of the reasons that people use p2p for pirated stuff is that > there's no central copy, so there's no single place one can make a > file go away. It really is your file botnet. > >> ??? - There isn't any obvious (to me) way to restrict what your personal >> machine might store or serve. > > It only serves what it's got, and it's only got what you've told it to > download or added locally. > > Since you are apparently interested in p2p file distribution, why not > install a bittorrent client (the ones at bittorrent.com are OK) and > try it out for a few minutes. > > R's, > John > > PS: I realize this is the Internet History list, but it's like the > history stopped 20 years ago. From casner at acm.org Mon Feb 25 15:49:56 2019 From: casner at acm.org (Stephen Casner) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:49:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <3d2ee168-9035-d5d0-0b90-32af37c88286@3kitty.org> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> <82C6B71A-C0D1-4918-9B78-A7CD961AF79F@comcast.net> <91E89C23-E786-4D04-84DB-B5C04F9F760E@comcast.net> <3d2ee168-9035-d5d0-0b90-32af37c88286@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, Jack Haverty wrote: > But it would probably be easier for such a miscreant to go to the > library building and just put the book under a coat. No, all the libraries around here put RFID tags in their books now. -- Steve From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Feb 25 16:49:21 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:49:21 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> Message-ID: <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> That's not what anybody said.? It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the same time.? That's its whole point.? (Or as someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) Miles On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. > >> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman >> > wrote: >> >> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an >> infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files.? It's essentially >> another, sometimes more efficient, option for click-to-download >> (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent).? And it's only more efficient if >> multiple people are downloading at the same time. >> >> Miles >> >> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given file >>> as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve files, however. >>> >>> RB >>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>> >>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion.? >>>>>> Rather >>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, >>>>>> you rely >>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable >>>>>> infrastructure by >>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>> Hi again. ?Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>> >>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>>>> all over the world. ?It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>> >>>> Bit torrent is transient.? It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>> streaming.? When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of >>>> the file. >>>> >>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash >>>> table - >>>> that's another story entirely. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>> >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> ? >>> Richard Bennett >>> High Tech Forum ?Founder >>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>> >>> Internet Policy Consultant >>> >> -- >> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum ?Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lyndon at orthanc.ca Mon Feb 25 16:49:19 2019 From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:49:19 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <65538a7d-7894-8382-fcdd-15895240ad46@meetinghouse.net> References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <7b3bf01b-d2fe-39e6-00e3-d3b1a763d050@meetinghouse.net> <905D9C04-4375-4A8E-BC44-23AE605D6BC1@bennett.com> <9DE789B8-DF9C-4B4A-BB57-039D2046C735@comcast.net> <90C2AEDB-EF75-4F06-8AA2-1E44C85B47EC@bennett.com> <65538a7d-7894-8382-fcdd-15895240ad46@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <42ad2bc7cdab52ff@orthanc.ca> Miles Fidelman writes: > Stone tablets & well-buried papyrus scrolls seem to be the most > persistent storage we have, yet. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 103828 bytes Desc: the only truly approved management archive URL: From johnl at iecc.com Mon Feb 25 16:57:04 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 25 Feb 2019 19:57:04 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <9c205325-9f6f-779e-a7ff-cad2f193aac8@3kitty.org> Message-ID: > 1- How long after uploading do you typically have to wait before a > seasoned BT user somewhere else in the world can search and find that > brochure file and download it??? When can I say "It's on BitTorrent, go > get it there"? Pretty soon, I'd think minutes, so long as your BT program is running so it can serve it. > 2- For all the BT-illiterate people like me, how long will it typically > be before the common search engine spiders crawl through the new BT > content and find that brochure file, so that a Google/Bing/etc search > will produce it in their search results for downloading?? When can I say > "Just Google it." Never. Search engines don't index BT. If you want something to be in search engines, you have to put it on the web because that's what they search. > 3- How long do I have to keep my computer with the BT client running > before I can turn it off, and be confident that the brochure has gotten > into enough other machines that it will remain accessible?? Is there a > way for me to tell it's safe to do so?? Is it Hours?? Days?? Months?? Years? Forever. It's up to each user whether and when to run a BT program. > 4- How long does material survive within BT if nobody downloads it? Until it's deleted from all the hosts that have downloaded it, but if none are running BT program, it won't be accessible. > That's what I mean by a Persistent Store... an Internet-based system > that stores data continuously, regardless of how frequently or widely it > gets used, and how many times the physical computers and storage devices > and people come and go, as long as there are always enough computers and > storage in the system at any time. That would be a web server with a budget. ?? People who are interested in History can donate their excess computer > time and memory to "Help Save History" by downloading some software > (like SETI). That only works until they lose interest. R's, John PS: I never said it was a great idea, just that it's what bittorrent already does. From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Mon Feb 25 17:19:54 2019 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 01:19:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] WiFi, DV, and transmission delay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <546732866.5020753.1551143994532@mail.yahoo.com> Jose, aka JJ now, worked on many ways to improve DV routing algorithms while at SRI. We also had another routing guy, Richard Ogier who worked on SURAN (the follow-on project for Packet Radio). ? I think Richard called his algorithm for SURAN threshold routing. Unfortunately, I don't remember much about threshold routing. I was only asked to add the necessary software to the code base. I was working on other projects. If you want to find out more about routing for multi-hop wireless networks, you might need to look at papers and reports that talk about Packet Radio, SURAN, or SINCGARs. (SINCGARs was a project where SRI and ITT took SINCGARs, an existing combat net radio, and? created a prototype packet applique which turned this military radio into a network node, like a packet radio.).?? Another name to find information on SURAN is David/Dave Beyer. I think he may have written up much of the information that got published, including the routing. barbara -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lyndon at orthanc.ca Mon Feb 25 17:21:04 2019 From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:21:04 -0800 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <20190225173114.401BD200EAB1EF@ary.local> References: <20190225173114.401BD200EAB1EF@ary.local> Message-ID: <42ad2bf304209785@orthanc.ca> > Personally, I have more faith in libraries with librarians who have > been thinking about long term archiving. People miss two fundamental concepts wrt P2P: 1) BitTorrent is not an archive; it's an index. 2) BitTorrent is not a catalog. In relation to (1), that the link says I am downloading "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" doesn't mean I'm not really getting "My Fair Lady". And if I don't grok the merits of either movie, how do I know I've been spoofed? (Fake Movie!) As for (2), the Vancouver Public Library is as horrible as BitTorrent when it comes to categorizing content. In my younger days, when I wanted to research the process of making a long-lasting knife blade, I would head for the 671-2 section of the stacks. 671 being the metalworking group, and 672 the more specific iron-related applications section. And all of this under 6XX "technology" classification. Do you think the Vancouver Public Library lets you search by Dewey classification online? Pah. You can search their website from top to bottom; the word Dewey appears nowhere. And why not? If you want to find something, just search. WTF not? Google knows all, don't you? Why would you ever need help to find a keyword to search for something you know nothing about, but are looking to learn? Just enter the keywords for the solution you already know, right? I am looking at you, Vancouver Public Library. And every other library that sucks up to that horrible BiblioCOmmons software. I can't type a Dewey number ANYWHERE in your website. Are you proud of this? --lyndon From richard at bennett.com Mon Feb 25 17:27:34 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:27:34 -0700 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving along long routes. > On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > That's not what anybody said. It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the same time. That's its whole point. (Or as someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) > > Miles > > On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >> >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>> >>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files. It's essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent). And it's only more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>> >>> Miles >>> >>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve files, however. >>>> >>>> RB >>>> >>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather >>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>> Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>>>>> all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>> >>>>> Bit torrent is transient. It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>> streaming. When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of >>>>> the file. >>>>> >>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - >>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>> >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> ? >>>> Richard Bennett >>>> High Tech Forum Founder >>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>> >>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>> >>> -- >>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Feb 25 17:39:37 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:39:37 -0800 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <9c205325-9f6f-779e-a7ff-cad2f193aac8@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On 2/25/19 4:57 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > it's what bittorrent already does. Well, I guess we can just agree to disagree.? "Never" and "Forever" don't convince me that BitTorrent has solved the problem. /Jack From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Feb 26 09:01:28 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:01:28 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> Well, that's not how it's supposed to work.? Or claimed to work. On 2/25/19 8:27 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving along > long routes. > >> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman >> > wrote: >> >> That's not what anybody said.? It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding >> redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the >> same file, at the same time.? That's its whole point.? (Or as someone >> else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) >> >> Miles >> >> On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an >>>> infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files.? It's >>>> essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for >>>> click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent).? And it's only >>>> more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>>> >>>> Miles >>>> >>>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given >>>>> file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve >>>>> files, however. >>>>> >>>>> RB >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet >>>>>>>> notion. Rather >>>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, >>>>>>>> competent at, >>>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, >>>>>>>> you rely >>>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable >>>>>>>> infrastructure by >>>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>>> Hi again. ?Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >>>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>>>>>> all over the world. ?It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Bit torrent is transient.? It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>>> streaming.? When nobody is downloading, there may be only one >>>>>> copy of >>>>>> the file. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >>>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash >>>>>> table - >>>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>>>> >>>>>> _______ >>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>> >>>>> ? >>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>> High Tech Forum ?Founder >>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>> >>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>> >>> ? >>> Richard Bennett >>> High Tech Forum ?Founder >>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>> >>> Internet Policy Consultant >>> >> -- >> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum ?Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Feb 26 09:03:50 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:03:50 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <9c205325-9f6f-779e-a7ff-cad2f193aac8@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <23493309-90aa-030c-6aac-1bd5f490acce@meetinghouse.net> Wow, folks who really don't keep up on the literature. bittorent is a PROTOCOL - it's not an archive, it's not a file system, it's a PROTOCOL - it does not store or index things, it's used to move them Miles Fidelman On 2/25/19 7:57 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> 1- How long after uploading do you typically have to wait before a >> seasoned BT user somewhere else in the world can search and find that >> brochure file and download it??? When can I say "It's on BitTorrent, go >> get it there"? > > Pretty soon, I'd think minutes, so long as your BT program is running > so it can serve it. > >> 2- For all the BT-illiterate people like me, how long will it typically >> be before the common search engine spiders crawl through the new BT >> content and find that brochure file, so that a Google/Bing/etc search >> will produce it in their search results for downloading?? When can I say >> "Just Google it." > > Never.? Search engines don't index BT.? If you want something to be in > search engines, you have to put it on the web because that's what they > search. > >> 3- How long do I have to keep my computer with the BT client running >> before I can turn it off, and be confident that the brochure has gotten >> into enough other machines that it will remain accessible?? Is there a >> way for me to tell it's safe to do so?? Is it Hours?? Days? Months?? >> Years? > > Forever.? It's up to each user whether and when to run a BT program. > >> 4- How long does material survive within BT if nobody downloads it? > > Until it's deleted from all the hosts that have downloaded it, but if > none are running BT program, it won't be accessible. > >> That's what I mean by a Persistent Store... an Internet-based system >> that stores data continuously, regardless of how frequently or widely it >> gets used, and how many times the physical computers and storage devices >> and people come and go, as long as there are always enough computers and >> storage in the system at any time. > > That would be a web server with a budget. > > ?? People who are interested in History can donate their excess computer >> time and memory to "Help Save History" by downloading some software >> (like SETI). > > That only works until they lose interest. > > R's, > John > > PS: I never said it was a great idea, just that it's what bittorrent > already does. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at bennett.com Tue Feb 26 12:35:45 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:35:45 -0700 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: Perhaps you can explain that the term "EFFECTIVELY multicast? means to you, and how it applies to BitTorrent. Every time I?ve looked at it in Wireshark I see nothing but unicast. RB > On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > Well, that's not how it's supposed to work. Or claimed to work. > > On 2/25/19 8:27 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >> Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving along long routes. >> >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>> >>> That's not what anybody said. It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the same time. That's its whole point. (Or as someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) >>> >>> Miles >>> >>> On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >>>> >>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files. It's essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent). And it's only more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>>>> >>>>> Miles >>>>> >>>>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve files, however. >>>>>> >>>>>> RB >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather >>>>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >>>>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >>>>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >>>>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>>>> Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >>>>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>>>>>>> all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>>>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bit torrent is transient. It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>>>> streaming. When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of >>>>>>> the file. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >>>>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - >>>>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>> High Tech Forum Founder >>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>> >>>> ? >>>> Richard Bennett >>>> High Tech Forum Founder >>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>> >>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>> >>> -- >>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galmes at tamu.edu Tue Feb 26 13:16:54 2019 From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:16:54 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> Richard, If you do multicast at the network layer, you get IP multicast, Steve Deering's thesis project that escaped from the lab and has challenged network engineers ever since. But if you do multicast at the application layer, you get lots of (IP) unicast traffic, but with some of the properties of IP multicast and also with some of the advantages of TCP and without the challenging routing issues of IP multicast. Examples include BitTorrent, Unidata's LDM/IDD software, and the USENET netnews utility. Oh, and you can also do multicast at the Ethernet level. Historically, it was the multicast feature of the then-new 10Mb/s Ethernet that triggered Deering's considering the possibility of multicast at the network layer. So IMHO the term multicast can be used appropriately without necessarily referring to network-layer IP multicast. Back to the primary topic, -- Guy On 2/26/19 15:35, Richard Bennett wrote: > Perhaps you can explain that the term "EFFECTIVELY multicast? means to > you, and how it applies to BitTorrent. Every time I?ve looked at it in > Wireshark I see nothing but unicast. > > RB > >> On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Miles Fidelman >> > wrote: >> >> Well, that's not how it's supposed to work.? Or claimed to work. >> >> On 2/25/19 8:27 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving along >>> long routes. >>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> That's not what anybody said.? It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding >>>> redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the >>>> same file, at the same time.? That's its whole point.? (Or as >>>> someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) >>>> >>>> Miles >>>> >>>> On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an >>>>>> infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files.? It's >>>>>> essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for >>>>>> click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent).? And it's only >>>>>> more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Miles >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given >>>>>>> file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve >>>>>>> files, however. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RB >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet >>>>>>>>>> notion. Rather >>>>>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, >>>>>>>>>> competent at, >>>>>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, >>>>>>>>>> you rely >>>>>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable >>>>>>>>>> infrastructure by >>>>>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>>>>> Hi again. ?Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is >>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>>>>>>>> all over the world. ?It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>>>>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bit torrent is transient.? It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>>>>> streaming.? When nobody is downloading, there may be only one >>>>>>>> copy of >>>>>>>> the file. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >>>>>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash >>>>>>>> table - >>>>>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>> High Tech Forum >>>>>>> ?Founder >>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>> >>>>> ? >>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>> High Tech Forum >>>>> ?Founder >>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>> >>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> ? >>> Richard Bennett >>> High Tech Forum >>> ?Founder >>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>> >>> Internet Policy Consultant >>> >> -- >> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum > ?Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From richard at bennett.com Tue Feb 26 13:24:21 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:24:21 -0700 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> Message-ID: Miles made the claim that BT is ?more efficient? than unicast because it somehow becomes "EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the same time.? I don?t believe this is true. BT is a UDP-based protocol that senses queuing delays and defers more aggressively than TCP when they happen. Here?s the protocol spec: http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0003.html, if you can find any redundancy reduction in it please point it out. RB > On Feb 26, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Guy Almes wrote: > > Richard, > If you do multicast at the network layer, you get IP multicast, Steve Deering's thesis project that escaped from the lab and has challenged network engineers ever since. > But if you do multicast at the application layer, you get lots of (IP) unicast traffic, but with some of the properties of IP multicast and also with some of the advantages of TCP and without the challenging routing issues of IP multicast. Examples include BitTorrent, Unidata's LDM/IDD software, and the USENET netnews utility. > Oh, and you can also do multicast at the Ethernet level. Historically, it was the multicast feature of the then-new 10Mb/s Ethernet that triggered Deering's considering the possibility of multicast at the network layer. > > So IMHO the term multicast can be used appropriately without necessarily referring to network-layer IP multicast. > > Back to the primary topic, > -- Guy > > On 2/26/19 15:35, Richard Bennett wrote: >> Perhaps you can explain that the term "EFFECTIVELY multicast? means to you, and how it applies to BitTorrent. Every time I?ve looked at it in Wireshark I see nothing but unicast. >> RB >>> On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>> >>> Well, that's not how it's supposed to work. Or claimed to work. >>> >>> On 2/25/19 8:27 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>> Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving along long routes. >>>> >>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's not what anybody said. It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the same time. That's its whole point. (Or as someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) >>>>> >>>>> Miles >>>>> >>>>> On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files. It's essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent). And it's only more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve files, however. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather >>>>>>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >>>>>>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >>>>>>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >>>>>>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>>>>>> Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >>>>>>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>>>>>>>>> all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>>>>>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bit torrent is transient. It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>>>>>> streaming. When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of >>>>>>>>> the file. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >>>>>>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - >>>>>>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>>> High Tech Forum Founder >>>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>> >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>> High Tech Forum Founder >>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> ? >>>> Richard Bennett >>>> High Tech Forum Founder >>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>> >>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>> >>> -- >>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> Internet Policy Consultant >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Tue Feb 26 13:45:14 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:45:14 -0800 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> Message-ID: Some people called this ?serial multicast?, vs native. Joe > On Feb 26, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Guy Almes wrote: > > If you do multicast at the network layer, you get IP multicast, Steve > Deering's thesis project that escaped from the lab and has challenged > network engineers ever since. > But if you do multicast at the application layer, you get lots of > (IP) unicast traffic, but with some of the properties of IP multicast From richard at bennett.com Tue Feb 26 13:50:09 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:50:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> Message-ID: <01C693C0-7952-49EE-989D-495D82236492@bennett.com> Good example of the confusion. Wi-Fi uses something called "serial multicast" for reasons related to rate selection; but multicast is an addressing mode, so the correct term is "serial unicast." RB > On Feb 26, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > Some people called this ?serial multicast?, vs native. > > Joe > >> On Feb 26, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Guy Almes wrote: >> >> If you do multicast at the network layer, you get IP multicast, Steve >> Deering's thesis project that escaped from the lab and has challenged >> network engineers ever since. >> But if you do multicast at the application layer, you get lots of >> (IP) unicast traffic, but with some of the properties of IP multicast > ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Feb 26 14:08:11 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:08:11 -0800 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> Message-ID: <297af683-9060-4029-28ea-214951409fa6@3kitty.org> If I create a file and put it on BT here in California, someone in Europe might download it.? The full contents of the file have to travel from CA to EU.? If subsequently someone in EU attempts to download that same file, and the first EU downloader is still online and has the file, the file will hopefully be transferred from the first EU site to the second. In that scenario, there is no need to transfer the same data across the US and Atlantic a second, or third, etc. time.?? It's already in EU.? Those redundant 10,000 mile transfers are eliminated.?? The more players, the better it presumably gets. I think that's what Miles means by "effectively multicast".?? It's the characteristic that makes BT attractive for things like distributing DVD-scale ISO files of Linux distributions. /Jack On 2/26/19 1:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Miles made the claim that BT is ?more efficient? than unicast because > it somehow becomes "EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic > when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the > same time.? I don?t believe this is true.? > > BT is a UDP-based protocol that senses queuing delays and defers more > aggressively than TCP when they happen. Here?s the protocol > spec:?http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0003.html, if you can find > any redundancy reduction in it please point it out. > > RB > >> On Feb 26, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Guy Almes > > wrote: >> >> Richard, >> ?If you do multicast at the network layer, you get IP multicast, >> Steve Deering's thesis project that escaped from the lab and has >> challenged network engineers ever since. >> ?But if you do multicast at the application layer, you get lots of >> (IP) unicast traffic, but with some of the properties of IP multicast >> and also with some of the advantages of TCP and without the >> challenging routing issues of IP multicast. ?Examples include >> BitTorrent, Unidata's LDM/IDD software, and the USENET netnews utility. >> ?Oh, and you can also do multicast at the Ethernet level. >> Historically, it was the multicast feature of the then-new 10Mb/s >> Ethernet that triggered Deering's considering the possibility of >> multicast at the network layer. >> >> ?So IMHO the term multicast can be used appropriately without >> necessarily referring to network-layer IP multicast. >> >> ?Back to the primary topic, >> -- Guy >> >> On 2/26/19 15:35, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> Perhaps you can explain that the term "EFFECTIVELY multicast? means >>> to you, and how it applies to BitTorrent. Every time I?ve looked at >>> it in Wireshark I see nothing but unicast. >>> RB >>>> On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Miles Fidelman >>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, that's not how it's supposed to work.? Or claimed to work. >>>> >>>> On 2/25/19 8:27 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>> Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving >>>>> along long routes. >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That's not what anybody said.? It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - >>>>>> avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is >>>>>> downloading the same file, at the same time.? That's its whole >>>>>> point.? (Or as someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Miles >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an >>>>>>>> infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files.? It's >>>>>>>> essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for >>>>>>>> click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent).? And it's only >>>>>>>> more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a >>>>>>>>> given file as users choose to share. It has to be running to >>>>>>>>> serve files, however. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet >>>>>>>>>>>> notion. Rather >>>>>>>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, >>>>>>>>>>>> competent at, >>>>>>>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has >>>>>>>>>>>> longevity, you rely >>>>>>>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable >>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure by >>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>>>>>>> Hi again. ?Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is >>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being >>>>>>>>>>> deployed >>>>>>>>>>> all over the world. ?It's notorious for pirated music but >>>>>>>>>>> it's also >>>>>>>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bit torrent is transient.? It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>>>>>>> streaming.? When nobody is downloading, there may be only one >>>>>>>>>> copy of >>>>>>>>>> the file. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems >>>>>>>>>> - that >>>>>>>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed >>>>>>>>>> hash table - >>>>>>>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>>>> High Tech Forum >>>>>>>>> ?Founder >>>>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>> High Tech Forum >>>>>>> ?Founder >>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>>>> _______ >>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>> >>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>> >>>>> ? >>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>> High Tech Forum >>>>> ?Founder >>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>> >>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> ? >>> Richard Bennett >>> High Tech Forum >>> ?Founder >>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>> Internet Policy Consultant >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum ?Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Feb 26 14:14:08 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:14:08 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <9b91ddf5-85bd-641c-4944-229ae196f17c@meetinghouse.net> One source, multiple destinations, without duplication of traffic.? Essentially combining what would otherwise be multiple, redundant flows into a distribution tree.? That's what IP multicast does, bittorent does something similar as an overlay to standard IP. Miles On 2/26/19 3:35 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Perhaps you can explain that the term "EFFECTIVELY multicast? means to > you, and how it applies to BitTorrent. Every time I?ve looked at it in > Wireshark I see nothing but unicast. > > RB > >> On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Miles Fidelman >> > wrote: >> >> Well, that's not how it's supposed to work. Or claimed to work. >> >> On 2/25/19 8:27 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving along >>> long routes. >>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> That's not what anybody said. It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding >>>> redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the >>>> same file, at the same time.? That's its whole point.? (Or as >>>> someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) >>>> >>>> Miles >>>> >>>> On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an >>>>>> infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files. It's >>>>>> essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for >>>>>> click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent).? And it's only >>>>>> more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Miles >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given >>>>>>> file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve >>>>>>> files, however. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RB >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet >>>>>>>>>> notion.? Rather >>>>>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, >>>>>>>>>> competent at, >>>>>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has >>>>>>>>>> longevity, you rely >>>>>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable >>>>>>>>>> infrastructure by >>>>>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>>>>> Hi again. ?Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is >>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being >>>>>>>>> deployed >>>>>>>>> all over the world. ?It's notorious for pirated music but it's >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bit torrent is transient.? It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>>>>> streaming.? When nobody is downloading, there may be only one >>>>>>>> copy of >>>>>>>> the file. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash >>>>>>>> table - >>>>>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>> High Tech Forum ?Founder >>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>> >>>>> ? >>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>> High Tech Forum ?Founder >>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>> >>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> ? >>> Richard Bennett >>> High Tech Forum ?Founder >>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>> >>> Internet Policy Consultant >>> >> -- >> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > ? > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum ?Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Tue Feb 26 14:18:54 2019 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:18:54 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> Message-ID: <55901500-1012-512a-c6a1-0a6a39dd1ec5@meetinghouse.net> Hi Guy, Didn't see this before posting my own reply - you put it well. Another way of looking at it is setting up ad-hoc spanning trees, for the length of a collection of downloads.? All at the application layer.? (Not exactly what torrent does, but analogous). Cheers, Miles On 2/26/19 4:16 PM, Guy Almes wrote: > Richard, > ? If you do multicast at the network layer, you get IP multicast, > Steve Deering's thesis project that escaped from the lab and has > challenged network engineers ever since. > ? But if you do multicast at the application layer, you get lots of > (IP) unicast traffic, but with some of the properties of IP multicast > and also with some of the advantages of TCP and without the > challenging routing issues of IP multicast.? Examples include > BitTorrent, Unidata's LDM/IDD software, and the USENET netnews utility. > ? Oh, and you can also do multicast at the Ethernet level. > Historically, it was the multicast feature of the then-new 10Mb/s > Ethernet that triggered Deering's considering the possibility of > multicast at the network layer. > > ? So IMHO the term multicast can be used appropriately without > necessarily referring to network-layer IP multicast. > > ? Back to the primary topic, > ????-- Guy > > On 2/26/19 15:35, Richard Bennett wrote: >> Perhaps you can explain that the term "EFFECTIVELY multicast? means >> to you, and how it applies to BitTorrent. Every time I?ve looked at >> it in Wireshark I see nothing but unicast. >> >> RB >> >>> On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Miles Fidelman >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Well, that's not how it's supposed to work.? Or claimed to work. >>> >>> On 2/25/19 8:27 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>> Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving along >>>> long routes. >>>> >>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's not what anybody said.? It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - >>>>> avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is >>>>> downloading the same file, at the same time.? That's its whole >>>>> point.? (Or as someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) >>>>> >>>>> Miles >>>>> >>>>> On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an >>>>>>> infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files.? It's >>>>>>> essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for >>>>>>> click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent).? And it's only >>>>>>> more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given >>>>>>>> file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve >>>>>>>> files, however. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet >>>>>>>>>>> notion. Rather >>>>>>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, >>>>>>>>>>> competent at, >>>>>>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has >>>>>>>>>>> longevity, you rely >>>>>>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable >>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure by >>>>>>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>>>>>> Hi again. ?Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is >>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being >>>>>>>>>> deployed >>>>>>>>>> all over the world. ?It's notorious for pirated music but >>>>>>>>>> it's also >>>>>>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bit torrent is transient.? It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>>>>>> streaming.? When nobody is downloading, there may be only one >>>>>>>>> copy of >>>>>>>>> the file. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed >>>>>>>>> hash table - >>>>>>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. ?.... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>>> High Tech Forum >>>>>>>> ?Founder >>>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>> In practice, there is.? .... Yogi Berra >>>>>> >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>> High Tech Forum >>>>>> ?Founder >>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>> In practice, there is.? .... Yogi Berra >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> ? >>>> Richard Bennett >>>> High Tech Forum >>>> ?Founder >>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>> >>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>> >>> -- >>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>> In practice, there is.? .... Yogi Berra >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum >> ?Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From jhlowry at mac.com Tue Feb 26 14:47:41 2019 From: jhlowry at mac.com (John Lowry) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:47:41 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> Message-ID: I enjoy thinking about this but wonder if we should not worry about saving everything for eternity. Perhaps that is something future generations will work on - or perhaps it is the job of a civilization to pass the information on the the next civilization, not to the next plus five. A couple of notes though: a) the radio was going on about the discovery of an ancient receipt for copper and a complaint about the quality. Not terribly important. Sturgeon?s Law applies and there is a time value to information. b) I recently priced a portable USB BD/DVD burner and found not only the same one I bought a few years back but found that it had also doubled in price. It may be that my DVD?s will outlast the availability of anything that can read them. Kind of like the recent queries in another forum for a technology to read old tape of a particular format. The tape was ?readable? but the sole (?) remaining technology was in possession of a mystical wizard known but to few. > On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Jack, > > In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also check out https://decentralizedweb.net . > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: > True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too common. > > There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to ponder. > > IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. > > Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. > > /Jack > > On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly accessible. >> >> v >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >> >> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >> >> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >> >> /Jack >> >> >> >> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: >>> [Changed the subject line] >>> >>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>> then I had a dream....literally. >>> >>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>> >>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>> industry giants try to do so. >>> >>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>> >>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>> evil could be coopted for good? >>> >>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>> their computers. >>> >>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>> >>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>> >>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>> >>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >>> >>> Dave....? >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> > Joe Touch > writes: >>> > >>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org ", and others like it, even RFC >>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>> >> >>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>> >> of hosting and net access. >>> >> >>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>> >> >>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>> >> consulting. >>> >> >>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>> >> me directly off-list). >>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>> > >>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>> > how big are these archives? >>> > >>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>> > >>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>> > >>> > >>> >> Joe >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______ >>> >> internet-history mailing list >>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at bennett.com Tue Feb 26 15:37:42 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:37:42 -0700 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <297af683-9060-4029-28ea-214951409fa6@3kitty.org> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> <297af683-9060-4029-28ea-214951409fa6@3kitty.org> Message-ID: In practice, BT prefers the fattest pipes irrespective of distance. It?s basically a scheme that trades bandwidth for content. > On Feb 26, 2019, at 3:08 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > If I create a file and put it on BT here in California, someone in Europe might download it. The full contents of the file have to travel from CA to EU. If subsequently someone in EU attempts to download that same file, and the first EU downloader is still online and has the file, the file will hopefully be transferred from the first EU site to the second. > > In that scenario, there is no need to transfer the same data across the US and Atlantic a second, or third, etc. time. It's already in EU. Those redundant 10,000 mile transfers are eliminated. The more players, the better it presumably gets. > > I think that's what Miles means by "effectively multicast". It's the characteristic that makes BT attractive for things like distributing DVD-scale ISO files of Linux distributions. > > /Jack > > On 2/26/19 1:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >> Miles made the claim that BT is ?more efficient? than unicast because it somehow becomes "EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the same time.? I don?t believe this is true. >> >> BT is a UDP-based protocol that senses queuing delays and defers more aggressively than TCP when they happen. Here?s the protocol spec: http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0003.html , if you can find any redundancy reduction in it please point it out. >> >> RB >> >>> On Feb 26, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Guy Almes > wrote: >>> >>> Richard, >>> If you do multicast at the network layer, you get IP multicast, Steve Deering's thesis project that escaped from the lab and has challenged network engineers ever since. >>> But if you do multicast at the application layer, you get lots of (IP) unicast traffic, but with some of the properties of IP multicast and also with some of the advantages of TCP and without the challenging routing issues of IP multicast. Examples include BitTorrent, Unidata's LDM/IDD software, and the USENET netnews utility. >>> Oh, and you can also do multicast at the Ethernet level. Historically, it was the multicast feature of the then-new 10Mb/s Ethernet that triggered Deering's considering the possibility of multicast at the network layer. >>> >>> So IMHO the term multicast can be used appropriately without necessarily referring to network-layer IP multicast. >>> >>> Back to the primary topic, >>> -- Guy >>> >>> On 2/26/19 15:35, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>> Perhaps you can explain that the term "EFFECTIVELY multicast? means to you, and how it applies to BitTorrent. Every time I?ve looked at it in Wireshark I see nothing but unicast. >>>> RB >>>>> On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Miles Fidelman >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well, that's not how it's supposed to work. Or claimed to work. >>>>> >>>>> On 2/25/19 8:27 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>> Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving along long routes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not what anybody said. It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the same time. That's its whole point. (Or as someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>>> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files. It's essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent). And it's only more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>>>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve files, however. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >>>>>>>>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >>>>>>>>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>>>>>>>>>>> all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>>>>>>>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bit torrent is transient. It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>>>>>>>> streaming. When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of >>>>>>>>>>> the file. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >>>>>>>>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - >>>>>>>>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org > >>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>>>>> High Tech Forum > Founder >>>>>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>>> High Tech Forum > Founder >>>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org > >>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>> High Tech Forum > Founder >>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org > >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> ? >>>> Richard Bennett >>>> High Tech Forum > Founder >>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ? Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Tue Feb 26 15:48:34 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:48:34 -0700 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <297af683-9060-4029-28ea-214951409fa6@3kitty.org> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> <297af683-9060-4029-28ea-214951409fa6@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <334b09aa-38a1-ec86-03df-69f8fa4c65b6@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 02/26/2019 03:08 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > If subsequently someone in EU attempts to download that same file, and > the first EU downloader is still online and has the file, the file will > hopefully be transferred from the first EU site to the second. Hopefully is the operative word. The first downloader in EU may be a leacher and / or otherwise prevent people from retrieving the file from them. (Rate limiting to something ridiculously slow also counts.) If the machine in CA has crashed and no longer able to serve the file, the 2nd downloader is in a bad position. Assuming that there is nobody else (critical mass) with the file. > In that scenario, there is no need to transfer the same data across the > US and Atlantic a second, or third, etc. time. There may very well be. Especially with leachers that don't play nicely with others. > It's already in EU. Those redundant 10,000 mile transfers are eliminated. > The more players, the better it presumably gets. Hope for it. But don't bet on it. > I think that's what Miles means by "effectively multicast". It's the > characteristic that makes BT attractive for things like distributing > DVD-scale ISO files of Linux distributions. Multicast has an inherent timing component to it. So if the 2nd downloader isn't online to receive the multicast when it's sent, they wouldn't get anything. BitTorrent is not multicast. BitTorrent is not effectively multicast. BitTorrent is not remotely multicast. (At least not by any definition that I'm aware of.) BitTorrent is an efficient way for multiple people to efficiently share files. But that is not sufficient to call it multicast. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Tue Feb 26 15:56:09 2019 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:56:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <9b91ddf5-85bd-641c-4944-229ae196f17c@meetinghouse.net> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> <9b91ddf5-85bd-641c-4944-229ae196f17c@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <6f4648d7-3f8d-3351-6a0e-ae9d8dc3ed10@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 02/26/2019 03:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > One source, multiple destinations, without duplication of traffic. > Essentially combining what would otherwise be multiple, redundant flows > into a distribution tree. True multicast is one source and one transmission of the data. BitTorrent is inherently multiple transmissions of the data, all be it from different sources. Reusing the simple scenario, CA wants to send to EU1 and EU2. CA send the first half to EU1 and the second half to EU2 (likely at the same time. Then EU1 sends the first half to EU2 and EU2 sends the second half to EU1. CA sent one copy of the data, EU1 and EU2 also sent half of the data. Thus the same data was sent twice. This is not multicast. > That's what IP multicast does, bittorent does something similar as an > overlay to standard IP. Nope. Multicast sends the data one time and all receivers receive it at the same time. (Where same time allows for network latency.) There is one single transmission source. The data is transmitted one single time. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From vint at google.com Tue Feb 26 17:10:07 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 20:10:07 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> Message-ID: see this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/books/plagiarism-software-unveils-a-new-source-for-11-of-shakespeares-plays.html v On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:14 PM John Lowry wrote: > I enjoy thinking about this but wonder if we should not worry about > saving everything for eternity. Perhaps that is something future > generations will work on - or perhaps it is the job of a civilization > to pass the information on the the next civilization, not to the next plus > five. > > A couple of notes though: > > a) the radio was going on about the discovery of an ancient receipt for > copper and a complaint about the quality. Not terribly important. > Sturgeon?s Law applies and there is a time value to information. > > b) I recently priced a portable USB BD/DVD burner and found not only the > same one I bought a few years back but found that it had also doubled in > price. > It may be that my DVD?s will outlast the availability of anything that can > read them. > Kind of like the recent queries in another forum for a technology to read > old tape of > a particular format. The tape was ?readable? but the sole (?) remaining > technology was in possession of a mystical wizard known but to few. > > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Jack, > > In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also > check out https://decentralizedweb.net . > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > >> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public >> store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be >> simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible >> only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" >> credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became >> too common. >> >> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an >> item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came >> from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to >> ponder. >> >> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store >> as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating >> their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - >> perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be >> added as someone gets interested in doing so. >> >> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent >> store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations >> and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store >> isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone >> might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web >> tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. >> >> /Jack >> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly >> accessible. >> >> v >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >> >>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the >>> problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who >>> can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data >>> public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap >>> in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place >>> somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the >>> like. >>> >>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm >>> imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the >>> problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes >>> rather than euros and dollars. >>> >>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside >>> the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> >>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>> >>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>> >>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>> >>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>> >>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>> >>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>> >>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>>> their computers. >>>> >>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>> >>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>> >>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>> >>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running >>>> Code. >>>> >>>> Dave....? >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> > Joe Touch writes: >>>> > >>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >>>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>> >> >>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the >>>> issue >>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>> >> >>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the >>>> ISOC >>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>> >> >>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>> >> consulting. >>>> >> >>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know >>>> (contact >>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost >>>> is >>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>> > >>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available >>>> - >>>> > how big are these archives? >>>> > >>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>> > >>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Joe >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______ >>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Tue Feb 26 18:44:54 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 18:44:54 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Unicast is serial always. Serial multicast is multicast achieved serially. There?s parallel multicast too -for systems that can emit a packet on more than one interface at a time. Broadcast-and-select uses one message and relies on receivers to filter up the stack. True or native multicast is more rare, E.g., it was a feature of some multistage networks. Joe > On Feb 26, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > see this: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/books/plagiarism-software-unveils-a-new-source-for-11-of-shakespeares-plays.html > > v > > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:14 PM John Lowry wrote: >> I enjoy thinking about this but wonder if we should not worry about >> saving everything for eternity. Perhaps that is something future >> generations will work on - or perhaps it is the job of a civilization >> to pass the information on the the next civilization, not to the next plus five. >> >> A couple of notes though: >> >> a) the radio was going on about the discovery of an ancient receipt for >> copper and a complaint about the quality. Not terribly important. >> Sturgeon?s Law applies and there is a time value to information. >> >> b) I recently priced a portable USB BD/DVD burner and found not only the >> same one I bought a few years back but found that it had also doubled in price. >> It may be that my DVD?s will outlast the availability of anything that can read them. >> Kind of like the recent queries in another forum for a technology to read old tape of >> a particular format. The tape was ?readable? but the sole (?) remaining >> technology was in possession of a mystical wizard known but to few. >> >> >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote: >>> >>> Jack, >>> >>> In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also check out https://decentralizedweb.net . >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >>>> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became too common. >>>> >>>> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to ponder. >>>> >>>> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. >>>> >>>> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. >>>> >>>> /Jack >>>> >>>>> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly accessible. >>>>> >>>>> v >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >>>>>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes rather than euros and dollars. >>>>>> >>>>>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >>>>>> >>>>>> /Jack >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>>>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> v >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >>>>>>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>>>>>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>>>>>>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>>>>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>>>>>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>>>>>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>>>>>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>>>>>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>>>>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>>>>>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>>>>>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>>>>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>>>>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>>>>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>>>>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>>>>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>>>>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>>>>>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>>>>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>>>>>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>>>>>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>>>>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>>>>>>> their computers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>>>>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>>>>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>>>>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>>>>>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>>>>>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>>>>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>>>>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>>>>>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>>>>>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>>>>>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>>>>>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>>>>>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>>>>>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>>>>>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>>>>>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>>>>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>>>>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running Code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dave....? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>>>>>> > Joe Touch writes: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >>>>>>>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the issue >>>>>>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the ISOC >>>>>>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>>>>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>>>>>> >> consulting. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>>>>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know (contact >>>>>>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>>>>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost is >>>>>>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>>>>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available - >>>>>>>> > how big are these archives? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>>>>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>>>>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>>>>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>>>>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>>>>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> Joe >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> _______ >>>>>>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> New postal address: >>>>>>> Google >>>>>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> New postal address: >>>>> Google >>>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>> _______ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rogers at isi.edu Tue Feb 26 18:46:42 2019 From: rogers at isi.edu (Craig Milo Rogers) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 18:46:42 -0800 Subject: [ih] James Sterbenz has passed away Message-ID: <20190227024642.GD2462@isi.edu> According to Posts on James' Facebook page, he passed away unexpectedly today. I knew him as a colleague during the Active Networking program. He was an interesting and entertaining friend, known for his penchant for international travel and photos of his cats. He will be missed. https://www.facebook.com/jpgsterbenz Craig Milo Rogers From agmalis at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 05:29:01 2019 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:29:01 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> Message-ID: CDs and DVDs are not everlasting : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:47 PM John Lowry wrote: > I enjoy thinking about this but wonder if we should not worry about > saving everything for eternity. Perhaps that is something future > generations will work on - or perhaps it is the job of a civilization > to pass the information on the the next civilization, not to the next plus > five. > > A couple of notes though: > > a) the radio was going on about the discovery of an ancient receipt for > copper and a complaint about the quality. Not terribly important. > Sturgeon?s Law applies and there is a time value to information. > > b) I recently priced a portable USB BD/DVD burner and found not only the > same one I bought a few years back but found that it had also doubled in > price. > It may be that my DVD?s will outlast the availability of anything that can > read them. > Kind of like the recent queries in another forum for a technology to read > old tape of > a particular format. The tape was ?readable? but the sole (?) remaining > technology was in possession of a mystical wizard known but to few. > > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Jack, > > In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also > check out https://decentralizedweb.net . > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > >> True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public >> store, which is what I described. Perhaps "restricted" material could be >> simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and accessible >> only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe "permission" >> credentials. Volunteers might be reluctant to participate if that became >> too common. >> >> There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an >> item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it came >> from, when it was created, etc. Probably many more such things to >> ponder. >> >> IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store >> as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, associating >> their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of unique ID - >> perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents. They could be >> added as someone gets interested in doing so. >> >> Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent >> store. Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by corporations >> and for sale. This is almost what the Web is, except that the Web store >> isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without warning. Someone >> might put a web site "in front of" the persistent store and use today's web >> tools pretty much as is to access materials stored there. >> >> /Jack >> On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly >> accessible. >> >> v >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >> >>> I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be addressing the >>> problem of handling individuals' personal private data, and controlling who >>> can access it. What I described was somewhat of the inverse - making data >>> public, survivable, and accessible to everyone. But maybe there's overlap >>> in any implementation. Certainly there are lots of pieces already in place >>> somewhere, as evidenced by the success of viruses, pirated videos, and the >>> like. >>> >>> The Internet has made possible new sorts of social mechanisms. What I'm >>> imagining is more like applying Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the >>> problem of a historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes >>> rather than euros and dollars. >>> >>> That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now. Thinking "outside >>> the box" is a lot easier. The Internet made the box much bigger.... >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> >>> On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> >>> isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>>> [Changed the subject line] >>>> >>>> I read the recent messages on the forum just before going to sleep, and >>>> then I had a dream....literally. >>>> >>>> There's a whole different perspective on Internet History that might be >>>> very revealing. Instead of questions like "Who built the Internet?", >>>> perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?" If historians "followed >>>> the money" like many other investigators, they might find some >>>> interesting insights. I didn't realize until today that the IETF is >>>> funded by ... Me! Through my payments for my .org domain, maybe by now >>>> I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF meeting. >>>> >>>> But my dream was of how to fund some kind of Internet repository of >>>> historical materials, not subject to the management whims or financial >>>> success of an "institution". My dream reminded me that such mechanisms >>>> already exist, have been running at scale for years, are self-funded, >>>> and seem essentially impossible to excise even when governments or >>>> industry giants try to do so. >>>> >>>> My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to my alma mater, BBN). >>>> Instead of hosting and propagating malware and viruses, or stealing >>>> computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN would simply store, >>>> replicate, and distribute historical materials on demand. No doubt >>>> Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this part of the dream. >>>> >>>> Such technology obviously exists, and survives despite serious efforts >>>> to eradicate it. Where the Internet was coopted for evil, perhaps the >>>> evil could be coopted for good? >>>> >>>> Maybe even better would be a mechanism that didn't rely on theft and >>>> subterfuge at all. Perhaps something akin to the SETI mechanisms, where >>>> people voluntarily donate their computer resources to analyze radio >>>> signals, by simply downloading a piece of code and allowing it to run on >>>> their computers. >>>> >>>> So, my dream was that some new software appears, which is freely >>>> downloaded by thousands or millions of people around the world, which >>>> uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and stores historical >>>> material in a redundant, highly survivable, persistent, distrubuted >>>> historical warehouse. One, or many, search engines (go Google!, Bing!, >>>> DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material in the warehouse. >>>> Anyone could contribute material to the historical archive by simply >>>> placing a copy into the disk area of their machine that they've shared, >>>> from where it would be automatically distributed and replicated. >>>> >>>> Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be downloaded. Or perhaps a >>>> plug in or extension to popular browsers. Or maybe an addition to >>>> existing mechanisms like BitTorrent. Much of the code already exists, >>>> as evidenced by the millions of computers unwittingly participating in a >>>> Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. >>>> >>>> Dave's offer of disk space is just the start. I suspect many people >>>> would contribute some unused chunk of their computers and network >>>> capacity. I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that are empty...you >>>> probably do too. With enough participants, the BBN becomes >>>> self-suficient even as people come and go. >>>> >>>> All it would seem to take is for someone to sit down and write the >>>> code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough Consensus and Running >>>> Code. >>>> >>>> Dave....? >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> > Joe Touch writes: >>>> > >>>> >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> But "internet-history at postel.org", and others like it, even RFC >>>> >> repositories, likely exist at the whim of their sponsor. >>>> >> >>>> >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - they?re?s still the >>>> issue >>>> >> of hosting and net access. >>>> >> >>>> >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, for one) that even the >>>> ISOC >>>> >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG originated there). >>>> >> >>>> >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of ?free riders?, go attend >>>> >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free training and free >>>> >> consulting. >>>> >> >>>> >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants to offer a place to host >>>> >> this list more reliably and archivally, please do let me know >>>> (contact >>>> >> me directly off-list). >>>> > My email list server currently lives on linode in the cloud. The cost >>>> is >>>> > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( https://www.linode.com/pricing >>>> > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a patreon donation. >>>> > >>>> > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or the bandwidth available >>>> - >>>> > how big are these archives? >>>> > >>>> > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list server, but I long ago >>>> > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that said starttls was a >>>> > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which cuts down on spam (and >>>> > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential correspondents, still). The >>>> > biggest administrative cost I'd had was dealing with spam. >>>> > >>>> > If that's not an acceptable policy for these lists/archives, well, go >>>> > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Joe >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______ >>>> >> internet-history mailing list >>>> >> internet-history at postel.org >>>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wfms at wfms.org Wed Feb 27 06:24:59 2019 From: wfms at wfms.org (wfms at wfms.org) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:24:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Ah yes, 'archival writable CDs.' I have run into this problem recently when I pulled out some CDs made by Philips in the mid-90's meant to be archival. Once every few years I made it a point to copy everything off those disks (thereby checking they were still good) and popping the content onto fresh DVDs. Just late last year three of the disks of that archival set started showing errors. :-/ Moral of the story seems to be to move archives off to ever newer media peridoically before either the content or the means of extracting that content is lost. wfms On Wed, 27 Feb 2019, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > CDs and DVDs are not everlasting :?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:47 PM John Lowry wrote: > I enjoy thinking about this but wonder if we should not worry about?saving > everything for eternity.? Perhaps that is something future > generations will work on - or perhaps it is the job of a civilization > to pass the information on the the next civilization, not to the next plus five. > > A couple of notes though: > > a) the radio was going on about the discovery of an ancient receipt for > copper and a complaint about the quality.? Not terribly important. > Sturgeon?s Law applies and there is a time value to information. > > b) I recently priced a portable ?USB BD/DVD burner and found not only the > ?same one I bought a few years back but found that it had also doubled in price.? > It may be that my DVD?s will outlast the availability of anything that can read them. ? > Kind of like the recent queries in another forum for a technology to read old tape of? > a particular format. ? The tape was ?readable? but the sole (?) remaining? > technology was in possession of a mystical wizard known but to few. > > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Jack, > In addition to the Internet Archive (already mentioned), you should also check > out?https://decentralizedweb.net . > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:58 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > > True, but I think a first step is a persistent crowd-sourced public > store, which is what I described.??? Perhaps "restricted" material could > be simply stored encrypted, and thus visible in search engines and > accessible only to people with the appropriate key, or maybe > "permission" credentials.? Volunteers might be reluctant to participate > if that became too common.? > > There's also other considerations, e.g., tracking the provenance of an > item, so you can tell whether or not something is authentic, where it > came from, when it was created, etc. ? Probably many more such things to > ponder.? > > IMHO those kinds of capabilities could be add-ons to a persistent store > as meta-data mechanisms, possibly many of them all independent, > associating their metadata with items in the warehouse by some kind of > unique ID - perhaps just a large-enough hash of each of the contents.?? > They could be added as someone gets interested in doing so. > > Anybody could build a metadata mechanism "on top of" the persistent > store.?? Some might be built by volunteers and free, others by > corporations and for sale.? This is almost what the Web is, except that > the Web store isn't persistent - things on the Web disappear without > warning.?? Someone might put a web site "in front of" the persistent > store and use today's web tools pretty much as is to access materials > stored there. > > /Jack > > On 2/24/19 4:07 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > not all data that we might want to preserve needs to be publicly > accessible. > v > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > > I don't know much about SOLID, but it appears to be > addressing the problem of handling individuals' personal > private data, and controlling who can access it.?? What I > described was somewhat of the inverse - making data public, > survivable, and accessible to everyone.? But maybe there's > overlap in any implementation.? Certainly there are lots of > pieces already in place somewhere, as evidenced by the > success of viruses, pirated videos, and the like. > > The Internet has made possible new sorts of social > mechanisms.? What I'm imagining is more like applying > Internet-style "crowd-funding" to the problem of a > historical archive, where people contribute cycles and bytes > rather than euros and dollars.?? > > That wasn't possible pre-Internet, but it is now.?? Thinking > "outside the box" is a lot easier.? The Internet made the > box much bigger.... > > /Jack > > > On 2/24/19 2:45 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > isn't that what SOLID is supposed to do? > v > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:47 PM Jack Haverty > wrote: > [Changed the subject line] > > I read the recent messages on the forum just > before going to sleep, and > then I had a dream....literally. > > There's a whole different perspective on > Internet History that might be > very revealing.? Instead of questions like "Who > built the Internet?", > perhaps also ask "Who paid for the Internet?"? > If historians "followed > the money" like many other investigators, they > might find some > interesting insights.? I didn't realize until > today that the IETF is > funded by ... Me!?? Through my payments for my > .org domain, maybe by now > I've paid for an urn or two of coffee at an IETF > meeting. > > But my dream was of how to fund some kind of > Internet repository of > historical materials, not subject to the > management whims or financial > success of an "institution".?? My dream reminded > me that such mechanisms > already exist, have been running at scale for > years, are self-funded, > and seem essentially impossible to excise even > when governments or > industry giants try to do so. > > My dream is of a Benevolent BotNet (apologies to > my alma mater, BBN).? > Instead of hosting and propagating malware and > viruses, or stealing > computer cycle to mine cryptocurrency, the BBN > would simply store, > replicate, and distribute historical materials > on demand.? No doubt > Richard's comment on Pirate Bay triggered this > part of the dream. > > Such technology obviously exists, and survives > despite serious efforts > to eradicate it.? Where the Internet was coopted > for evil, perhaps the > evil could be coopted for good? > > Maybe even better would be a mechanism that > didn't rely on theft and > subterfuge at all.? Perhaps something akin to > the SETI mechanisms, where > people voluntarily donate their computer > resources to analyze radio > signals, by simply downloading a piece of code > and allowing it to run on > their computers. > > So, my dream was that some new software appears, > which is freely > downloaded by thousands or millions of people > around the world, which > uses a few GB of the disk on their machines, and > stores historical > material in a redundant, highly survivable, > persistent, distrubuted > historical warehouse.?? One, or many, search > engines (go Google!, Bing!, > DuckDuckGo!) would allow people to find material > in the warehouse.?? > Anyone could contribute material to the > historical archive by simply > placing a copy into the disk area of their > machine that they've shared, > from where it would be automatically distributed > and replicated. > > Perhaps this is one or more apps that can be > downloaded.? Or perhaps a > plug in or extension to popular browsers.? Or > maybe an addition to > existing mechanisms like BitTorrent.? Much of > the code already exists, > as evidenced by the millions of computers > unwittingly participating in a > Botnet, or willingly running code like SETI. > > Dave's offer of disk space is just the start.? I > suspect many people > would contribute some unused chunk of their > computers and network > capacity.? I have a few Terabytes on my NAS that > are empty...you > probably do too.?? With enough participants, the > BBN becomes > self-suficient even as people come and go. > > All it would seem to take is for someone to sit > down and write the > code....in the classic Internet spirit of Rough > Consensus and Running Code. > > Dave....? > > /Jack Haverty > > > > On 2/24/19 7:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > > Joe Touch writes: > > > >> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Jack Haverty > wrote: > >> > >>? ? ?But "internet-history at postel.org", and > others like it, even RFC > >>? ? ?repositories, likely exist at the whim of > their sponsor. > >> > >> Indeed - even assuming volunteers run them - > they?re?s still the issue > >> of hosting and net access. > >> > >> I have old repositories (end2end-interest, > for one) that even the ISOC > >> has declined to host (even though the E2E-RG > originated there). > >> > >> Then again, if you want to see the worst of > ?free riders?, go attend > >> an IETF. Companies send armies there for free > training and free > >> consulting. > >> > >> PS - speaking as list admin, if anyone wants > to offer a place to host > >> this list more reliably and archivally, > please do let me know (contact > >> me directly off-list). > > My email list server currently lives on linode > in the cloud. The cost is > > $5/month for 25GB of SSD storage. ( > https://www.linode.com/pricing > > ). Has IPv6 and IPv4. It's paid for via a > patreon donation. > > > > It's not like I'm using much of that box - or > the bandwidth available - > > how big are these archives? > > > > I wouldn't mind sharing that existing list > server, but I long ago > > switched to violating whatever RFC it was that > said starttls was a > > "should" - to *mandate* starttls only - which > cuts down on spam (and > > sigh, about 13% of my measured potential > correspondents, still). The > > biggest administrative cost I'd had was > dealing with spam. > > > > If that's not an acceptable policy for these > lists/archives, well, go > > burn the 5 bucks/mo on yer own. > > > > > >> Joe > >> > >> > >> _______ > >> internet-history mailing list > >> internet-history at postel.org > >> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > > -- > New postal address: Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > > > > -- > New postal address: Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > > From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Feb 27 08:09:30 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:09:30 -0800 Subject: [ih] James Sterbenz has passed away In-Reply-To: <20190227024642.GD2462@isi.edu> References: <20190227024642.GD2462@isi.edu> Message-ID: <07CB74F6-6E24-4A72-90E1-230CCC752341@strayalpha.com> > On Feb 26, 2019, at 6:46 PM, Craig Milo Rogers wrote: > > According to Posts on James' Facebook page, he passed away > unexpectedly today. Hi,all, A unfortunately am able to confirm this news. I just spoke with his department at KU and they indicated that James passed on Monday afternoon, Feb 25, 2019. I have asked to be informed as to any arrangements, which I will post here as they deem appropriate. A personal note on his passing follows. Please feel free to post similar notes here; I will be glad to gather them and forward both to his department and family. Joe ---------------------------------------------------- As a personal note, I first met James when in graduate school at UPenn in the late 1980s through my PhD advisor Dave Farber, who advised James's advisor Guru Parulkar. James was working at IBM at the time and he and I shared deep interest in high speed networking throughout our careers that began there. Later, he and I worked together in the IEEE to help create the Comsoc?s Tech Committee on Gigabit Networking (TCGN, later renamed to TCHSN for ?high speed networking?), and led discussions there defining the ?gigabit problem? that was the focus of both our theses. James? Axon dissertation was arguably the first on ?zero-copy?, a key technique to help overcome that problem. We worked together on a number of technical and conference committees, where I followed his lead as chair of TCGN and later we co-chaired the IFIP Protocols for High Speed Networking VI in Salem, MA in 1999. Around that time we realized we had spent the better part of the prior decade both answering the same questions repeatedly - how to make networks work faster, and he decided we should log our experience as a book. The result was our co-authoring "High Speed Networking: A Systematic Approach to High-Bandwidth Low-Latency Communication? (Wiley) in 2001. He and I worked together many times over our careers, spending many ?gap? days at conferences wandering around cities around the world. This included many visits to train platforms where he would photographically document train signals - a passion he shared with Bob Braden. Although his work and mine overlapped in many areas, his core interests and mine diverged over the past years. I last spoke with him this past May about a conference he was attending while I was on a business trip. James was my first professional colleague, someone who helped both mentor me and later work by my side. I?m deeply sorry to see him pass, but very grateful for the time he shared with me. - Joe From jhlowry at mac.com Wed Feb 27 08:28:57 2019 From: jhlowry at mac.com (John Lowry) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:28:57 -0500 Subject: [ih] reinventing the wheel, was Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: <297af683-9060-4029-28ea-214951409fa6@3kitty.org> References: <20190225025326.84DC8200EA6601@ary.local> <527ebafa-7123-e403-7095-0fc58d03005c@meetinghouse.net> <63395adc-d2e8-ae91-d17c-5e78df4b13a2@meetinghouse.net> <05BFAD28-1DCF-49D5-8B09-EF32ADB33FF1@bennett.com> <653d3e81-0d6d-7cda-82cd-61ec4fa270ba@meetinghouse.net> <8d23dd26-ba55-b594-4b4a-c38959d76f81@meetinghouse.net> <2afec650-9e3f-9176-e722-74e3cf2e89af@tamu.edu> <297af683-9060-4029-28ea-214951409fa6@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <79603159-F583-4185-9AE8-BE30FA87182B@mac.com> It seems to me that Named Data Networking (NDN), Content Based Manet Networking (CBMEN),Content Centric Networking (CCN), and information centric networking in general, might have addressed many of the issues in distribution and access to information. BT is but one instance. > On Feb 26, 2019, at 17:08, Jack Haverty wrote: > > If I create a file and put it on BT here in California, someone in Europe might download it. The full contents of the file have to travel from CA to EU. If subsequently someone in EU attempts to download that same file, and the first EU downloader is still online and has the file, the file will hopefully be transferred from the first EU site to the second. > > In that scenario, there is no need to transfer the same data across the US and Atlantic a second, or third, etc. time. It's already in EU. Those redundant 10,000 mile transfers are eliminated. The more players, the better it presumably gets. > > I think that's what Miles means by "effectively multicast". It's the characteristic that makes BT attractive for things like distributing DVD-scale ISO files of Linux distributions. > > /Jack > > On 2/26/19 1:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >> Miles made the claim that BT is ?more efficient? than unicast because it somehow becomes "EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the same time.? I don?t believe this is true. >> >> BT is a UDP-based protocol that senses queuing delays and defers more aggressively than TCP when they happen. Here?s the protocol spec: http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0003.html , if you can find any redundancy reduction in it please point it out. >> >> RB >> >>> On Feb 26, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Guy Almes > wrote: >>> >>> Richard, >>> If you do multicast at the network layer, you get IP multicast, Steve Deering's thesis project that escaped from the lab and has challenged network engineers ever since. >>> But if you do multicast at the application layer, you get lots of (IP) unicast traffic, but with some of the properties of IP multicast and also with some of the advantages of TCP and without the challenging routing issues of IP multicast. Examples include BitTorrent, Unidata's LDM/IDD software, and the USENET netnews utility. >>> Oh, and you can also do multicast at the Ethernet level. Historically, it was the multicast feature of the then-new 10Mb/s Ethernet that triggered Deering's considering the possibility of multicast at the network layer. >>> >>> So IMHO the term multicast can be used appropriately without necessarily referring to network-layer IP multicast. >>> >>> Back to the primary topic, >>> -- Guy >>> >>> On 2/26/19 15:35, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>> Perhaps you can explain that the term "EFFECTIVELY multicast? means to you, and how it applies to BitTorrent. Every time I?ve looked at it in Wireshark I see nothing but unicast. >>>> RB >>>>> On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Miles Fidelman >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well, that's not how it's supposed to work. Or claimed to work. >>>>> >>>>> On 2/25/19 8:27 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>> Naw, it?s all unicast with plenty of redundant traffic moving along long routes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Miles Fidelman >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not what anybody said. It's EFFECTIVELY multicast - avoiding redundant traffic when more than one destination is downloading the same file, at the same time. That's its whole point. (Or as someone else put it, it's a caching mechanism.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/25/19 4:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>>> Bittorrent doesn?t use multicast. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Miles Fidelman >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well yes, but torrent is a distribution mechanism - it's not an infrastructure for maintaining or mirroring files. It's essentially another, sometimes more efficient, option for click-to-download (e.g., ftp, http, bittorrent). And it's only more efficient if multiple people are downloading at the same time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2/25/19 12:28 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>>>>>>>> No, Bittorrent uses DHTs and accesses as many copies of a given file as users choose to share. It has to be running to serve files, however. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Miles Fidelman >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/19 9:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I find intriguing about my Benevolent BotNet notion. Rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> than depending on finding an institution interested in, competent at, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and willing to save history, and hoping that it has longevity, you rely >>>>>>>>>>>>> on a network of volunteers to provide that survivable infrastructure by >>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering their excess computing resources. >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi again. Please look at Bittorrent and tell us how it is different >>>>>>>>>>>> from what you're proposing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bittorrent has the advantage of already existing and being deployed >>>>>>>>>>>> all over the world. It's notorious for pirated music but it's also >>>>>>>>>>>> widely used for sharing linux distributions and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bit torrent is transient. It's more like an ad-hoc multi-cast >>>>>>>>>>> streaming. When nobody is downloading, there may be only one copy of >>>>>>>>>>> the file. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now gnutella, and some of the other P2P file sharing systems - that >>>>>>>>>>> replicate copies, or distribute files across a distributed hash table - >>>>>>>>>>> that's another story entirely. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org > >>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>>>>> High Tech Forum > Founder >>>>>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>>>> High Tech Forum > Founder >>>>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>> _______ >>>>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>>>> internet-history at postel.org > >>>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? >>>>>> Richard Bennett >>>>>> High Tech Forum > Founder >>>>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org > >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> ? >>>> Richard Bennett >>>> High Tech Forum > Founder >>>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >>>> Internet Policy Consultant >>>> _______ >>>> internet-history mailing list >>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> ? >> Richard Bennett >> High Tech Forum Founder >> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator >> >> Internet Policy Consultant >> >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steffen at sdaoden.eu Wed Feb 27 09:30:43 2019 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:30:43 +0100 Subject: [ih] Internet History Lives on the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: <20190223181216.88368200E93D78@ary.qy> <1dadea36-1f30-893d-5fd0-1bc2bef18458@3kitty.org> <62E36595-8D25-4649-921E-9E40973BBC32@strayalpha.com> <87tvgt2nxo.fsf@taht.net> <3f9bb2d3-4829-9c08-f623-8f03463b14eb@3kitty.org> <2f40c61a-8957-959d-19d9-80ff5a2bfbb3@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <20190227173043.PMFBu%steffen@sdaoden.eu> wfms at wfms.org wrote in : |Ah yes, 'archival writable CDs.' I have run into this problem recently |when I pulled out some CDs made by Philips in the mid-90's meant to be |archival. Once every few years I made it a point to copy everything off |those disks (thereby checking they were still good) and popping the |content onto fresh DVDs. Just late last year three of the disks of that |archival set started showing errors. :-/ | |Moral of the story seems to be to move archives off to ever newer media |peridoically before either the content or the means of extracting that |content is lost. This is a science. Sunlight is poison, as well as too much / too few humidity, and add onto that almost anything else, fumes of all kind, including incense sticks and essential oils, not to talk about cars, cigarettes, etc. Heat. Talking about nuclear war survival, here in Germany there is the "Barbarastollen" to archive things, microfilm in high-grade steel containers in a tunnel with at least 200 meters of rock above it. Pretty low temperatures. I personally store important CDs gathered together in several layers of plastic bags, all that buried behind books. No light, no real heat, no real cold, no dust etc. No problems until now. Self-burned, but only -R for such storage. (I use the data only through copies on USB-stick and -HDs. (And i say USB because that is what it is: firewire did not make it.)) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From joly at punkcast.com Wed Feb 27 10:29:31 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:29:31 -0500 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_ARPANET=3A_Celebrating_50_Years_S?= =?utf-8?b?aW5jZSDigJxMT+KAnQ==?= Message-ID: 2pm today. I have slightly reformatted the video, and will ad some captions. [image: livestream] The *2019 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting * was held in Washington, DC earlier in February with the theme *'Science Transcending Boundaries'.* Attendees celebrated three *scientific milestones *: 1) 150 years ago Dmitri Mendeleev presented the Periodic Table to the Russian Chemical Society; 2) 50 years ago the first moon walk by Neil Armstrong, made possible by Apollo 11?s successful landing on the moon; and 3) the first *ARPANET * message was sent from the University of California, Los Angeles to the Stanford Research Institute. This early network became the basis for today?s Internet. In the case of the latter two, not only was a *large cake cut * and distributed, but also a panel convened of original ARPANET researchers/engineers *Vint Cerf*, *Stephen D. Crocker*, *Robert E. Kahn*, *Leonard Kleinrock* and *David Walden*. Today, *Wednesday 27 February 2019* at *2pm* ET (19:00 UTC) the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *will restream that panel. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/arpanet50 * *ORIGINAL WEBCAST: https://meetings.aaas.org/arpanet-livestream/ * *TRANSCRIPT: https://recapd.com/w-f2c5e8/ * *TWITTER: #AAASmtg + arpanet http://bit.ly/2BQ9l7w * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/10942/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Feb 28 18:05:41 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:05:41 -0800 Subject: [ih] more about James Sterbenz Message-ID: Hi, all, FYI - the following link provides further information, as previously promised: https://warrenmcelwain.com/obituary/james-philip-guenther-sterbenz/ Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Feb 28 18:34:15 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:34:15 -0800 Subject: [ih] more about James Sterbenz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <367AE126-66BB-49DE-A841-44E4976F46B0@strayalpha.com> Corrected link: https://warrenmcelwain.com/obituary/james-ster/ > On Feb 28, 2019, at 6:05 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, all, > > FYI - the following link provides further information, as previously promised: > https://warrenmcelwain.com/obituary/james-philip-guenther-sterbenz/ > > Joe > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: