[ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?

[Vint Cerf]

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 <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:23 PM Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:58 PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
>> 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
>
>> ᐧ
>> ᐧ
>>
>
>
> --
> *****
> 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: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190215/b8e32e8f/attachment.htm>