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

[Dave Crocker]

On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> 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?
>ᐧ

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: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190218/49033eca/attachment.htm>