From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 24 13:48:07 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joe Touch via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:48:07 -0800 Subject: [ih] test3 Message-ID: <703844E0-C55F-42A2-BD86-B2879FC08CAE@strayalpha.com> Please ignore this test ? Joe -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Nov 13 14:39:47 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 23:39:47 +0100 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: <20191113193641.CAE5DF3DBFC@ary.qy> References: <20191113193641.CAE5DF3DBFC@ary.qy> Message-ID: <20191113223947.1Ucnm%steffen@sdaoden.eu> John Levine wrote in <20191113193641.CAE5DF3DBFC at ary.qy>: |In article <20191113182813.sg-Nv%steffen at sdaoden.eu> you write: |>But DKIM has to go over individual parts of the entire message (in |>practice), so the implementations cannot be as simple as "we dig |>anything until the first all-empty line, and do not care for |>actual content, the rest we do not care about at all". |>That is, i claim that putting it all in an envelope would not |>increase the cost of computation compared to status quo. | |Mail servers are invariably I/O bound. Compute cost was not |a concern at all when we were designing DKIM. | |>It seems i am at odds again, however, since simply enwrapping |>anything within a signed envelope would have been the right |>approach also there. | |What MUA do you use? When we were trying to figure out what |anti-DMARC hack to use on the IETF's mailing lists I tried every |variation of MIME message wrapping I could think of, and without |exception, they all rendered badly in the MUAs that people use. |S/MIME barely works, any other kind of message wrapping is hopeless. This is a furtherly developed BSD Mail, formerly called Heirloom mailx, now S-nail for a while. It needs more love, and i hope it will get it. It gets bitten a bit by distribution policies which hits little projects that do not have resources to backport hundreds of changesets to older stable releases. Hopeless. It looks a bit overwhelming with all the MIME part informations which precede the parts, other than that, if there is a way to produce a text version of a MIME part, that is shown as-is. Just like for example the number one text MUA mutt does, though by far not so sophisticated yet, selection of individual parts for reply etc. purposes for example is hard. I could reply to the wrapped messages, as it was the topmost citizen. I have heared "IETF way of handling ML lists" several times now, but is there an IETF-wide way of handling ML lists? If i recall correctly i have also seen this "via XY" syntax, but lists like [art] or [Resolverless-dns] do not .. they then strip the DKIM header but generate a RFC 7001 Authentication-Results:? TUHS also seems to act that way? I have not read this RFC yet, downloaded it now. There is no DKIM in those lists for sure. It requires active configuration and other administrativa on the mailing-list side of the road i presume. I have downloaded RFC 6377 on DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists years ago and read it. Please let me wonder how many ML administrators have read or even know about this RFC. One could wonder whether the "massive pressure" of Sourceforge on their mailing-lists had something to do with problems regarding increased resource consumption and bounces due to this technology. Many died, i moved to my own. |The point of DKIM is to add signatures in a way that won't screw up |the way the user handles her mail, and that will be robust in the face |of benign changes that happen to mail as it's relayed. Given the |decades of installed base, I think we did about as well as we could. It was not my intention to hurt Mr. Crocker personally. Personally i do track OpenDKIM for some years, but never started actually using it, no, i think a more holistic PGP or S/MIME that includes the entire message is the better approach, for single persons or company or MTA and maybe even DNS zone-wide, and you could very well put such a public key into the DNS, too. The thing is, everywhere your read and hear "email is dying", "other communication approaches are better / safer / xy", "we have to move on" (or something), not only maybe even "require less work", whereas at the same time there are piles of among one another unrelated RFCs for email protection. That is status quo. And i do not like that one. --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) -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Nov 13 11:36:41 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Levine via Internet-history) Date: 13 Nov 2019 14:36:41 -0500 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: <20191113182813.sg-Nv%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <20191113193641.CAE5DF3DBFC@ary.qy> In article <20191113182813.sg-Nv%steffen at sdaoden.eu> you write: >But DKIM has to go over individual parts of the entire message (in >practice), so the implementations cannot be as simple as "we dig >anything until the first all-empty line, and do not care for >actual content, the rest we do not care about at all". >That is, i claim that putting it all in an envelope would not >increase the cost of computation compared to status quo. Mail servers are invariably I/O bound. Compute cost was not a concern at all when we were designing DKIM. >It seems i am at odds again, however, since simply enwrapping >anything within a signed envelope would have been the right >approach also there. What MUA do you use? When we were trying to figure out what anti-DMARC hack to use on the IETF's mailing lists I tried every variation of MIME message wrapping I could think of, and without exception, they all rendered badly in the MUAs that people use. S/MIME barely works, any other kind of message wrapping is hopeless. The point of DKIM is to add signatures in a way that won't screw up the way the user handles her mail, and that will be robust in the face of benign changes that happen to mail as it's relayed. Given the decades of installed base, I think we did about as well as we could. R's, John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Wed Nov 13 10:28:13 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 19:28:13 +0100 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: References: <59B5A652-43F7-4DF7-99F8-AAB48AA87013@strayalpha.com> <061317a8-654f-d1f4-ca33-f0b4bf6971e0@dcrocker.net> <20191111231311.gAoUc%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <20191113182813.sg-Nv%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Dave Crocker wrote in : |On 11/11/2019 3:13 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: |> DKIM could also have been designed to enwrap protected content in |> an envelope, instead of just adding yet another header line. That |> noone sees. (The users that should be kept away from reality on |> a nice and smooth trivia that is.) | |1. Designs always "could have been" something different from what they |are. Hence it is important to understand the goals and boundaries that Of course. This is why i argue lame, since the facts have already caused changes to be applied, with a large rush of those in the past weeks. But ongoing for years, the TUHS list had a long thread in the past, for example. |were set for the design. If there is disagreement with the goals or |boundaries, then argue carefully about them, remembering that in a |standards venue, quite a few people spent quite a long time settling on |the design that was chosen. In the case of work like DKIM, this |actually involved 3 previous generations of work, including significant |deployment experience. | |2. In terms of how you have raised it here, 'wrapping' is essentially a |minor, syntactic issue. In semantic terms, DKIM 'covers' a portion of |the message and thereby has a kind of logical wrapping. If you have |some more interesting intent in mind, you didn't state it. So I can't |comment on it. I personally am also a fan of flat parsers, and am at odds with the MUA i maintain because of its recursive approach (being the workhorse, still). But DKIM has to go over individual parts of the entire message (in practice), so the implementations cannot be as simple as "we dig anything until the first all-empty line, and do not care for actual content, the rest we do not care about at all". That is, i claim that putting it all in an envelope would not increase the cost of computation compared to status quo. |> There is for example RFC 1847 from October 1995, and |> Multipart/Signed looks promising for the desired use case. That | |That work was part of an effort concerned with authenticating messages, |seeking a common packaging mechanism to be in common between . DKIM |does not have that intent. | |Also, the MIME approach only covered the message body, and not the header. There is (of course: since you are very active and interested in IETF matters for a very long time i would always imply that you have seen documents at least by glancing over them, or even doing a thorough parse) draft-melnikov-smime-header-signing for a long time, and that in turn is lingering for much too long on the TODO list of my MUA (in source repo only). It seems i am at odds again, however, since simply enwrapping anything within a signed envelope would have been the right approach also there. To me, much better than having an encrypted message in the MBOX which decrypts to multipart/mixed with one part being text/rfc822-headers, and the other being the message. Why not take the entire message/rfc822 that it is, and put it in an envelope. That is just how it is however. On the other hand, adding one more good RFC on top of a lot of other not so good ones to move an old idea / standard to be the best possible solution has been seen, so we now have DNS over TCP/TLS and/or DTLS (i for one dislike DNS/HTTPS unless the HTTPS connection is already open, in a browser for example), in conjunction with TLSA etc. etc. There is direct SMTPS. IDNA is still around, which always frustrated me. I never understood why limits were not raised at that time, in order to let time and software updates overcome restrictions for some native non-english domains. Just like with SMTP, which simply -- poof! -- quadrupled all limits. (But without the poof!, of course. But domains names can be quite long even with the full four byte UTF-8 even without. Anyway: much better than introducing incompatibilities in later versions because IDNA issues were not fully understood initially.) |Lastly, I suspect you are thinking in terms of information to be |provided to recipients, to aid in their evaluation of a message. Whereas |DKIM, et al, seek to provide input to the recieving filtering engine. |Plus, input to recipients seems rarely, if ever, to be efficacious. Yes, i suspected that the envelope approach was not taken in order to keep users away from the irritating, frustrating, off-topic administrative surroundings. This is why i referred to modern web browsers which show some icons near the visited URL, which seems to be the end-result of multiple decades of experience in how information shall be presented to users, i think. To me it is a matter of the (G)UI only, really. Someone complained in this thread that the message/rfc822 message enwrapping was not displayed initially, which then lead to Mailman reconfiguration. Given that message/rfc822 is a mail message, the core of the protocol all this is about, it makes me wonder. |> Given the people who pushed this technology forward it feels odd |> to me that they of all people need to hide something in the |> headers that normal users will not see. But ok, maybe separating |> carrier security and user content was an understandable design |> goal, given that letters only get stamps and seals on the |> envelope, too. | |It isn't about hiding; it is about ensuring a degree of interoperability |without creating distracting effects on users. A serious effect of |encapsulating a message inside a MIME body part is that it is less |accessible to the end user. (I've just had a reminder of the reality of |this, over the weekend...) And that really is the funny part, to me. (And also the disappointing, looking at my own thing.) |> I do not go with the "We'll see how well it works" of yours. This | |It's not mine. I was noting that it seems to describe the view of some |others. | |> is the industry pushing through a standard that tramples on the |> infrastructure half a decade or longer since "the war on spam was |> won", according to some (ex- iirc) Google employee. | |It hasn't been won. It is a continuing and serious threat. Note M3AAWG |and APWG. Hm. Ok. Well, since i could only belong to the "least expensive and most popular level of membership" i am put off a little. (I know that from Unicode/CDLR where Google, Microsoft and Apple employees count a power of two more than my voice. But they get paid for translating XY/meat-balls to XY/Fleischb?llchen instead of XY/"Klops", so, well. Little clod is a Klops. Basta. Other than that there are fully and semi official institutions for good German, so i do not understand why they are not asked and charged for doing these things, i guess it would be cheaper, in the end.) If i recall correctly the essay was about that because of the big data spam mails can be classified as such very fast and reliably (like same checksums appear so-and-so often, in different parts of the world, add on that user classification as "spam" of a checksum). |> So call me backward and that i stink, but to me all that sounds |> like more and more surroundings to protect lesser and lesser |> content. | |A concern that increasingly complexity is providing far less benefit |than people assume isn't backward. It's a valid concern, IMO. | |>|Most problems about DKIM come from misunderstanding what it is supposed |>|to do. For the most part, it does what it is supposed to, pretty well. |> |> You can use it to verify that the message has been sent exactly as |> you have received it, at least the protected fields. And this |> happens transparently to users. | |Exactly so. And nicely said. | |But that's actually a secondary benefit. The primary benefit is have a |domain name associated with the message that is 'noise-free'; it hasn't |been used by anyone except authorized services. You could always look at the From: (or Sender:, if that contains multiple addresses) of the signed message/rfc822. That would be doable, at least. All the DNS surroundings are exactly the same. For verification purposes, all the normalization etc. has to be done, just the very same (iirc). |> But is this really a value by itself, i would have asked. |> Especially given that many people have faced signed or even |> encrypted messages in their life before, may it be S/MIME or |> OpenPGP, it seems the former is more often added automatically on |> some gateways by companies. | |They have a completely different goal from DKIM. I do not really agree with that. I seem to know that S/MIME is used by companies as a transparent signing service of outgoing mails, for example. So with protected headers you (can) get the very same thing, for message as well as From: host verification. It just has to be done. But as of today complains are futile, since DKIM/DMARC/ARC are standardized and cause changes all along the infrastructure. Mailing lists either use From: rewriting which could cause archives to be mutilated, since the real address is moved to Reply-To: that is often not archived, or have to stop tagging Subject: lines and injecting (headers and) footers, which i personally love to see (especially the Subject: tags). I do not know whether MUAs use the standardized List-XY: headers to give some UI feedback, which could be a little workaround. (Especially in pagers, in summary views some can give a little hint. Mine requires some configuration for that, though.) --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) -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dan at lynch.com Tue Nov 12 09:39:32 2019 From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 09:39:32 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <1dbe993b-4277-5307-6a80-6b027af8f176@dcrocker.net> References: <1dbe993b-4277-5307-6a80-6b027af8f176@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: In the recent power outages here the Comcast tv service was down, but the Comcast Internet service stayed up! Go figure... Dan Cell 650-776-7313 > On Nov 11, 2019, at 7:04 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > ?On 11/11/2019 5:56 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> However, all 3 Comcast services go away almost exactly 3 hours after the >> electric power in CA is shut off, > > > In the more urban environment around my home, I can usually rely on cellular data as a backup, though I seem to recall that cell tower batteries limit at around 72 hours. Still, that's better than 3. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Nov 11 19:03:25 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:03:25 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <12dbb24f-f698-33c7-9930-23d1267e8c3e@3kitty.org> References: <12dbb24f-f698-33c7-9930-23d1267e8c3e@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <1dbe993b-4277-5307-6a80-6b027af8f176@dcrocker.net> On 11/11/2019 5:56 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > However, all 3 Comcast services go away almost exactly 3 hours after the > electric power in CA is shut off, In the more urban environment around my home, I can usually rely on cellular data as a backup, though I seem to recall that cell tower batteries limit at around 72 hours. Still, that's better than 3. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From geoff at iconia.com Mon Nov 11 18:22:29 2019 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:22:29 -1000 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <12dbb24f-f698-33c7-9930-23d1267e8c3e@3kitty.org> References: <12dbb24f-f698-33c7-9930-23d1267e8c3e@3kitty.org> Message-ID: your power goes out and so dose the Cable Internet 3 hours later is Exactly Why yours truly has an Viasat Exede satellite backup (as well as backup power for it) so that when the power AND/OR the cable internet goes down it's just the push of a button on an Ethernet Switch to fallback/roller over to the backup powered satellite connection and stay connected/on line. [also -- in addition to the above Internet and power vagaries (as well as the "maybe-to-no" cellular "coverage" around here) yours truly also packs an Inmarsat IsatPhone 2 which has come in handy a number of times during various "outages"/act(s) of God over the last dozen years. :D] geoff On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 3:56 PM Jack Haverty wrote: > I also have Comcast (Nevada City, CA), for Voice, TV, and Internet > @~150Mbps (higher speeds available at more $s but why bother), all > delivered over the coax feed into the house. Much much better than the > Direcway/DirecTV/Exede for satellite TV/Internet and ATT/landline for voice > at previous residence. > > However, all 3 Comcast services go away almost exactly 3 hours after the > electric power in CA is shut off, and come back when the power returns, > making my UPS/battery/generator setup that keeps all of *my* equipment > running less useful. With 5 separate recent data points it's been pretty > consistent. I'm guessing that says how long Comcast's batteries last.... > > There is more to Internet services than Speed. Latency and Reliability > come to mind, but nobody I've found specs those. > > /Jack > On 11/11/19 4:15 PM, Dan Lynch wrote: > > I have Comcast up here for Internet. Dish for regular TV. But Netflix and > Prime video go over Comcast. When I had T1 in the 90s I think it hooked > into Covad! > > Dan > > Cell 650-776-7313 > > On Nov 11, 2019, at 1:15 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow > wrote: > > ? > Dan & Jack: am curious to know WHAT kind (Cable, DSL, Fiber, ...?) of > Internet connections y'all have and from WHICH providers? > > pretty clear/sure neither of you have satellite (as yours truly dose here > on The Big Island for backup when the "primary" cable Spectrum "service" *reliably > goes out* -- almost monthly -- so far twice already this month and once > last month :-/) at which time even a 700-1000 ms latency over the satellite > link is Most Welcomed! :D > > geoff > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dan Lynch via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Or you could have just used a kid. 15 or so years ago I had a 12 year old >> son who bounced back and forth between the home in the Napa Valley and the >> one in Los Altos. We had T1 service at both places (hot stuff in those >> days) and he was a gamer,of course. He could/would not play certain games >> in Napa because the latency was over 30 ms! Not so in Los Altos. He knew. >> And yes, for a twitchy kid 30 ms was everything. >> >> As for TV service up here I have 50 megabit service and it is excellent >> except for the occasional glitch like Jack described. And it may persist >> for a few minutes, then goes away for days. I tried calling to complain a >> few years ago, but nobody home..... We have won? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dan >> >> Cell 650-776-7313 >> >> > On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> > >> > ?On 11/11/19 8:31 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: >> > >> >> And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. >> > >> > I'm just a User now. Just last year I helped a friend, another User, >> > figure out why his "gaming" app, which depends on interactive behavior >> > across the net, was sometimes unusable. I was curious, since I also >> > sometimes see visual and audio artifacts on streaming TV content, making >> > TV sometimes similarly unusable, even though I have 150+ Mb/sec internet >> > service. We Users tend to think "Oh, the net's broken again, they're >> > probably working on fixing it". >> > >> > Using the ancient network management tools, we tracked the cause down to >> > latency. The typical latency we measured across the net was 100 msec or >> > less. But occasionally it would jump to several seconds and stay there >> > for a while. I was surprised to see that zero packets were being lost, >> > but many were delayed as much as 30 seconds. Without the ability to dig >> > inside the boxes, I can only speculate that such behavior at the IP >> > level was what made the gaming app unusable, and could cause those >> > artifacts I see in my TV video and audio. >> > >> > My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they all said >> > their service was working fine. Perhaps that is a consequence of the >> > "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many different >> > service and equipment providers? >> > >> > Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep buffers"? >> > Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers >> > unhappy.....? >> > >> > I'm still just being curious about the History of the Internet, >> > especially how its service evolved -- as seen by the Users. >> > >> > /Jack >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Internet-history mailing list >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Nov 11 18:19:36 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:19:36 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <12dbb24f-f698-33c7-9930-23d1267e8c3e@3kitty.org> References: <12dbb24f-f698-33c7-9930-23d1267e8c3e@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <583abd68-b402-8ab6-9a66-5ef352893a34@dcrocker.net> On 11/11/2019 5:56 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > There is more to Internet services than Speed.? Latency and Reliability > come to mind, but nobody I've found specs those. If there were a legitimately competitive market for consumer Internet access, that could be an interesting approach to differentiation. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 17:56:38 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:56:38 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12dbb24f-f698-33c7-9930-23d1267e8c3e@3kitty.org> I also have Comcast (Nevada City, CA), for Voice, TV, and Internet @~150Mbps (higher speeds available at more $s but why bother), all delivered over the coax feed into the house.? Much much better than the Direcway/DirecTV/Exede for satellite TV/Internet and ATT/landline for voice at previous residence. However, all 3 Comcast services go away almost exactly 3 hours after the electric power in CA is shut off, and come back when the power returns, making my UPS/battery/generator setup that keeps all of *my* equipment running less useful.? With 5 separate recent data points it's been pretty consistent.?? I'm guessing that says how long Comcast's batteries last.... There is more to Internet services than Speed.? Latency and Reliability come to mind, but nobody I've found specs those. /Jack On 11/11/19 4:15 PM, Dan Lynch wrote: > I have Comcast up here for Internet. Dish for regular TV. But Netflix > and Prime video go over Comcast. When I had T1 in the 90s I think it > hooked into Covad! ? > > Dan > > Cell 650-776-7313 > >> On Nov 11, 2019, at 1:15 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow >> wrote: >> >> ? >> Dan & Jack: am curious to know WHAT kind (Cable, DSL, Fiber, ...?) of >> Internet connections y'all have and from WHICH providers? >> >> pretty clear/sure neither of you have satellite (as yours truly dose >> here on The Big Island for backup when the "primary" cable Spectrum >> "service" *reliably goes out*?-- almost monthly -- so far twice >> already this month and once last month :-/) at which time even a >> 700-1000 ms latency over the satellite link is Most Welcomed! :D >> >> geoff >> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dan Lynch via Internet-history >> > > wrote: >> >> Or you could have just used a kid. 15 or so years ago I had a 12 >> year old son who bounced back and forth between the home in the >> Napa Valley and the one in Los Altos. We had T1 service at both >> places (hot stuff in those days) and he was a gamer,of course.? >> He could/would not play certain games in Napa because the latency >> was over 30 ms!? Not so in Los Altos. He knew. And yes, for a >> twitchy kid 30 ms was everything. >> >> As for TV service up here I have 50 megabit service and it is >> excellent except for the occasional glitch like Jack described. >> And it may persist for a few minutes, then goes away for days. I >> tried calling to complain a few years ago, but nobody home.....? >> We have won? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dan >> >> Cell 650-776-7313 >> >> > On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history >> > > wrote: >> > >> > ?On 11/11/19 8:31 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: >> > >> >> And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. >> > >> > I'm just a User now.? Just last year I helped a friend, another >> User, >> > figure out why his "gaming" app, which depends on interactive >> behavior >> > across the net, was sometimes unusable.? I was curious, since I >> also >> > sometimes see visual and audio artifacts on streaming TV >> content, making >> > TV sometimes similarly unusable, even though I have 150+ Mb/sec >> internet >> > service.? ?We Users tend to think "Oh, the net's broken again, >> they're >> > probably working on fixing it". >> > >> > Using the ancient network management tools, we tracked the >> cause down to >> > latency.? The typical latency we measured across the net was >> 100 msec or >> > less.? But occasionally it would jump to several seconds and >> stay there >> > for a while.? ?I was surprised to see that zero packets were >> being lost, >> > but many were delayed as much as 30 seconds.? Without the >> ability to dig >> > inside the boxes, I can only speculate that such behavior at the IP >> > level was what made the gaming app unusable, and could cause those >> > artifacts I see in my TV video and audio. >> > >> > My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they >> all said >> > their service was working fine.? Perhaps that is a consequence >> of the >> > "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many >> different >> > service and equipment providers? >> > >> > Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep >> buffers"?? >> > Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers >> > unhappy.....? >> > >> > I'm still just being curious about the History of the Internet, >> > especially how its service evolved -- as seen by the Users. >> > >> > /Jack >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Internet-history mailing list >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >> >> -- >> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> living as The Truth is True >> http://geoff.livejournal.com ?? >> >> -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Nov 11 17:56:38 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:56:38 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12dbb24f-f698-33c7-9930-23d1267e8c3e@3kitty.org> I also have Comcast (Nevada City, CA), for Voice, TV, and Internet @~150Mbps (higher speeds available at more $s but why bother), all delivered over the coax feed into the house.? Much much better than the Direcway/DirecTV/Exede for satellite TV/Internet and ATT/landline for voice at previous residence. However, all 3 Comcast services go away almost exactly 3 hours after the electric power in CA is shut off, and come back when the power returns, making my UPS/battery/generator setup that keeps all of *my* equipment running less useful.? With 5 separate recent data points it's been pretty consistent.?? I'm guessing that says how long Comcast's batteries last.... There is more to Internet services than Speed.? Latency and Reliability come to mind, but nobody I've found specs those. /Jack On 11/11/19 4:15 PM, Dan Lynch wrote: > I have Comcast up here for Internet. Dish for regular TV. But Netflix > and Prime video go over Comcast. When I had T1 in the 90s I think it > hooked into Covad! ? > > Dan > > Cell 650-776-7313 > >> On Nov 11, 2019, at 1:15 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow >> wrote: >> >> ? >> Dan & Jack: am curious to know WHAT kind (Cable, DSL, Fiber, ...?) of >> Internet connections y'all have and from WHICH providers? >> >> pretty clear/sure neither of you have satellite (as yours truly dose >> here on The Big Island for backup when the "primary" cable Spectrum >> "service" *reliably goes out*?-- almost monthly -- so far twice >> already this month and once last month :-/) at which time even a >> 700-1000 ms latency over the satellite link is Most Welcomed! :D >> >> geoff >> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dan Lynch via Internet-history >> > > wrote: >> >> Or you could have just used a kid. 15 or so years ago I had a 12 >> year old son who bounced back and forth between the home in the >> Napa Valley and the one in Los Altos. We had T1 service at both >> places (hot stuff in those days) and he was a gamer,of course.? >> He could/would not play certain games in Napa because the latency >> was over 30 ms!? Not so in Los Altos. He knew. And yes, for a >> twitchy kid 30 ms was everything. >> >> As for TV service up here I have 50 megabit service and it is >> excellent except for the occasional glitch like Jack described. >> And it may persist for a few minutes, then goes away for days. I >> tried calling to complain a few years ago, but nobody home.....? >> We have won? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dan >> >> Cell 650-776-7313 >> >> > On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history >> > > wrote: >> > >> > ?On 11/11/19 8:31 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: >> > >> >> And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. >> > >> > I'm just a User now.? Just last year I helped a friend, another >> User, >> > figure out why his "gaming" app, which depends on interactive >> behavior >> > across the net, was sometimes unusable.? I was curious, since I >> also >> > sometimes see visual and audio artifacts on streaming TV >> content, making >> > TV sometimes similarly unusable, even though I have 150+ Mb/sec >> internet >> > service.? ?We Users tend to think "Oh, the net's broken again, >> they're >> > probably working on fixing it". >> > >> > Using the ancient network management tools, we tracked the >> cause down to >> > latency.? The typical latency we measured across the net was >> 100 msec or >> > less.? But occasionally it would jump to several seconds and >> stay there >> > for a while.? ?I was surprised to see that zero packets were >> being lost, >> > but many were delayed as much as 30 seconds.? Without the >> ability to dig >> > inside the boxes, I can only speculate that such behavior at the IP >> > level was what made the gaming app unusable, and could cause those >> > artifacts I see in my TV video and audio. >> > >> > My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they >> all said >> > their service was working fine.? Perhaps that is a consequence >> of the >> > "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many >> different >> > service and equipment providers? >> > >> > Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep >> buffers"?? >> > Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers >> > unhappy.....? >> > >> > I'm still just being curious about the History of the Internet, >> > especially how its service evolved -- as seen by the Users. >> > >> > /Jack >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Internet-history mailing list >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >> >> -- >> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> living as The Truth is True >> http://geoff.livejournal.com ?? >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan at lynch.com Mon Nov 11 16:15:54 2019 From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:15:54 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have Comcast up here for Internet. Dish for regular TV. But Netflix and Prime video go over Comcast. When I had T1 in the 90s I think it hooked into Covad! Dan Cell 650-776-7313 > On Nov 11, 2019, at 1:15 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > > ? > Dan & Jack: am curious to know WHAT kind (Cable, DSL, Fiber, ...?) of Internet connections y'all have and from WHICH providers? > > pretty clear/sure neither of you have satellite (as yours truly dose here on The Big Island for backup when the "primary" cable Spectrum "service" reliably goes out -- almost monthly -- so far twice already this month and once last month :-/) at which time even a 700-1000 ms latency over the satellite link is Most Welcomed! :D > > geoff > >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dan Lynch via Internet-history wrote: >> Or you could have just used a kid. 15 or so years ago I had a 12 year old son who bounced back and forth between the home in the Napa Valley and the one in Los Altos. We had T1 service at both places (hot stuff in those days) and he was a gamer,of course. He could/would not play certain games in Napa because the latency was over 30 ms! Not so in Los Altos. He knew. And yes, for a twitchy kid 30 ms was everything. >> >> As for TV service up here I have 50 megabit service and it is excellent except for the occasional glitch like Jack described. And it may persist for a few minutes, then goes away for days. I tried calling to complain a few years ago, but nobody home..... We have won? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dan >> >> Cell 650-776-7313 >> >> > On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> > >> > ?On 11/11/19 8:31 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: >> > >> >> And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. >> > >> > I'm just a User now. Just last year I helped a friend, another User, >> > figure out why his "gaming" app, which depends on interactive behavior >> > across the net, was sometimes unusable. I was curious, since I also >> > sometimes see visual and audio artifacts on streaming TV content, making >> > TV sometimes similarly unusable, even though I have 150+ Mb/sec internet >> > service. We Users tend to think "Oh, the net's broken again, they're >> > probably working on fixing it". >> > >> > Using the ancient network management tools, we tracked the cause down to >> > latency. The typical latency we measured across the net was 100 msec or >> > less. But occasionally it would jump to several seconds and stay there >> > for a while. I was surprised to see that zero packets were being lost, >> > but many were delayed as much as 30 seconds. Without the ability to dig >> > inside the boxes, I can only speculate that such behavior at the IP >> > level was what made the gaming app unusable, and could cause those >> > artifacts I see in my TV video and audio. >> > >> > My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they all said >> > their service was working fine. Perhaps that is a consequence of the >> > "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many different >> > service and equipment providers? >> > >> > Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep buffers"? >> > Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers >> > unhappy.....? >> > >> > I'm still just being curious about the History of the Internet, >> > especially how its service evolved -- as seen by the Users. >> > >> > /Jack >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Internet-history mailing list >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 15:57:30 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Tony Li via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:57:30 -0800 Subject: [ih] John Nagle- "On Packet Switches With Infinite Storage" (1985) In-Reply-To: References: <878somqddz.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <8F308CD3-5D2C-4228-B9A4-293E4FDF9055@tony.li> > Has a suitably skeptical economist studied why buffer bloat > makes money for operators? It must do, or they would avoid it. You?re assuming that operators understand buffer bloat. Please recall that when we commercialized the Internet and then sold it off to the telco?s that many competent people promptly retired. And then things scaled and the number of clue-full operator engineers per subscriber asymptoted to zero. And the ones left are busy fighting fires. Operators do not understand buffer bloat. Customer service reads from scripts that start with ?please reboot your Windows host?. Debugging transient problems is effectively impossible. It?s a commodity service market, and the focus is on maximizing profitability, not providing high-quality service. Tony -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 15:51:05 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Crocker via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:51:05 -0800 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: <20191111231311.gAoUc%steffen@sdaoden.eu> References: <59B5A652-43F7-4DF7-99F8-AAB48AA87013@strayalpha.com> <061317a8-654f-d1f4-ca33-f0b4bf6971e0@dcrocker.net> <20191111231311.gAoUc%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: On 11/11/2019 3:13 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: > DKIM could also have been designed to enwrap protected content in > an envelope, instead of just adding yet another header line. That > noone sees. (The users that should be kept away from reality on > a nice and smooth trivia that is.) 1. Designs always "could have been" something different from what they are. Hence it is important to understand the goals and boundaries that were set for the design. If there is disagreement with the goals or boundaries, then argue carefully about them, remembering that in a standards venue, quite a few people spent quite a long time settling on the design that was chosen. In the case of work like DKIM, this actually involved 3 previous generations of work, including significant deployment experience. 2. In terms of how you have raised it here, 'wrapping' is essentially a minor, syntactic issue. In semantic terms, DKIM 'covers' a portion of the message and thereby has a kind of logical wrapping. If you have some more interesting intent in mind, you didn't state it. So I can't comment on it. > > There is for example RFC 1847 from October 1995, and > Multipart/Signed looks promising for the desired use case. That That work was part of an effort concerned with authenticating messages, seeking a common packaging mechanism to be in common between . DKIM does not have that intent. Also, the MIME approach only covered the message body, and not the header. Lastly, I suspect you are thinking in terms of information to be provided to recipients, to aid in their evaluation of a message. Whereas DKIM, et al, seek to provide input to the recieving filtering engine. Plus, input to recipients seems rarely, if ever, to be efficacious. > Given the people who pushed this technology forward it feels odd > to me that they of all people need to hide something in the > headers that normal users will not see. But ok, maybe separating > carrier security and user content was an understandable design > goal, given that letters only get stamps and seals on the > envelope, too. It isn't about hiding; it is about ensuring a degree of interoperability without creating distracting effects on users. A serious effect of encapsulating a message inside a MIME body part is that it is less accessible to the end user. (I've just had a reminder of the reality of this, over the weekend...) > I do not go with the "We'll see how well it works" of yours. This It's not mine. I was noting that it seems to describe the view of some others. > is the industry pushing through a standard that tramples on the > infrastructure half a decade or longer since "the war on spam was > won", according to some (ex- iirc) Google employee. It hasn't been won. It is a continuing and serious threat. Note M3AAWG and APWG. > So call me backward and that i stink, but to me all that sounds > like more and more surroundings to protect lesser and lesser > content. A concern that increasingly complexity is providing far less benefit than people assume isn't backward. It's a valid concern, IMO. > |Most problems about DKIM come from misunderstanding what it is supposed > |to do. For the most part, it does what it is supposed to, pretty well. > > You can use it to verify that the message has been sent exactly as > you have received it, at least the protected fields. And this > happens transparently to users. Exactly so. And nicely said. But that's actually a secondary benefit. The primary benefit is have a domain name associated with the message that is 'noise-free'; it hasn't been used by anyone except authorized services. > But is this really a value by itself, i would have asked. > Especially given that many people have faced signed or even > encrypted messages in their life before, may it be S/MIME or > OpenPGP, it seems the former is more often added automatically on > some gateways by companies. They have a completely different goal from DKIM. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 15:44:07 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:44:07 +1300 Subject: [ih] John Nagle- "On Packet Switches With Infinite Storage" (1985) In-Reply-To: <878somqddz.fsf@taht.net> References: <878somqddz.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: On 12-Nov-19 11:03, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: > the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history > writes: > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc970 > > Yep, we cite that a lot. Nobody listens. Has a suitably skeptical economist studied why buffer bloat makes money for operators? It must do, or they would avoid it. Netflix, btw, is putting its rates up again where I live (NZ). As it often says, buffering... or possibly bu$$ering... Brian -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 15:25:15 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Taht via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:25:15 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history's message of "Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:14:57 -1000") References: <3D6A1F4C-ABF1-4875-B427-AFB33A12D9D1@lynch.com> Message-ID: <87v9rq3sis.fsf@taht.net> the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history writes: > Dan & Jack: am curious to know WHAT kind (Cable, DSL, Fiber, ...?) of > Internet connections y'all have and from WHICH providers? http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat is one of the best public resources for measuring bloat that exists. There's breakdowns by AS number, by ISP, etc, also if you click in and around. Pls give the speedtest a shot and see how you do with your ISP. Try both wired and wireless. note: dslreports is not as good as the flent tool and has a few problems: A) everybody tuning sqm/fq_codel/cake tends to use it to verify their results, so the dataset is polluted by folk that have "fixed" bloat or are fixing it. B) They throw out a lot of outliers. I have longed for them to show a plot of the outliers alone as I suspect it would look much like the cosmic background radiation. C) Each test only runs for 20 sec or less, so the cutoff past 4 sec is *very* artificial. D) their "Quality" metric is partially based on packet loss. An A for bufferbloat and a C for quality means you are throwing away packets. dslreports apparently supports ECN so that's the only way to get an A for both at lower bandwidths. the upload scatterplot worldwide has got tons better in the last few years, it used to be that the blue vertical cablemodem lines were very thick and in two groups extending down past a second. Most of that improvement comes from bandwidths going up and buffersizes staying constant. At least my gpon provider (sonic) only has a 60ms uplink buffer. > > pretty clear/sure neither of you have satellite (as yours truly dose here > on The Big Island for backup when the "primary" cable Spectrum > "service" *reliably > goes out* -- almost monthly -- so far twice already this month and once > last month :-/) at which time even a 700-1000 ms latency over the satellite > link is Most Welcomed! :D cake has a mode for that. :) > > geoff > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dan Lynch via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Or you could have just used a kid. 15 or so years ago I had a 12 year old >> son who bounced back and forth between the home in the Napa Valley and the >> one in Los Altos. We had T1 service at both places (hot stuff in those >> days) and he was a gamer,of course. He could/would not play certain games >> in Napa because the latency was over 30 ms! Not so in Los Altos. He knew. >> And yes, for a twitchy kid 30 ms was everything. For me too. I'm extremely latency sensitive - playing in a band, 4ms (4 feet) is a comfortable distance. 8ms, far less so. >> As for TV service up here I have 50 megabit service and it is excellent >> except for the occasional glitch like Jack described. And it may persist >> for a few minutes, then goes away for days. I tried calling to complain a >> few years ago, but nobody home..... We have won? Well, sometimes it ain't bloat. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dan >> >> Cell 650-776-7313 >> >> > On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> > >> > ?On 11/11/19 8:31 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: >> > >> >> And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. >> > >> > I'm just a User now. Just last year I helped a friend, another User, >> > figure out why his "gaming" app, which depends on interactive behavior >> > across the net, was sometimes unusable. I was curious, since I also >> > sometimes see visual and audio artifacts on streaming TV content, making >> > TV sometimes similarly unusable, even though I have 150+ Mb/sec internet >> > service. We Users tend to think "Oh, the net's broken again, they're >> > probably working on fixing it". >> > >> > Using the ancient network management tools, we tracked the cause down to >> > latency. The typical latency we measured across the net was 100 msec or >> > less. But occasionally it would jump to several seconds and stay there >> > for a while. I was surprised to see that zero packets were being lost, >> > but many were delayed as much as 30 seconds. Without the ability to dig >> > inside the boxes, I can only speculate that such behavior at the IP >> > level was what made the gaming app unusable, and could cause those >> > artifacts I see in my TV video and audio. >> > >> > My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they all said >> > their service was working fine. Perhaps that is a consequence of the >> > "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many different >> > service and equipment providers? >> > >> > Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep buffers"? >> > Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers >> > unhappy.....? >> > >> > I'm still just being curious about the History of the Internet, >> > especially how its service evolved -- as seen by the Users. >> > >> > /Jack >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Internet-history mailing list >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 15:13:11 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:13:11 +0100 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: <061317a8-654f-d1f4-ca33-f0b4bf6971e0@dcrocker.net> References: <59B5A652-43F7-4DF7-99F8-AAB48AA87013@strayalpha.com> <061317a8-654f-d1f4-ca33-f0b4bf6971e0@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <20191111231311.gAoUc%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Dave Crocker wrote in <061317a8-654f-d1f4-ca33-f0b4bf6971e0 at dcrocker.net>: Please excuse the late reply. I am mostly a political person who happens to do some coding, so i initially refrained from sending this. |On 11/7/2019 8:32 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: |> DMARC/DKIM/ARC etc. really trample on the email infrastructure, | |DKIM doesn't. DMARC does. ARC seeks to counteract the damage of DMARC |in 'indirect' mail such as mailing lists. It is new. We'll see how |well it works. So i live in fear of being too loud. But i must say i am not Al Gore, i mean, how could i, i have not been in a war, let alone at the front, but. Maybe better it is to say i do not follow him when he looks optimistically in the future and says that technical improvements will solve the problems that we face. The majority of which we have created in the first place. Such a statement thus neglects the apparent fact that the more we do the more will happen the more future improvements are necessary to actually fix the problem. This (my way of thinking) is maybe heavily influenced from an impression of my early teenage years, when i watched a (not only to me) legendary talk show appearance of the wonderful Wolfgang Neuss, who then happened to face Richard von Weizs?cker, who was about to run to become Germany's president, and i still hear von Weizs?cker repeatedly say "Jetzt warten Sie es doch einmal ab" (maybe "Now, why don't you wait and see"), with Neuss responding "Ich habe die Zeit nicht mehr" ("I don't have the necessary time"). (Which was then finally and actually responded with "Das sieht man", "that can be seen". (Neuss had taken off his false teeth, iirc: indeed!)) Well, i dare to say that i was truly impressed by one speech of Mr. von Weizs?cker, i have seen it live on TV, and it was truly an impressive speech. Wolfgang Neuss could wait for the entire first tenure. (I think it should be added that Mr. von Weizs?ckers brother, Mr. Carl Friedrich von Weizs?cker, was a truly impressive person, who had been asked for becoming Germany's President by the other side of the political road a decade earlier. Maybe, just maybe, he, Heisenberg and Bohr united in an anti-nuclear-bomb alliance, but who knows. Anyway Mr. Neuss also stated something like "the brother is the real intellectual in that family" in the talk show, a fact that solely survived, on Youtube, for example. A shame it is!) |This being a history list, it's worth noting that DMARC was designed to |work in the very limited scenario of 'direct' mail, from large sender, |with direct transit to actual recipient. The first problem was that it |got re-purposed by fiat, by a couple of large email service providers. |The second, and much larger, problem is that there is a broad view in |the email industry that this re-purposing is a wonderful thing. (They |don't experience the downsides, or at least not very much, so they |aren't concerned about them.) DKIM could also have been designed to enwrap protected content in an envelope, instead of just adding yet another header line. That noone sees. (The users that should be kept away from reality on a nice and smooth trivia that is.) There is for example RFC 1847 from October 1995, and Multipart/Signed looks promising for the desired use case. That is my opinion, and if users accept entirely different things for secure communication, i do not use them but i think there are some, signal, and some whatever apps, then they will very well accept such. I think all mail readers in practical use are capable to deal with the thing, in one way or the other. Maybe just like in the browser URL GUI element, with all the buttons which someone can see in a modern browser. Given the people who pushed this technology forward it feels odd to me that they of all people need to hide something in the headers that normal users will not see. But ok, maybe separating carrier security and user content was an understandable design goal, given that letters only get stamps and seals on the envelope, too. But then why do the Yahoo people not ask their users, look into some List-Id: field for example, and if there is one, ask their users for confirmation for a specific list. It is too error prone, not automatic, and requires too much logic i guess. I do not go with the "We'll see how well it works" of yours. This is the industry pushing through a standard that tramples on the infrastructure half a decade or longer since "the war on spam was won", according to some (ex- iirc) Google employee. In the last weeks a tremendous number of mailing-lists have been converted to work regardless of the current state of affairs. For example the GNU project managed ones have all been converted. So this is how well it works in practice! And with ARC everybody along the mail path has to apply his or her own signature?! And then things like Autocrypt are added upon that, which ship the entire public key of a person with each and every mail that is sent, just in case someone may possibly ever sent an encrypted message to someone else. We are talking about many kilobytes of header data which is sent along with each and every message at that time. So call me backward and that i stink, but to me all that sounds like more and more surroundings to protect lesser and lesser content. All those standards, all the necessity for the increased bandwidth, including increased demands of electrical power, and all the trouble in the end-user infrastructure to which i count MLs could have been avoided if a signed envelope would have had been wrapped around the to-be-protected content. |There is an interesting third problem, namely that it is trivial to work |around the protection that DMARC is seen as providing. The protection |stems from the view -- and apparently empirical evidence in support of |the view... for now -- that phishers will use the domain name of |organization they claim to be representing, both in the message body and |the author From: field. However almost no use actually sees the author | From field domain name anymore; even better, it doesn't seem to matter |if they do. The real dangerous part of phishing is in the body and |DMARC doesn't (and can't) do anything about that. | |Most problems about DKIM come from misunderstanding what it is supposed |to do. For the most part, it does what it is supposed to, pretty well. You can use it to verify that the message has been sent exactly as you have received it, at least the protected fields. And this happens transparently to users. But is this really a value by itself, i would have asked. Especially given that many people have faced signed or even encrypted messages in their life before, may it be S/MIME or OpenPGP, it seems the former is more often added automatically on some gateways by companies. Not that the MUA i maintain works nicely with that, let alone with deep hierarchies and let totally aside a nice user experience. But these standards are old and established and sometimes even enforced on company-wide levels. I believe people would very well have accepted another envelope around that envelope, and would have appreciated the possibility to get rid of that in their visual user interface experience with a click (or two). It just had to be done like that. In "A Research UNIX Reader" we can read on MAIL "Old UNIX hands groan at the monstrous headers", and if that is not irony sarcasm is applicable. (I am guilty of a fat program manual myself.) |> especially mailing-lists. Many have chosen to remove Subject: |> line tags, or only do the From: rewriting the way we see here. |> The nice outcome of the approach you have chosen is that the |> original is fully retained, and that (therefore) future people who |> search archives will actually know who was actually speaking, |> since the original mail address should be available in a way that |> survives ML archiving, which i deem important. Thanks. | |Mailing lists involve the /delivery/ of an original message and the |/posting/ of a new one. In terms of user experience, there is the sense |of a single posting from the original author, but that has never been |the architectural reality. You look forward to ARC seal chains, which requires that all mailing-list operators upgrade their infrastructure. Those which do not are left behind. This is especially delicate given that many many projects in the free software world stopped using mailing-lists, moved to RSS feeds and/or gitXY issue trackers, i.e. much, much more bloated environments. In my opinion this direction is a pity, since with MLs i can work in a small terminal program, use my normal editor, can have my own archive which i can organize and manage just the way i want, etc. etc. I can today look into threads that happened thirty and more years ago, and this will absolutely not be true with anything web forum etc. alike. None of that. |Hence, mailing list software can 'legally' do whatever it wants to a |message. This has always been the case, of course. Yes. But you could use S/MIME or OpenPGP since decades if this would concern you. Some mailing-lists even do this on a per-list level, the private oss-security for example does it like this, i think. |> I for one would have preferred if said standards would have done |> it the very way*you* are doing it now, placing protected content |> as a whole in a new envelope, maybe even using the CMS standard as |> a content envelope, a.k.a. S/MIME-alike. An another list i wrote | |Each of the workarounds for dealing with the breakage caused by DMARC |has some benefits and some noticeable detriments. None seems to be far |better than the others. The encapsulation method really messes up doing |a reply. Eg, I had to do a hack in order to include the text of your |message in this reply. But this really is a bad MUA then. Multipart mails etc. exist for a quarter of a century. I must admit the MIME of mine only works well for the first subpart, i.e., a flat thing, yet. And the OpenSSL library S/MIME verification only works for such a single flat level, too (you need to separate them and feed each one in separately, of course). I never used other MUAs let alone graphical ones, but i have seen Apple Mail show some icons for attachments. This is just bad, right. Users need to be able to easily look into things, and for multipart/signed etc. things are pretty clear. |> RFC 4871 on DKIM says at least |> |> A common practice among systems that are primarily |> redistributors of mail is to add a Sender header field to the |> message, to identify the address being used to sign the |> message. This practice will remove any preexisting Sender |> header field as required by [RFC2822]. The forwarder applies |> a new DKIM-Signature header field with the signature, public |> key, and related information of the forwarder. | |In case this is otherwise missed, note that the above text is not normat\ |ive. I solely provided the two snippets of the DKIM and DMARC RFCs to demonstrate the spirit and overall think approach their authors seem to live in. |The simple, semantic reality about DKIM is that it embeds whatever |identifier it wishes (into the d= parameter of its header field). | |DKIM is not 'authenticating' a message, never mind not authenticating |its content or author or, really, anything else, other than the validity |of the d= domain name being used. | |The purpose of DKIM is to reliably and validly associate a domain name |with a mail stream, so that filtering engines (at the receive side) have |a clean, noise-free information source, for developing a reputation |assessment about messages using that domain name. | |> whereas the Yahoo! only RFC 7489 says | |DMARC has a very different task, namely to ensure that the author From: |field domain name is only used when authorized and then offer a request |to receivers about disposition of any message that has that domain name |in that field but isn't authorized to use it. | |> They break a field already present in RFC 822 from 1982. |> ... |> the job is done, maybe they got a bonus. Sounds bitter... | |Only DMARC adds a semantic to the author From: field. My ML currently strips DKIM fields. I do track the OpenDKIM repo for some years now, but never stepped ahead and started using it. The Mailman ML manager basically offers DKIM stripping to get over the DMARC problem. I do not know. Mr. Crocker. |d/ |-- |Dave Crocker |Brandenburg InternetWorking |bbiw.net --End of <061317a8-654f-d1f4-ca33-f0b4bf6971e0 at dcrocker.net> --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) -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 14:03:36 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Taht via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:03:36 -0800 Subject: [ih] John Nagle- "On Packet Switches With Infinite Storage" (1985) In-Reply-To: (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history's message of "Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:59:23 -1000") References: Message-ID: <878somqddz.fsf@taht.net> the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history writes: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc970 Yep, we cite that a lot. Nobody listens. > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 13:59:23 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:59:23 -1000 Subject: [ih] John Nagle- "On Packet Switches With Infinite Storage" (1985) Message-ID: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc970 -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dave at taht.net Mon Nov 11 13:40:14 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:40:14 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: (Jack Haverty via Internet-history's message of "Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:32:20 -0800") References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> <87pnhyz86w.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <87d0dyqegx.fsf@taht.net> Jack Haverty via Internet-history writes: > On 11/11/19 8:31 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: > >> And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. Obviously I am mortally opposed to deep buffering. No more than 60ms is needed, especially now that modern tcps do pacing. Instead it's often 400+ in many switches, and much worse in cpe and ISP head-ends. > I'm just a User now.? Just last year I helped a friend, another User, > figure out why his "gaming" app, which depends on interactive behavior > across the net, was sometimes unusable.? I was curious, since I also > sometimes see visual and audio artifacts on streaming TV content, making > TV sometimes similarly unusable, even though I have 150+ Mb/sec internet > service.?? We Users tend to think "Oh, the net's broken again, they're > probably working on fixing it". No, it's usually caused by something (else) temporarily using up the bandwidth and then overbuffering. Bufferbloat is still at epidemic proportions worldwide. Users have certainly been trained to expect, in the presence of a big upload or download, for their network to go hell. It's totally outside their everyday experience to expect otherwise. You, as a relatively smart user, could either apply some form of sqm (htb shaping with fq_codel or cake) from any of thousands of consumer grade boxes now shipping... ... except the one your ISP provides. What we usually recommend nowadays is putting something like an edgerouter X, turrus omnia, or evenroute in front of your <200Mbit connection, and an apu2 for Gbit... reflashed with openwrt, which also has the benefit of better security, ipv6 support, completely open source, and the latest bufferbloat-beating algorithms. It's a matter of putting in the right up and down bandwidth settings, setting the framing correctly for ethernet/dsl/cable and turning sqm on. With this stuff in place, and configured correctly, the day-in day-out difference in your network is like night and day, for all forms of traffic. Streaming - especially to two or more devices - works brilliantly, videoconferencing and voip are glitch free, and the web always fast, even when torrenting. I used to go to doubters houses to set it up - convincing folk - in email to convince anyone burn the time to try it is rather hit or miss, no matter how annoyed they are with the behavior of their network. ... some folk like pfsense, also. I'm not a fan - we shipped "cake" 3 years back and that seems to have solved every last problem we had and then some, with per host/per flow fq, some support for classification, and so on. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.07617.pdf We fixed wifi 5 years back - while working at gfiber it became obvious with gige fiber how the horrific bufferbloat shifted to the wifi was - ( https://lwn.net/Articles/705884/ ) and we fixed it. Thoroughly: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc17/atc17-hoiland-jorgensen.pdf That's shipping in about 30% of the new gear today. (QCA ath9k, ath10k, mediatek mt76 and intel's wifi-6 chips). In Google starbucks. Etc. Google's latency vs RvR plots were to die for: http://flent-newark.bufferbloat.net/~d/Airtime%20based%20queue%20limit%20for%20FQ_CoDel%20in%20wireless%20interface.pdf Again, it's rare to see the algorithms *configured* in isp provided CPE as yet - free.fr adopted it (3+ million boxes) in 2012, several dozen others, mostly in europe, have also - telenor for example - but elsewhere, don't know. It's needed badly in africa and south america, especially - but US cable CMTSes suck, in particular. It turns out much easier to fix the overbuffering problem on the home router with inbound shaping than it is to convince the ISPs to fix their head ends. We ended up putting a docsis mode into cake that makes them *rock*... Smart users can, however, fix it in 5 minutes. > > Using the ancient network management tools, we tracked the cause down to > latency.? The typical latency we measured across the net was 100 msec or > less.? But occasionally it would jump to several seconds and stay there > for a while.?? I was surprised to see that zero packets were being lost, > but many were delayed as much as 30 seconds.? Without the ability to dig > inside the boxes, I can only speculate that such behavior at the IP > level was what made the gaming app unusable, and could cause those > artifacts I see in my TV video and audio.? I'd say it wasn't speculation but truth. The sawtooth is largely dead in most consumer cpe, and tcp governed more by the max size of the send and receive windows worldwide. I ranted (with a ton of data) about all the causes of bufferbloat here - not just technology but "science" and politics. Actual buffer sizes then ran to the 10s of seconds in wifi, especially. https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2014/doc/slides/137.pdf > My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they all said > their service was working fine.? Perhaps that is a consequence of the > "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many different > service and equipment providers? If you are trying to bring this back into "internet history" - I'm not sure what principle would apply. Foolish idealism, on my part? And Jim's? For some of the history, scroll down to the beginning of https://gettys.wordpress.com/category/bufferbloat/ The story of the death of the paper "Red in a different light" is especially ironic for a variety of reasons... one reviewer scorned it and suggested the students involved thoroughly review van jacobson's core papers (when, in that blind review - it was van and kathie that had written it!) > Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep buffers"??? > Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers > unhappy.....? It sells more bandwidth. Packet loss of any kind is universally viewed as "bad". I could go on. > > I'm still just being curious about the History of the Internet, > especially how its service evolved -- as seen by the Users. I often thought that the tale of the bufferbloat.net effort would make a good book - about how a bunch of internet originals - jim gettys, van jacobson, vint cerf, esr, myself - banded together with the FOSS folk, academia and industry for one last ride at making it possible for the internet to be a universal communications medium for voice, videoconferencing, web and all future applications like we'd always dreamed of... I have to admit! The early years *were fun*. I woke up every day filled with new ideas to "fix the internet", as did my whole team. Of late... being bogged down by the latest braindead idea in the ietf (l4s vs sce) - I'm merely happy that *my networks* are great as are those of my friends and those paying attention. Despite essentially succeeding at eradicating the bufferbloat problem in theory and with deployed code in 2012 with fq_codel (now RFC8290), and having that algorithm now the default in over a billion devices (apple osx, ios, and linux - and available in freebsd), it's not on (except for smart users) where it would count most, on the bottleneck routers. Who knows? maybe another couple years? I'd like it if I were elected (posthumously) to the internet hall of fame for the last 9 years I've spent trying to fix the internet, but thus far don't seem to even rank an entry in wikipedia. Still, I'd be happy to help y'all here to get at least, your networks, working better, if you need any help getting this stuff configured, please contact me offline. > /Jack From geoff at iconia.com Mon Nov 11 13:14:57 2019 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:14:57 -1000 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <3D6A1F4C-ABF1-4875-B427-AFB33A12D9D1@lynch.com> References: <3D6A1F4C-ABF1-4875-B427-AFB33A12D9D1@lynch.com> Message-ID: Dan & Jack: am curious to know WHAT kind (Cable, DSL, Fiber, ...?) of Internet connections y'all have and from WHICH providers? pretty clear/sure neither of you have satellite (as yours truly dose here on The Big Island for backup when the "primary" cable Spectrum "service" *reliably goes out* -- almost monthly -- so far twice already this month and once last month :-/) at which time even a 700-1000 ms latency over the satellite link is Most Welcomed! :D geoff On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dan Lynch via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Or you could have just used a kid. 15 or so years ago I had a 12 year old > son who bounced back and forth between the home in the Napa Valley and the > one in Los Altos. We had T1 service at both places (hot stuff in those > days) and he was a gamer,of course. He could/would not play certain games > in Napa because the latency was over 30 ms! Not so in Los Altos. He knew. > And yes, for a twitchy kid 30 ms was everything. > > As for TV service up here I have 50 megabit service and it is excellent > except for the occasional glitch like Jack described. And it may persist > for a few minutes, then goes away for days. I tried calling to complain a > few years ago, but nobody home..... We have won? > > Cheers, > > Dan > > Cell 650-776-7313 > > > On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > ?On 11/11/19 8:31 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: > > > >> And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. > > > > I'm just a User now. Just last year I helped a friend, another User, > > figure out why his "gaming" app, which depends on interactive behavior > > across the net, was sometimes unusable. I was curious, since I also > > sometimes see visual and audio artifacts on streaming TV content, making > > TV sometimes similarly unusable, even though I have 150+ Mb/sec internet > > service. We Users tend to think "Oh, the net's broken again, they're > > probably working on fixing it". > > > > Using the ancient network management tools, we tracked the cause down to > > latency. The typical latency we measured across the net was 100 msec or > > less. But occasionally it would jump to several seconds and stay there > > for a while. I was surprised to see that zero packets were being lost, > > but many were delayed as much as 30 seconds. Without the ability to dig > > inside the boxes, I can only speculate that such behavior at the IP > > level was what made the gaming app unusable, and could cause those > > artifacts I see in my TV video and audio. > > > > My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they all said > > their service was working fine. Perhaps that is a consequence of the > > "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many different > > service and equipment providers? > > > > Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep buffers"? > > Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers > > unhappy.....? > > > > I'm still just being curious about the History of the Internet, > > especially how its service evolved -- as seen by the Users. > > > > /Jack > > > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Nov 11 13:15:34 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:15:34 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <18585.1573505514@serenity.jjd.com> References: <18585.1573505514@serenity.jjd.com> Message-ID: I hadn't thought of that but it's quite possible.? Good observation.? To us Users, the Internet is just a big mysterious black box with no one in charge.?? That "gaming app" was actually a scheme for operating radios from across the 'net during amateur radio contests.? That probably appears to network operators as minor miscellaneous traffic of unknown purpose.?? I characterize it as "gaming" because it has similar traffic characteristics.?? We never could figure out if the apps tried to use any of the obscure "knobs" of the Internet, like TOS settings in packet headers, or whether or not such settings would make any difference in how the packets were actually handled. I suppose it's possible that the big real Gaming app operators pay the network operators to give their traffic the appropriate service.? So packets recognized by the operators as some kind of preferred customer would get different treatment from my friend's packets. I've wondered how the politicians expected violations of Net Neutrality law to be detected and investigated.?? Who can tell that their packets are getting any different treatment...??? What tools could the cops use to figure out what was happening...??? Makes we wonder if there ever was Net Neutrality at all in the actual operating Internet. The original ARPANET days and NOC keep coming to mind.? Network management extended all the way to the ends at the users, e.g., with things like the machine in the NOC that continuously dialed TIP ports all over the country to see if they were working.?? It seems like nobody in today's operators takes an end-user service responsibility. After 40 years, I'm curious whether that "routers built by anyone" directive and resultant mechanisms starting with EGP were a Good Idea, or a Horrible one.... /Jack On 11/11/19 12:51 PM, James J Dempsey wrote: > [ this is not sent to internet-history ] > > internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org wrote: > >> My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they all said >> their service was working fine.? Perhaps that is a consequence of the >> "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many different >> service and equipment providers? >> >> Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep buffers"??? >> Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers >> unhappy.....? > I speculate that one of the reasons this might be happening is the demise of > net neutrality. > > An ISP lets packets from Netflix, HBO though because Netflix and HBO have > been extorted into paying the ISP to let their packets through unmolested. > > An ISP sees "random game port" traffic, does deep packet inspection on it > and can't determine what it is, so throws it in the "random traffic that > hasn't paid the tax" which might be the same as "someone trying to trick us > by hiding the nature of their traffic". Some news articles call this the > "internet slow lane." > > Of course, by "ISP", I might mean any carrier along the path, though the end > user's ISP is the most likely place this would happen. > > When I see pixelization from some big provider like Netflix, I assume that > their back end servers are getting overloaded. > > Just random thoughts, > > --Jim-- From jjd at jjd.com Mon Nov 11 12:51:54 2019 From: jjd at jjd.com (James J Dempsey) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:51:54 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness Message-ID: <18585.1573505514@serenity.jjd.com> [ this is not sent to internet-history ] internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org wrote: > My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they all said > their service was working fine.? Perhaps that is a consequence of the > "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many different > service and equipment providers? > > Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep buffers"??? > Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers > unhappy.....? I speculate that one of the reasons this might be happening is the demise of net neutrality. An ISP lets packets from Netflix, HBO though because Netflix and HBO have been extorted into paying the ISP to let their packets through unmolested. An ISP sees "random game port" traffic, does deep packet inspection on it and can't determine what it is, so throws it in the "random traffic that hasn't paid the tax" which might be the same as "someone trying to trick us by hiding the nature of their traffic". Some news articles call this the "internet slow lane." Of course, by "ISP", I might mean any carrier along the path, though the end user's ISP is the most likely place this would happen. When I see pixelization from some big provider like Netflix, I assume that their back end servers are getting overloaded. Just random thoughts, --Jim-- From dan at lynch.com Mon Nov 11 12:49:50 2019 From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:49:50 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D6A1F4C-ABF1-4875-B427-AFB33A12D9D1@lynch.com> Or you could have just used a kid. 15 or so years ago I had a 12 year old son who bounced back and forth between the home in the Napa Valley and the one in Los Altos. We had T1 service at both places (hot stuff in those days) and he was a gamer,of course. He could/would not play certain games in Napa because the latency was over 30 ms! Not so in Los Altos. He knew. And yes, for a twitchy kid 30 ms was everything. As for TV service up here I have 50 megabit service and it is excellent except for the occasional glitch like Jack described. And it may persist for a few minutes, then goes away for days. I tried calling to complain a few years ago, but nobody home..... We have won? Cheers, Dan Cell 650-776-7313 > On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > ?On 11/11/19 8:31 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: > >> And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. > > I'm just a User now. Just last year I helped a friend, another User, > figure out why his "gaming" app, which depends on interactive behavior > across the net, was sometimes unusable. I was curious, since I also > sometimes see visual and audio artifacts on streaming TV content, making > TV sometimes similarly unusable, even though I have 150+ Mb/sec internet > service. We Users tend to think "Oh, the net's broken again, they're > probably working on fixing it". > > Using the ancient network management tools, we tracked the cause down to > latency. The typical latency we measured across the net was 100 msec or > less. But occasionally it would jump to several seconds and stay there > for a while. I was surprised to see that zero packets were being lost, > but many were delayed as much as 30 seconds. Without the ability to dig > inside the boxes, I can only speculate that such behavior at the IP > level was what made the gaming app unusable, and could cause those > artifacts I see in my TV video and audio. > > My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they all said > their service was working fine. Perhaps that is a consequence of the > "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many different > service and equipment providers? > > Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep buffers"? > Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers > unhappy.....? > > I'm still just being curious about the History of the Internet, > especially how its service evolved -- as seen by the Users. > > /Jack > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 11:32:20 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:32:20 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <87pnhyz86w.fsf@taht.net> References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> <87pnhyz86w.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: On 11/11/19 8:31 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: > And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. I'm just a User now.? Just last year I helped a friend, another User, figure out why his "gaming" app, which depends on interactive behavior across the net, was sometimes unusable.? I was curious, since I also sometimes see visual and audio artifacts on streaming TV content, making TV sometimes similarly unusable, even though I have 150+ Mb/sec internet service.?? We Users tend to think "Oh, the net's broken again, they're probably working on fixing it". Using the ancient network management tools, we tracked the cause down to latency.? The typical latency we measured across the net was 100 msec or less.? But occasionally it would jump to several seconds and stay there for a while.?? I was surprised to see that zero packets were being lost, but many were delayed as much as 30 seconds.? Without the ability to dig inside the boxes, I can only speculate that such behavior at the IP level was what made the gaming app unusable, and could cause those artifacts I see in my TV video and audio.? My friend tried complaining to his ISPs' tech support, but they all said their service was working fine.? Perhaps that is a consequence of the "Levelness" that now makes Users' applications involve many different service and equipment providers? Is this latency how Users now see the effects of those "deep buffers"??? Why would providers require a feature that makes their customers unhappy.....? I'm still just being curious about the History of the Internet, especially how its service evolved -- as seen by the Users. /Jack -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Mon Nov 11 08:31:03 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Taht via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 08:31:03 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: (Joly MacFie via Internet-history's message of "Mon, 11 Nov 2019 01:58:36 -0500") References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <87pnhyz86w.fsf@taht.net> Joly MacFie via Internet-history writes: > There appears to have been something of an of an open-source epiphany at > AT&T when it comes to 5G. > > https://about.att.com/story/2019/open_compute_project.html I looked into the software stack required for this and shuddered. A zillion pieces glued together by their marketing department. And - of course! it's got the "deep buffers" providers require. ?Our early lab testing of Jericho2 DDC white boxes has been extremely encouraging,? said Michael Satterlee, vice president of Network Infrastructure and Services at AT&T. ?We chose the Broadcom Jericho2 chip because it has the deep buffers, route scale, and port density service providers require. The Ramon fabric chip enables the flexible horizontal scale-out of the DDC design. We anticipate extensive applications in our network for this very modular hardware design.? > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 12:31 PM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Geoff, >> >> No problem. However, during my stint at Verizon, we certainly weren't >> scared to mix and max infrastructure from multiple vendors where it made >> sense to us. We had a huge interoperability lab where we >> satisfied ourselves that it would work in the field before deploying, of >> course. Multi-vendor interoperability was often an RFP requirement. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 10:47 AM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < >> geoff at iconia.com> wrote: >> >> > andy, sorry for the confusion/ambiguity -- yours truly was NOT >> > referencing/taking about subscriber equipment (i.e. phones), but rather >> the >> > various infrastructure components such as base stations, switches and the >> > other assorted gizzards et al. that comprise cellular and other wireless >> > (data) networks. >> > >> > geoff >> > >> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Andrew G. Malis >> wrote: >> > >> >> Not true, at least now in the US. You can buy an unlocked phone of >> >> your choice (as I did), and as long as it supports the required >> >> frequencies, you can just get a SIM from any of the US carriers for the >> >> phone. If you want to use a carrier's installment plan to pay for the >> >> phone, then they have the right to give it to you SIM-locked. Once it's >> >> been paid off, you can request the carrier to remove the SIM lock. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Andy >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 5:53 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >> >> Internet-history wrote: >> >> >> >>> this interesting cuz The Big Wireless infrastructure vendors would >> (still >> >>> do?) blackmail/extort and hold their cellular carrier customers hostage >> >>> to >> >>> using Only THEIR OWN Equipment under the threat that if any >> >>> not-of-their-own manufactured/provided/sold gear was >> "attached"/used/put >> >>> in >> >>> place of their own they would summarily VOID the maintenance and >> >>> warranty thereof...! >> >>> >> >>> as a result, in the evolution of wireless carriage: a number of co's >> that >> >>> had built a faster, better, cheaper (and more spectrally >> >>> beneficial/efficient!) "mouse traps" died on the vine. >> >>> >> >>> this one wonders how Louis Pouzin reacted to/when his PTT -- France >> >>> Telecom >> >>> --unleashed The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel on his >> country... >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > I think that for the "principle of levelness", as for so much else >> >>> about >> >>> > the Internet, credit belongs most strongly to Louis Pouzin. For >> >>> Louis, the >> >>> > biggest fear of walled gardens was the strength of the European PTTs. >> >>> I >> >>> > remember many talks he gave stating that, if they were allowed, they >> >>> would >> >>> > allocate to themselves the right to all the intelligence in any >> >>> network, >> >>> > rather than simply the carriage of bits. Louis worked tirelessly for >> >>> > internet design that allowed multiple players. >> >>> > Cheers,Alex >> >>> > >> >>> > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:10:53 PM EST, Jack Haverty via >> >>> > Internet-history wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of >> Levelness >> >>> or >> >>> > if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board. That led >> to >> >>> > EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool >> >>> to >> >>> > enable multi-vendor implementation. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> >>> living as The Truth is True >> >>> http://geoff.livejournal.com >> >>> -- >> >>> Internet-history mailing list >> >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> > living as The Truth is True >> > http://geoff.livejournal.com >> > >> > >> > >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 10 22:58:36 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joly MacFie via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 01:58:36 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There appears to have been something of an of an open-source epiphany at AT&T when it comes to 5G. https://about.att.com/story/2019/open_compute_project.html On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 12:31 PM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Geoff, > > No problem. However, during my stint at Verizon, we certainly weren't > scared to mix and max infrastructure from multiple vendors where it made > sense to us. We had a huge interoperability lab where we > satisfied ourselves that it would work in the field before deploying, of > course. Multi-vendor interoperability was often an RFP requirement. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 10:47 AM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < > geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > > > andy, sorry for the confusion/ambiguity -- yours truly was NOT > > referencing/taking about subscriber equipment (i.e. phones), but rather > the > > various infrastructure components such as base stations, switches and the > > other assorted gizzards et al. that comprise cellular and other wireless > > (data) networks. > > > > geoff > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Andrew G. Malis > wrote: > > > >> Not true, at least now in the US. You can buy an unlocked phone of > >> your choice (as I did), and as long as it supports the required > >> frequencies, you can just get a SIM from any of the US carriers for the > >> phone. If you want to use a carrier's installment plan to pay for the > >> phone, then they have the right to give it to you SIM-locked. Once it's > >> been paid off, you can request the carrier to remove the SIM lock. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Andy > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 5:53 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > >> Internet-history wrote: > >> > >>> this interesting cuz The Big Wireless infrastructure vendors would > (still > >>> do?) blackmail/extort and hold their cellular carrier customers hostage > >>> to > >>> using Only THEIR OWN Equipment under the threat that if any > >>> not-of-their-own manufactured/provided/sold gear was > "attached"/used/put > >>> in > >>> place of their own they would summarily VOID the maintenance and > >>> warranty thereof...! > >>> > >>> as a result, in the evolution of wireless carriage: a number of co's > that > >>> had built a faster, better, cheaper (and more spectrally > >>> beneficial/efficient!) "mouse traps" died on the vine. > >>> > >>> this one wonders how Louis Pouzin reacted to/when his PTT -- France > >>> Telecom > >>> --unleashed The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel on his > country... > >>> > >>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < > >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I think that for the "principle of levelness", as for so much else > >>> about > >>> > the Internet, credit belongs most strongly to Louis Pouzin. For > >>> Louis, the > >>> > biggest fear of walled gardens was the strength of the European PTTs. > >>> I > >>> > remember many talks he gave stating that, if they were allowed, they > >>> would > >>> > allocate to themselves the right to all the intelligence in any > >>> network, > >>> > rather than simply the carriage of bits. Louis worked tirelessly for > >>> > internet design that allowed multiple players. > >>> > Cheers,Alex > >>> > > >>> > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:10:53 PM EST, Jack Haverty via > >>> > Internet-history wrote: > >>> > > >>> > I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of > Levelness > >>> or > >>> > if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board. That led > to > >>> > EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool > >>> to > >>> > enable multi-vendor implementation. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > >>> living as The Truth is True > >>> http://geoff.livejournal.com > >>> -- > >>> Internet-history mailing list > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> > >> > > > > -- > > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > > living as The Truth is True > > http://geoff.livejournal.com > > > > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Sun Nov 10 13:45:25 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:45:25 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> <7C60D426-2D4D-4318-B9DC-8C0AA1CBF96F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <26400B45-4719-41E8-95EF-DBDB8FC06172@comcast.net> This is getting pretty long and we are probably the only ones interested in it. Configuration Management: You were lucky. We had customers who had configuration changes between day and night, end of month, holidays vs non-holidays (both for less traffic and much more), in Hong Kong race day was a killer, etc. There are also networks that have to reconfigure quickly when new conditions arise (some predictable, some not). Database Performance: All of that did make database performance an issue. But also a 20+ times slower can make even ordinary things far too slow. SNMP?s inherent dribble approach probably covered up the database performance issues. The idea that one couldn?t snapshot a router table before it was updated was a pain. General: One of the problems we saw was getting it across to operators that they were *managing* the network, not controlling it. There was a situation in the UK where the number of switch crashes dropped precipitously for 6 weeks and then came back up. No changes had been made. It was very strange until they realized it was the 6 weeks the operators were on strike. They had been trying to control the network and were making it worse. I contend that network management is basically, Monitor and Repair but not control. Multi-protocol: Yes this is where leveraging the commonality of structure paid off. We had to support all of those too. Given our approach to it, it was relatively straightforward. Fault Management: yes, this is another place where the commonality paid off. Also recognizing that doing diagnosis was basically creating a small management domain for the equipment under test. I was never able to get as far on this problem as I thought we could go. But one could do a lot with common tools to generate test patterns, test dictionaries, etc. Most of this was on the market by 1986. John > On Nov 10, 2019, at 01:26, Jack Haverty wrote: > > On 11/9/19 4:23 AM, John Day wrote: > >> As they say, Jack, ignorance is bliss! ;-) Were you doing configuration with it? Or was it just monitoring? > > As I recall, configuration wasn't a big deal. Nodes were typically > routers with Ethernets facing toward the users at the site and several > interfaces the other way for long-haul circuits. Our approach was to > collect all the appropriate equipment for the next site in our > California lab, configure it and test it out on the live network, and > then ship it all to wherever it was to go. So, for example, New Zealand > might have actually been in California at first, but when it got to NZ > it worked the same. > > IIRC, there was lots of stuff that could be configured and tweaked in > the routers. There was even a little documentation on what some of > those "virtual knobs" affected. There was essentially nothing on why > you might want to set some knob to any particular position, what > information you needed to make such decisions, or how to predict > results. Anything could happen. So there was strong incentive never > to change the default configuration parameters after the site equipment > left our lab. > > I don't remember any concerns about database performance. But we only > had a hundred or so boxes out in our net. Perhaps the Network > Management vendors had visions of customers with thousands of their > boxes so we didn't see the same problems. Also, we only collected the > specific data from sources like SNMP that we expected wet could actually > use. We thought our network was pretty big for the time, spanning 5 > continents and thousands of users and computers. The database we had > worked fine for that. Compared to other situations, like processing > credit card or bank transactions, it didn't seem like a big load. I > think it all went into a Sparc. But there were bigger machines around > if we needed one. > > The vendor-supplied tools did provide some monitoring. E.g., it was > fairly easy to see problems like a dead router or line, and pick up the > phone to call the right TelCo or local site tech to reboot the box. > With alternate routing, often the users didn't even notice. Just like > in the ARPANET...(Yay packet switching!) > > To make things extra interesting, that was the era of "multi-protocol > routers", since TCP hadn't won the network wars quite yet. Our > corporate product charter was to provide software that ran on any > computer, over any kind of network. So our net carried not only TCP/IP, > but also other stuff - e.g., DECNet, AppleTalk, SPX/IPX, and maybe one > or two I don't remember. SNA/LU6.2 anyone...? Banyan Vines? > > Most of our more challenging "network management" work involved fault > isolation and diagnosis, plus trend analysis and planning. > > A typical problem would start with an urgent call from some user who was > having trouble doing something. It might be "The network is way too > slow. It's broken." or "I can't get my quarterly report to go in". > Often the vendor system would show that all routers were up and running > fine, and all lines were up. But from the User's perspective, the > network was broken. > > Figuring out what was happening was where the ad-hoc tools came in. > Sometimes it was User Malfunction, but often there was a real issue in > the network that just didn't appear in any obvious way to the > operators. But the Users saw it. > > "You say the Network is running fine.....but it doesn't work!" > > To delve into Users' problems, we needed to go beyond just looking at > the routers and circuits. Part of the problem might be in the Host > computers where TCP lived, or in the Application, e.g., email. > > We ran the main data center in addition to the network. There wasn't > anyone else for us to point the finger at. > > We used simple shell scripts and common Unix programs to gather > SNMP-available data and stuff it into the database, parsed as much as we > could into appropriate tables with useful columns like Time, Router#, > ReportType, etc. That provided data about how the routers saw the > network world, capturing status and behavior over whatever period of > time we ran the collector. > > Following the "Standard Node" approach, wherever we placed a network > node we also made sure to have some well-understood machine on the User > side that we could use remotely from the NOC. Typically it would be > some kind of Unix workstation, attached to the site's Ethernet close to > the router. Today, I'd probably just velcro a Raspberry Pi to the router. > > I used to call this an Anchor Host, since it provided a stable, > well-understood (by us at the NOC) machine out in the network. This > was really just copying the ARPANET approach from the early 70s, where a > "Fake Host" inside the IMP could be used to do network management things > like generate test traffic or snoop on regular network traffic. We > couldn't change the router code to add a Fake Host, but we could put a > Real Host next to it. > > From that Fake (Real) Host, we could run Ping tests across the network > to measure RTT, measure bandwidth between 2 points during a test FTP, > generate traffic, and such stuff, simply using the tools that commonly > come in Unix boxes. The results similarly made their way into tables in > the database. Some tests were run continuously, e.g., ping tests every > 5 minutes. Others were enabled on demand to help figure out some > problem, avoiding burdening the network (and database I guess) with > extra unneeded traffic. > > Also from that Fake Host, we could run TCPDUMP, which captured traffic > flowing across that Ethernet and produced reams of output with a melange > of multi-protocol packet headers. Again, all of that could make its way > into the database on demand, organized into useful Tables, delayed if > necessary to avoid impacting the network misbehavior we were trying to > debug. Give a Unix guru awk, sed, cron and friends and amazing things > can happen. > > We could even run a Flakeway on that Anchor Host, to simulate network > glitches for experimentation, but I can't recall ever having to do > that. But perhaps the ops did and I never knew. > > Once all that stuff got into the database, it became data. Not a > problem. I was a network guy afloat in an ocean of database gurus, and > I was astonished at the way they could manipulate that data and turn it > into Information. > > I didn't get involved much in everyday network operations, but when > weird things happened I'd stick my nose in. > > Once there was an anomaly in a trans-pacific path, where there was a > flaky circuit that would go down and up annoyingly often. The carrier > was "working on it..." > > What the ops had noticed was that after such a glitch finished, the > network would settle down as expected. But sometimes, the RTT delay and > bandwidth measurements would settle down to a new stable level > noticeably different from before the line glitch. They even had > brought up a rolling real-time graph of the data, kind of like a > hospital heart-monitor, that clearly showed the glitch and the change in > behavior. > > Using our adhoc tools, we traced the problem down to a bug in some > vendor's Unix system. That machine's TCP retransmission timer algorithm > was reacting to the glitch, and adapting as the rerouting occurred. But > after the glitch, the TCP had settled into a new stable pattern where > the retransmission timer fired just a little too soon, and every packet > was getting sent twice. The network anomaly would show up if a line > glitch occurred, but only if that Unix user was in the middle of doing > something like a file transfer across the Pacific at the time. The > Hosts and TCPs were both happy, the Routers were blissfully ignorant, > and half that expensive trans-pacific circuit was being wasted carrying > duplicate packets. > > With the data all sitting in the database, we had the tools to figure > that out. We reported the TCP bug to the Unix vendor. I've always > wondered if it ever got fixed, since most customers would probably never > notice. > > Another weird thing was that "my quarterly report won't go" scenario. > That turned out to be a consequence of the popularity of the "Global > Lan" idea in the network industry at the time. IIRC, someone in some > office in Europe had just finished putting together something like a > library of graphics and photos for brochures et al, and decided to send > it over to the colleagues who were waiting for it. Everybody was on > the department "LAN", so all you had to do was drag this folder over > there to those guys' icons and it would magically appear on their > desktops. Of course it didn't matter that those other servers were in > the US, Australia, and Asia - it's a Global LAN, right! > > The network groaned, but all the routers and lines stayed up, happily > conveying many packets per second. For hours. Unfortunately too few of > the packets were carrying that email traffic. > > We turned off "Global LAN" protocols in the routers ... but of course > today such LAN-type services all run over TCP, so it might not be quite > as easy. > > The other important but less urgent Network Management activity involved > things like Capacity Planning. With the data in the database, it was > pretty easy to get reports or graphs of trends over a month/quarter, and > see the need to order more circuits or equipment. > > We could also run various tests like traffic generators and such and > gather data when there were no problems in the network. That collected > data provided a "baseline" of how things looked when everything was > working. During problem times, it was straightforward to run similar > tests and compare the results with the baselines to figure out where the > source of a problem might be by highlighting significant differences. > The ability to compare "working" and "broken" data is a powerful Network > Management tool. > > So that'w what we did. I'm not sure I'd characterize all that kind of > activity as either Configuration or Monitoring. I've always thought it > was just Network Management. > > There's a lot of History of the Internet protocols, equipment, software, > etc., but I haven't seen much of a historical account of how the various > pieces of the Internet have been operated and managed, and how the tools > and techniques have evolved over time. > > If anybody's up for it, it would be interesting to see how other people > did such "Network Management" activities with their own adhoc tools as > the Internet evolved. > > It would also be fascinating to see how today's expensive Network > Management Systems tools would be useful in my scenarios above. I.e., > how effective would today's tools be if used by network operators to > deal with my example network management scenarios - along the lines of > RFC1109's observations about how to evaluate Network Management technology. > > BTW, everything I wrote above occurred in 1990-1991. > > /Jack > > > From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 10 11:51:36 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Leo Vegoda via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 11:51:36 -0800 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <22818272-88a1-e5eb-0d1b-0a5a3fdf6cb4@gmail.com> References: <20191110174643.2E889E97588@ary.qy> <22818272-88a1-e5eb-0d1b-0a5a3fdf6cb4@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:28 AM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: [...] > So here's the history question. In IPv4-land, people learned to be very > conservative about addresses since, after all, there were only 4 billion > of them, not even half an address per human. Why don't people adapt to > the fact that IPv6 provides, for example, 15 trillion /48 prefixes > and a number I can't be bothered to work out of /64 prefixes? Where's > the human adaptability gone that was so apparent when the Internet was young? Extremely conservative addressing plans are not universal. There are plenty of providers whose default assignments are at least comfortable and often generous. My guess for the reason that some providers treat IPv6 addresses as scarce is simply that they have been able to charge extra for static IPv4 addresses, multiple IPv4 addresses etc... and they don't want their pricing to diverge too much between IPv4 and IPv6 as it takes extra effort to explain why. Regards, Leo Vegoda -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 10 11:23:54 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 08:23:54 +1300 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <20191110174643.2E889E97588@ary.qy> References: <20191110174643.2E889E97588@ary.qy> Message-ID: <22818272-88a1-e5eb-0d1b-0a5a3fdf6cb4@gmail.com> On 11-Nov-19 06:46, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > In article <871rugec4y.fsf at taht.net> you write: >> I finally disabled IPv6 on my email exchangers today. For no reason >> I can figure, every use of it put me in spamhaus's SBL blacklist, >> for most of the past year, if not longer. > > Turns out the problem is that his cloud provider, Linode, puts all of > their VPS in a single /64 which is of course full of random spammers > which get the /64 on the SBL. I think this provisioning strategy > fails the "be conservative" test. > > One can ask for one's own /64 which I believe he has done. So here's the history question. In IPv4-land, people learned to be very conservative about addresses since, after all, there were only 4 billion of them, not even half an address per human. Why don't people adapt to the fact that IPv6 provides, for example, 15 trillion /48 prefixes and a number I can't be bothered to work out of /64 prefixes? Where's the human adaptability gone that was so apparent when the Internet was young? Brian -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 10 10:24:55 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Taht via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 10:24:55 -0800 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <20191110174643.2E889E97588@ary.qy> (John Levine via Internet-history's message of "10 Nov 2019 12:46:42 -0500") References: <20191110174643.2E889E97588@ary.qy> Message-ID: <87k1871te0.fsf@taht.net> John Levine via Internet-history writes: > In article <871rugec4y.fsf at taht.net> you write: >>I finally disabled IPv6 on my email exchangers today. For no reason >>I can figure, every use of it put me in spamhaus's SBL blacklist, >>for most of the past year, if not longer. > > Turns out the problem is that his cloud provider, Linode, puts all of > their VPS in a single /64 which is of course full of random spammers > which get the /64 on the SBL. I think this provisioning strategy > fails the "be conservative" test. > > One can ask for one's own /64 which I believe he has done. I just did that. Thank y'all very much for the help and the steer to: https://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Spamhaus%20CSS#426 I return you now to internet history. I would really like it if email stayed useful in the future. > R's, > John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 10 10:21:41 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Clark Gaylord via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 13:21:41 -0500 Subject: [ih] IPv6 addressing In-Reply-To: <20191110174643.2E889E97588@ary.qy> References: <20191110174643.2E889E97588@ary.qy> Message-ID: <1b8d9a01-effd-46c1-82dd-50e439ec2e8e@www.fastmail.com> It also fails the "having customers share a /64 is an antipattern" test, a corollary of the "no, really, IPv6 addressing really *is* that big" test. On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, at 12:46 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > In article <871rugec4y.fsf at taht.net> you write: > >I finally disabled IPv6 on my email exchangers today. For no reason > >I can figure, every use of it put me in spamhaus's SBL blacklist, > >for most of the past year, if not longer. > > Turns out the problem is that his cloud provider, Linode, puts all of > their VPS in a single /64 which is of course full of random spammers > which get the /64 on the SBL. I think this provisioning strategy > fails the "be conservative" test. > > One can ask for one's own /64 which I believe he has done. > > R's, > John > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 10 09:46:42 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Levine via Internet-history) Date: 10 Nov 2019 12:46:42 -0500 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <871rugec4y.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <20191110174643.2E889E97588@ary.qy> In article <871rugec4y.fsf at taht.net> you write: >I finally disabled IPv6 on my email exchangers today. For no reason >I can figure, every use of it put me in spamhaus's SBL blacklist, >for most of the past year, if not longer. Turns out the problem is that his cloud provider, Linode, puts all of their VPS in a single /64 which is of course full of random spammers which get the /64 on the SBL. I think this provisioning strategy fails the "be conservative" test. One can ask for one's own /64 which I believe he has done. R's, John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 10 09:31:15 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 12:31:15 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Geoff, No problem. However, during my stint at Verizon, we certainly weren't scared to mix and max infrastructure from multiple vendors where it made sense to us. We had a huge interoperability lab where we satisfied ourselves that it would work in the field before deploying, of course. Multi-vendor interoperability was often an RFP requirement. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 10:47 AM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > andy, sorry for the confusion/ambiguity -- yours truly was NOT > referencing/taking about subscriber equipment (i.e. phones), but rather the > various infrastructure components such as base stations, switches and the > other assorted gizzards et al. that comprise cellular and other wireless > (data) networks. > > geoff > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Andrew G. Malis wrote: > >> Not true, at least now in the US. You can buy an unlocked phone of >> your choice (as I did), and as long as it supports the required >> frequencies, you can just get a SIM from any of the US carriers for the >> phone. If you want to use a carrier's installment plan to pay for the >> phone, then they have the right to give it to you SIM-locked. Once it's >> been paid off, you can request the carrier to remove the SIM lock. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 5:53 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >> Internet-history wrote: >> >>> this interesting cuz The Big Wireless infrastructure vendors would (still >>> do?) blackmail/extort and hold their cellular carrier customers hostage >>> to >>> using Only THEIR OWN Equipment under the threat that if any >>> not-of-their-own manufactured/provided/sold gear was "attached"/used/put >>> in >>> place of their own they would summarily VOID the maintenance and >>> warranty thereof...! >>> >>> as a result, in the evolution of wireless carriage: a number of co's that >>> had built a faster, better, cheaper (and more spectrally >>> beneficial/efficient!) "mouse traps" died on the vine. >>> >>> this one wonders how Louis Pouzin reacted to/when his PTT -- France >>> Telecom >>> --unleashed The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel on his country... >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>> > I think that for the "principle of levelness", as for so much else >>> about >>> > the Internet, credit belongs most strongly to Louis Pouzin. For >>> Louis, the >>> > biggest fear of walled gardens was the strength of the European PTTs. >>> I >>> > remember many talks he gave stating that, if they were allowed, they >>> would >>> > allocate to themselves the right to all the intelligence in any >>> network, >>> > rather than simply the carriage of bits. Louis worked tirelessly for >>> > internet design that allowed multiple players. >>> > Cheers,Alex >>> > >>> > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:10:53 PM EST, Jack Haverty via >>> > Internet-history wrote: >>> > >>> > I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of Levelness >>> or >>> > if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board. That led to >>> > EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool >>> to >>> > enable multi-vendor implementation. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >>> living as The Truth is True >>> http://geoff.livejournal.com >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > > > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 10 07:47:10 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 05:47:10 -1000 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: andy, sorry for the confusion/ambiguity -- yours truly was NOT referencing/taking about subscriber equipment (i.e. phones), but rather the various infrastructure components such as base stations, switches and the other assorted gizzards et al. that comprise cellular and other wireless (data) networks. geoff On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Not true, at least now in the US. You can buy an unlocked phone of > your choice (as I did), and as long as it supports the required > frequencies, you can just get a SIM from any of the US carriers for the > phone. If you want to use a carrier's installment plan to pay for the > phone, then they have the right to give it to you SIM-locked. Once it's > been paid off, you can request the carrier to remove the SIM lock. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 5:53 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history wrote: > >> this interesting cuz The Big Wireless infrastructure vendors would (still >> do?) blackmail/extort and hold their cellular carrier customers hostage to >> using Only THEIR OWN Equipment under the threat that if any >> not-of-their-own manufactured/provided/sold gear was "attached"/used/put >> in >> place of their own they would summarily VOID the maintenance and >> warranty thereof...! >> >> as a result, in the evolution of wireless carriage: a number of co's that >> had built a faster, better, cheaper (and more spectrally >> beneficial/efficient!) "mouse traps" died on the vine. >> >> this one wonders how Louis Pouzin reacted to/when his PTT -- France >> Telecom >> --unleashed The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel on his country... >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> > I think that for the "principle of levelness", as for so much else >> about >> > the Internet, credit belongs most strongly to Louis Pouzin. For Louis, >> the >> > biggest fear of walled gardens was the strength of the European PTTs. I >> > remember many talks he gave stating that, if they were allowed, they >> would >> > allocate to themselves the right to all the intelligence in any network, >> > rather than simply the carriage of bits. Louis worked tirelessly for >> > internet design that allowed multiple players. >> > Cheers,Alex >> > >> > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:10:53 PM EST, Jack Haverty via >> > Internet-history wrote: >> > >> > I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of Levelness >> or >> > if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board. That led to >> > EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool to >> > enable multi-vendor implementation. >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> living as The Truth is True >> http://geoff.livejournal.com >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sun Nov 10 07:14:20 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 10:14:20 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Not true, at least now in the US. You can buy an unlocked phone of your choice (as I did), and as long as it supports the required frequencies, you can just get a SIM from any of the US carriers for the phone. If you want to use a carrier's installment plan to pay for the phone, then they have the right to give it to you SIM-locked. Once it's been paid off, you can request the carrier to remove the SIM lock. Cheers, Andy On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 5:53 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > this interesting cuz The Big Wireless infrastructure vendors would (still > do?) blackmail/extort and hold their cellular carrier customers hostage to > using Only THEIR OWN Equipment under the threat that if any > not-of-their-own manufactured/provided/sold gear was "attached"/used/put in > place of their own they would summarily VOID the maintenance and > warranty thereof...! > > as a result, in the evolution of wireless carriage: a number of co's that > had built a faster, better, cheaper (and more spectrally > beneficial/efficient!) "mouse traps" died on the vine. > > this one wonders how Louis Pouzin reacted to/when his PTT -- France Telecom > --unleashed The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel on his country... > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > I think that for the "principle of levelness", as for so much else about > > the Internet, credit belongs most strongly to Louis Pouzin. For Louis, > the > > biggest fear of walled gardens was the strength of the European PTTs. I > > remember many talks he gave stating that, if they were allowed, they > would > > allocate to themselves the right to all the intelligence in any network, > > rather than simply the carriage of bits. Louis worked tirelessly for > > internet design that allowed multiple players. > > Cheers,Alex > > > > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:10:53 PM EST, Jack Haverty via > > Internet-history wrote: > > > > I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of Levelness or > > if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board. That led to > > EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool to > > enable multi-vendor implementation. > > > > > > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 22:26:42 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 22:26:42 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <7C60D426-2D4D-4318-B9DC-8C0AA1CBF96F@comcast.net> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> <7C60D426-2D4D-4318-B9DC-8C0AA1CBF96F@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 11/9/19 4:23 AM, John Day wrote: > As they say, Jack, ignorance is bliss! ;-) Were you doing configuration with it? Or was it just monitoring? As I recall, configuration wasn't a big deal.? Nodes were typically routers with Ethernets facing toward the users at the site and several interfaces the other way for long-haul circuits.? Our approach was to collect all the appropriate equipment for the next site in our California lab, configure it and test it out on the live network, and then ship it all to wherever it was to go.? So, for example, New Zealand might have actually been in California at first, but when it got to NZ it worked the same. IIRC, there was lots of stuff that could be configured and tweaked in the routers.?? There was even a little documentation on what some of those "virtual knobs" affected.?? There was essentially nothing on why you might want to set some knob to any particular position, what information you needed to make such decisions, or how to predict results.??? Anything could happen.?? So there was strong incentive never to change the default configuration parameters after the site equipment left our lab. I don't remember any concerns about database performance.? But we only had a hundred or so boxes out in our net.?? Perhaps the Network Management vendors had visions of customers with thousands of their boxes so we didn't see the same problems.? Also, we only collected the specific data from sources like SNMP that we expected we could actually use.? We thought our network was pretty big for the time, spanning 5 continents and thousands of users and computers.? The database we had worked fine for that.?? Compared to other situations, like processing credit card or bank transactions, it didn't seem like a big load.? I think it all went into a Sparc.? But there were bigger machines around if we needed one. The vendor-supplied tools did provide some monitoring.? E.g., it was fairly easy to see problems like a dead router or line, and pick up the phone to call the right TelCo or local site tech to reboot the box.? With alternate routing, often the users didn't even notice.? Just like in the ARPANET...(Yay packet switching!) To make things extra interesting, that was the era of "multi-protocol routers", since TCP hadn't won the network wars quite yet.? Our corporate product charter was to provide software that ran on any computer, over any kind of network.? So our net carried not only TCP/IP, but also other stuff - e.g., DECNet, AppleTalk, SPX/IPX, and maybe one or two I don't remember.? SNA/LU6.2 anyone...??? Banyan Vines? Most of our more challenging "network management" work involved fault isolation and diagnosis, plus trend analysis and planning. A typical problem would start with an urgent call from some user who was having trouble doing something.? It might be "The network is way too slow. ? It's broken."? or "I can't get my quarterly report to go in".?? Often the vendor system would show that all routers were up and running fine, and all lines were up.? But from the User's perspective, the network was broken. Figuring out what was happening was where the ad-hoc tools came in.? Sometimes it was User Malfunction, but often there was a real issue in the network that just didn't appear in any obvious way to the operators.?? But the Users saw it. "You say the Network is running fine.....but it doesn't work!" To delve into Users' problems, we needed to go beyond just looking at the routers and circuits.? Part of the problem might be in the Host computers where TCP lived, or in the Application, e.g., email.?? We ran the main data center in addition to the network.? There wasn't anyone else for us to point the finger at. We used simple shell scripts and common Unix programs to gather SNMP-available data and stuff it into the database, parsed as much as we could into appropriate tables with useful columns like Time, Router#, ReportType, etc.?? That provided data about how the routers saw the network world, capturing status and behavior over whatever period of time we ran the collector. Following the "Standard Node" approach, wherever we placed a network node we also made sure to have some well-understood machine on the User side that we could use remotely from the NOC.? Typically it would be some kind of Unix workstation, attached to the site's Ethernet close to the router.?? Today, I'd probably just velcro a Raspberry Pi to the router. I used to call this an Anchor Host, since it provided a stable, well-understood (by us at the NOC) machine out in the network.?? This was really just copying the ARPANET approach from the early 70s, where a "Fake Host" inside the IMP could be used to do network management things like generate test traffic or snoop on regular network traffic.?? We couldn't change the router code to add a Fake Host, but we could put a Real Host next to it. From that Fake (Real) Host, we could run Ping tests across the network to measure RTT, measure bandwidth between 2 points during a test FTP, generate traffic, and such stuff, simply using the tools that commonly come in Unix boxes.? The results similarly made their way into tables in the database.?? Some tests were run continuously, e.g., ping tests every 5 minutes.? Others were enabled on demand to help figure out some problem, avoiding burdening the network (and database I guess) with extra unneeded traffic. Also? from that Fake Host, we could run TCPDUMP, which captured traffic flowing across that Ethernet and produced reams of output with a melange of multi-protocol packet headers.? Again, all of that could make its way into the database on demand, organized into useful Tables, delayed if necessary to avoid impacting the network misbehavior we were trying to debug.?? Give a Unix guru awk, sed, cron and friends and amazing things can happen. We could even run a Flakeway on that Anchor Host, to simulate network glitches for experimentation, but I can't recall ever having to do that.? But perhaps the ops did and I never knew. Once all that stuff got into the database, it became data.?? Not a problem.? I was a network guy afloat in an ocean of database gurus, and I was astonished at the way they could manipulate that data and turn it into Information. I didn't get involved much in everyday network operations, but when weird things happened I'd stick my nose in.? Once there was an anomaly in a trans-pacific path, where there was a flaky circuit that would go down and up annoyingly often.? The carrier was "working on it..."? What the ops had noticed was that after such a glitch finished, the network would settle down as expected.? But sometimes, the RTT delay and bandwidth measurements would settle down to a new stable level noticeably different from before the line glitch.?? They even had brought up a rolling real-time graph of the data, kind of like a hospital heart-monitor, that clearly showed the glitch and the change in behavior. Using our adhoc tools, we traced the problem down to a bug in some vendor's Unix system.? That machine's TCP retransmission timer algorithm was reacting to the glitch, and adapting as the rerouting occurred.? But after the glitch, the TCP had settled into a new stable pattern where the retransmission timer fired just a little too soon, and every packet was getting sent twice. ? The network anomaly would show up if a line glitch occurred, but only if that Unix user was in the middle of doing something like a file transfer across the Pacific at the time.?? The Hosts and TCPs were both happy, the Routers were blissfully ignorant, and half that expensive trans-pacific circuit was being wasted carrying duplicate packets. With the data all sitting in the database, we had the tools to figure that out.?? We reported the TCP bug to the Unix vendor.? I've always wondered if it ever got fixed, since most customers would probably never notice. Another weird thing was that "my quarterly report won't go" scenario.? That turned out to be a consequence of the popularity of the "Global Lan" idea in the network industry at the time.? IIRC, someone in some office in Europe had just finished putting together something like a library of graphics and photos for brochures et al, and decided to send it over to the colleagues who were waiting for it.?? Everybody was on the department "LAN", so all you had to do was drag this folder over there to those guys' icons and it would magically appear on their desktops.? Of course it didn't matter that those other servers were in the US, Australia, and Asia - it's a Global LAN, right! The network groaned, but all the routers and lines stayed up, happily conveying many packets per second.? For hours.? Unfortunately too few of the packets were carrying that email traffic. We turned off "Global LAN" protocols in the routers ... but of course today such LAN-type services all run over TCP, so it might not be quite as easy. The other important but less urgent Network Management activity involved things like Capacity Planning.? With the data in the database, it was pretty easy to get reports or graphs of trends over a month/quarter, and see the need to order more circuits or equipment. We could also run various tests like traffic generators and such and gather data when there were no problems in the network.?? That collected data provided a "baseline" of how things looked when everything was working.? During problem times, it was straightforward to run similar tests and compare the results with the baselines to figure out where the source of a problem might be by highlighting significant differences.?? The ability to compare "working" and "broken" data is a powerful Network Management tool. So that'w what we did.? I'm not sure I'd characterize all that kind of activity as either Configuration or Monitoring.? I've always thought it was just Network Management. There's a lot of History of the Internet protocols, equipment, software, etc., but I haven't seen much of a historical account of how the various pieces of the Internet have been operated and managed, and how the tools and techniques have evolved over time. If anybody's up for it, it would be interesting to see how other people did such "Network Management" activities with their own adhoc tools as the Internet evolved. It would also be fascinating to see how today's expensive Network Management Systems tools would be useful in my scenarios above.?? I.e., how effective would today's tools be if? used by network operators to deal with my example network management scenarios - along the lines of RFC1109's observations about how to evaluate Network Management technology. BTW, everything I wrote above occurred in 1990-1991. /Jack -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Sat Nov 9 22:26:42 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 22:26:42 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <7C60D426-2D4D-4318-B9DC-8C0AA1CBF96F@comcast.net> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> <7C60D426-2D4D-4318-B9DC-8C0AA1CBF96F@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 11/9/19 4:23 AM, John Day wrote: > As they say, Jack, ignorance is bliss! ;-) Were you doing configuration with it? Or was it just monitoring? As I recall, configuration wasn't a big deal.? Nodes were typically routers with Ethernets facing toward the users at the site and several interfaces the other way for long-haul circuits.? Our approach was to collect all the appropriate equipment for the next site in our California lab, configure it and test it out on the live network, and then ship it all to wherever it was to go.? So, for example, New Zealand might have actually been in California at first, but when it got to NZ it worked the same. IIRC, there was lots of stuff that could be configured and tweaked in the routers.?? There was even a little documentation on what some of those "virtual knobs" affected.?? There was essentially nothing on why you might want to set some knob to any particular position, what information you needed to make such decisions, or how to predict results.??? Anything could happen.?? So there was strong incentive never to change the default configuration parameters after the site equipment left our lab. I don't remember any concerns about database performance.? But we only had a hundred or so boxes out in our net.?? Perhaps the Network Management vendors had visions of customers with thousands of their boxes so we didn't see the same problems.? Also, we only collected the specific data from sources like SNMP that we expected we could actually use.? We thought our network was pretty big for the time, spanning 5 continents and thousands of users and computers.? The database we had worked fine for that.?? Compared to other situations, like processing credit card or bank transactions, it didn't seem like a big load.? I think it all went into a Sparc.? But there were bigger machines around if we needed one. The vendor-supplied tools did provide some monitoring.? E.g., it was fairly easy to see problems like a dead router or line, and pick up the phone to call the right TelCo or local site tech to reboot the box.? With alternate routing, often the users didn't even notice.? Just like in the ARPANET...(Yay packet switching!) To make things extra interesting, that was the era of "multi-protocol routers", since TCP hadn't won the network wars quite yet.? Our corporate product charter was to provide software that ran on any computer, over any kind of network.? So our net carried not only TCP/IP, but also other stuff - e.g., DECNet, AppleTalk, SPX/IPX, and maybe one or two I don't remember.? SNA/LU6.2 anyone...??? Banyan Vines? Most of our more challenging "network management" work involved fault isolation and diagnosis, plus trend analysis and planning. A typical problem would start with an urgent call from some user who was having trouble doing something.? It might be "The network is way too slow. ? It's broken."? or "I can't get my quarterly report to go in".?? Often the vendor system would show that all routers were up and running fine, and all lines were up.? But from the User's perspective, the network was broken. Figuring out what was happening was where the ad-hoc tools came in.? Sometimes it was User Malfunction, but often there was a real issue in the network that just didn't appear in any obvious way to the operators.?? But the Users saw it. "You say the Network is running fine.....but it doesn't work!" To delve into Users' problems, we needed to go beyond just looking at the routers and circuits.? Part of the problem might be in the Host computers where TCP lived, or in the Application, e.g., email.?? We ran the main data center in addition to the network.? There wasn't anyone else for us to point the finger at. We used simple shell scripts and common Unix programs to gather SNMP-available data and stuff it into the database, parsed as much as we could into appropriate tables with useful columns like Time, Router#, ReportType, etc.?? That provided data about how the routers saw the network world, capturing status and behavior over whatever period of time we ran the collector. Following the "Standard Node" approach, wherever we placed a network node we also made sure to have some well-understood machine on the User side that we could use remotely from the NOC.? Typically it would be some kind of Unix workstation, attached to the site's Ethernet close to the router.?? Today, I'd probably just velcro a Raspberry Pi to the router. I used to call this an Anchor Host, since it provided a stable, well-understood (by us at the NOC) machine out in the network.?? This was really just copying the ARPANET approach from the early 70s, where a "Fake Host" inside the IMP could be used to do network management things like generate test traffic or snoop on regular network traffic.?? We couldn't change the router code to add a Fake Host, but we could put a Real Host next to it. >From that Fake (Real) Host, we could run Ping tests across the network to measure RTT, measure bandwidth between 2 points during a test FTP, generate traffic, and such stuff, simply using the tools that commonly come in Unix boxes.? The results similarly made their way into tables in the database.?? Some tests were run continuously, e.g., ping tests every 5 minutes.? Others were enabled on demand to help figure out some problem, avoiding burdening the network (and database I guess) with extra unneeded traffic. Also? from that Fake Host, we could run TCPDUMP, which captured traffic flowing across that Ethernet and produced reams of output with a melange of multi-protocol packet headers.? Again, all of that could make its way into the database on demand, organized into useful Tables, delayed if necessary to avoid impacting the network misbehavior we were trying to debug.?? Give a Unix guru awk, sed, cron and friends and amazing things can happen. We could even run a Flakeway on that Anchor Host, to simulate network glitches for experimentation, but I can't recall ever having to do that.? But perhaps the ops did and I never knew. Once all that stuff got into the database, it became data.?? Not a problem.? I was a network guy afloat in an ocean of database gurus, and I was astonished at the way they could manipulate that data and turn it into Information. I didn't get involved much in everyday network operations, but when weird things happened I'd stick my nose in.? Once there was an anomaly in a trans-pacific path, where there was a flaky circuit that would go down and up annoyingly often.? The carrier was "working on it..."? What the ops had noticed was that after such a glitch finished, the network would settle down as expected.? But sometimes, the RTT delay and bandwidth measurements would settle down to a new stable level noticeably different from before the line glitch.?? They even had brought up a rolling real-time graph of the data, kind of like a hospital heart-monitor, that clearly showed the glitch and the change in behavior. Using our adhoc tools, we traced the problem down to a bug in some vendor's Unix system.? That machine's TCP retransmission timer algorithm was reacting to the glitch, and adapting as the rerouting occurred.? But after the glitch, the TCP had settled into a new stable pattern where the retransmission timer fired just a little too soon, and every packet was getting sent twice. ? The network anomaly would show up if a line glitch occurred, but only if that Unix user was in the middle of doing something like a file transfer across the Pacific at the time.?? The Hosts and TCPs were both happy, the Routers were blissfully ignorant, and half that expensive trans-pacific circuit was being wasted carrying duplicate packets. With the data all sitting in the database, we had the tools to figure that out.?? We reported the TCP bug to the Unix vendor.? I've always wondered if it ever got fixed, since most customers would probably never notice. Another weird thing was that "my quarterly report won't go" scenario.? That turned out to be a consequence of the popularity of the "Global Lan" idea in the network industry at the time.? IIRC, someone in some office in Europe had just finished putting together something like a library of graphics and photos for brochures et al, and decided to send it over to the colleagues who were waiting for it.?? Everybody was on the department "LAN", so all you had to do was drag this folder over there to those guys' icons and it would magically appear on their desktops.? Of course it didn't matter that those other servers were in the US, Australia, and Asia - it's a Global LAN, right! The network groaned, but all the routers and lines stayed up, happily conveying many packets per second.? For hours.? Unfortunately too few of the packets were carrying that email traffic. We turned off "Global LAN" protocols in the routers ... but of course today such LAN-type services all run over TCP, so it might not be quite as easy. The other important but less urgent Network Management activity involved things like Capacity Planning.? With the data in the database, it was pretty easy to get reports or graphs of trends over a month/quarter, and see the need to order more circuits or equipment. We could also run various tests like traffic generators and such and gather data when there were no problems in the network.?? That collected data provided a "baseline" of how things looked when everything was working.? During problem times, it was straightforward to run similar tests and compare the results with the baselines to figure out where the source of a problem might be by highlighting significant differences.?? The ability to compare "working" and "broken" data is a powerful Network Management tool. So that'w what we did.? I'm not sure I'd characterize all that kind of activity as either Configuration or Monitoring.? I've always thought it was just Network Management. There's a lot of History of the Internet protocols, equipment, software, etc., but I haven't seen much of a historical account of how the various pieces of the Internet have been operated and managed, and how the tools and techniques have evolved over time. If anybody's up for it, it would be interesting to see how other people did such "Network Management" activities with their own adhoc tools as the Internet evolved. It would also be fascinating to see how today's expensive Network Management Systems tools would be useful in my scenarios above.?? I.e., how effective would today's tools be if? used by network operators to deal with my example network management scenarios - along the lines of RFC1109's observations about how to evaluate Network Management technology. BTW, everything I wrote above occurred in 1990-1991. /Jack From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 18:02:05 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Clark Gaylord via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 21:02:05 -0500 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <871rugec4y.fsf@taht.net> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> <87imnsgbmc.fsf@taht.net> <4098a024-0898-afbe-648e-76dbcec928b9@3kitty.org> <871rugec4y.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <1d0185fa-15a8-4d3b-b7ac-025194ec2b2e@www.fastmail.com> I have found proper SPF helps a lot, but I agree the requirement of reverse DNS is particularly galling. Turning off privacy extensions and having actual reverse DNS is sometimes effective. I run IPv6 on all systems, with a significant portion of my environment single stack. Good luck Clark On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote: > Jack Haverty writes: > > > Curious.? I never received that message from Brian.? Internet Managers, > > what's the problem with your networks' mail service!!?? Ohh, not > > you...who do I talk to?... Why are you all pointing fingers?? ? [Sigh.] > > I finally disabled IPv6 on my email exchangers today. For no reason > I can figure, every use of it put me in spamhaus's SBL blacklist, > for most of the past year, if not longer. > > The only thing different from the spec I do, is that I make starttls > mandatory on recieve. This blocks at least 98% of the spam from getting > through. > > I am sad that email is dying, and sadder still that using it (lacking > effective reverse dns) requires your mail servers live in the cloud. > > > > > I looked at that draft iab document, and the abstract brought a sense of > > deja vu: > > > > "The robustness principle, often phrased as "be conservative in what you > > send, and liberal in what you accept", has long guided the design and > > implementation of Internet protocols. The posture this statement > > advocates promotes interoperability in the short term, but can > > negatively affect the protocol ecosystem over time. For a protocol that > > is actively maintained, the robustness principle can, and should, be > > avoided." > > Ignorance is Strength. > > Using my starttls example above, it would be good if we would revise > standards a bit more often than once a decade. > > > > > I recall having exactly that discussion with Jon back in the day, when > > we were both on the ICCB(IAB).?? Several times.? My much less eloquent > > argument was that you should fix bugs, not let them fester forever > > hidden by bandaids of "be liberal".?? If there's a bug, report it, and > > make an interim workaround if possible.? Otherwise you're just laying > > land mines hidden in flawed code all over the Internet that will some > > day blow up and be much harder to fix.?? It's similar to dealing with a > > new nasty virus - find Patient Zero, contain the problem and get it > > fixed asap before it explodes as a pandemic. > > Fixing stuff in the open source world is so easy nowadays, and many > OSes are updated essentially daily. > > > > > I lost that argument with Jon about the Robustness Principle, but have > > always been supportive of Consensus and Code - and you pragmatically > > couldn't get consensus unless you had running code. > > > > I must shamefully admit that I haven't been following RFCs since about > > when they became 4-digit numbers.? Maybe it exceeded the number of bits > > in some header field in my brain.? I had been fighting such kinds of > > "interoperability" fights for a while - e.g., see > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc722 which came about during the email > > wars, errr, discussions in the 70s. > > The future we live in now is about platforms, not protocols. > > Slack - a chat alternative - had a 6B IPO. It will last until they try > too hard to monetize it with advertising, or given what I know the costs > are in maintaining the irc network, survive off the interest. > > > > > > Sounds like 2019 is when those land mines are becoming an issue... > > > > /Jack > > > > > > On 11/9/19 10:15 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > >> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history > >> writes: > >> > >>> This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, topic. > >>> > >>> On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote: > >>> > >>>> In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough > >>>> Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time? > >>> First, read this draft: > >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 > >>> > >>> There's a discussion thread at: > >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU > >> I have tended to revser the dictum - RUNNING code and rough > >> consensus. It seems to be the only way to make progress. > >> > >>> As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit > >>> biased, because I was document editor for > >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in > >>> that. > >>> > >>> Brian > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 18:02:17 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Levine via Internet-history) Date: 9 Nov 2019 21:02:17 -0500 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <871rugec4y.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <20191110020218.9F580E89329@ary.qy> In article <871rugec4y.fsf at taht.net> you write: >I finally disabled IPv6 on my email exchangers today. For no reason >I can figure, every use of it put me in spamhaus's SBL blacklist, >for most of the past year, if not longer. I know the people who run the SBL and I'm quite surprised. It is really hard to get into the SBL, since the entries are all managed manually. Can you send me an error message with the SBL number? -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From johnl at iecc.com Sat Nov 9 18:00:01 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 9 Nov 2019 21:00:01 -0500 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <4098a024-0898-afbe-648e-76dbcec928b9@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <20191110020002.308A8E892EE@ary.qy> In article <4098a024-0898-afbe-648e-76dbcec928b9 at 3kitty.org> you write: >"The robustness principle, often phrased as "be conservative in what you >send, and liberal in what you accept", has long guided the design and >implementation of Internet protocols. ... I always understood it to mean being liberal where the spec was ambiguous, not to program around other people's bugs when they didn't read the spec. For those of us in the e-mail world, SMTP implementations tend to be very strict because we have observed that badly written spamware has protocol bugs and real mail software doesn't. There's a bunch of highly accurate anti-spam techniques that look for protocol errors. R's, John From dave at taht.net Sat Nov 9 17:46:53 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 17:46:53 -0800 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <4098a024-0898-afbe-648e-76dbcec928b9@3kitty.org> (Jack Haverty's message of "Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:02:03 -0800") References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> <87imnsgbmc.fsf@taht.net> <4098a024-0898-afbe-648e-76dbcec928b9@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <871rugec4y.fsf@taht.net> Jack Haverty writes: > Curious.? I never received that message from Brian.? Internet Managers, > what's the problem with your networks' mail service!!?? Ohh, not > you...who do I talk to?... Why are you all pointing fingers?? ? [Sigh.] I finally disabled IPv6 on my email exchangers today. For no reason I can figure, every use of it put me in spamhaus's SBL blacklist, for most of the past year, if not longer. The only thing different from the spec I do, is that I make starttls mandatory on recieve. This blocks at least 98% of the spam from getting through. I am sad that email is dying, and sadder still that using it (lacking effective reverse dns) requires your mail servers live in the cloud. > > I looked at that draft iab document, and the abstract brought a sense of > deja vu: > > "The robustness principle, often phrased as "be conservative in what you > send, and liberal in what you accept", has long guided the design and > implementation of Internet protocols. The posture this statement > advocates promotes interoperability in the short term, but can > negatively affect the protocol ecosystem over time. For a protocol that > is actively maintained, the robustness principle can, and should, be > avoided." Ignorance is Strength. Using my starttls example above, it would be good if we would revise standards a bit more often than once a decade. > > I recall having exactly that discussion with Jon back in the day, when > we were both on the ICCB(IAB).?? Several times.? My much less eloquent > argument was that you should fix bugs, not let them fester forever > hidden by bandaids of "be liberal".?? If there's a bug, report it, and > make an interim workaround if possible.? Otherwise you're just laying > land mines hidden in flawed code all over the Internet that will some > day blow up and be much harder to fix.?? It's similar to dealing with a > new nasty virus - find Patient Zero, contain the problem and get it > fixed asap before it explodes as a pandemic. Fixing stuff in the open source world is so easy nowadays, and many OSes are updated essentially daily. > > I lost that argument with Jon about the Robustness Principle, but have > always been supportive of Consensus and Code - and you pragmatically > couldn't get consensus unless you had running code. > > I must shamefully admit that I haven't been following RFCs since about > when they became 4-digit numbers.? Maybe it exceeded the number of bits > in some header field in my brain.? I had been fighting such kinds of > "interoperability" fights for a while - e.g., see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc722 which came about during the email > wars, errr, discussions in the 70s. The future we live in now is about platforms, not protocols. Slack - a chat alternative - had a 6B IPO. It will last until they try too hard to monetize it with advertising, or given what I know the costs are in maintaining the irc network, survive off the interest. > > Sounds like 2019 is when those land mines are becoming an issue... > > /Jack > > > On 11/9/19 10:15 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history >> writes: >> >>> This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, topic. >>> >>> On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>>> In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough >>>> Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time? >>> First, read this draft: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 >>> >>> There's a discussion thread at: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU >> I have tended to revser the dictum - RUNNING code and rough >> consensus. It seems to be the only way to make progress. >> >>> As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit >>> biased, because I was document editor for >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in >>> that. >>> >>> Brian From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 16:02:03 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:02:03 -0800 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <87imnsgbmc.fsf@taht.net> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> <87imnsgbmc.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <4098a024-0898-afbe-648e-76dbcec928b9@3kitty.org> Curious.? I never received that message from Brian.? Internet Managers, what's the problem with your networks' mail service!!?? Ohh, not you...who do I talk to?... Why are you all pointing fingers?? ? [Sigh.] I looked at that draft iab document, and the abstract brought a sense of deja vu: "The robustness principle, often phrased as "be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you accept", has long guided the design and implementation of Internet protocols. The posture this statement advocates promotes interoperability in the short term, but can negatively affect the protocol ecosystem over time. For a protocol that is actively maintained, the robustness principle can, and should, be avoided." I recall having exactly that discussion with Jon back in the day, when we were both on the ICCB(IAB).?? Several times.? My much less eloquent argument was that you should fix bugs, not let them fester forever hidden by bandaids of "be liberal".?? If there's a bug, report it, and make an interim workaround if possible.? Otherwise you're just laying land mines hidden in flawed code all over the Internet that will some day blow up and be much harder to fix.?? It's similar to dealing with a new nasty virus - find Patient Zero, contain the problem and get it fixed asap before it explodes as a pandemic. I lost that argument with Jon about the Robustness Principle, but have always been supportive of Consensus and Code - and you pragmatically couldn't get consensus unless you had running code. I must shamefully admit that I haven't been following RFCs since about when they became 4-digit numbers.? Maybe it exceeded the number of bits in some header field in my brain.? I had been fighting such kinds of "interoperability" fights for a while - e.g., see https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc722 which came about during the email wars, errr, discussions in the 70s. Sounds like 2019 is when those land mines are becoming an issue... /Jack On 11/9/19 10:15 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history > writes: > >> This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, topic. >> >> On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >>> In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough >>> Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time? >> First, read this draft: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 >> >> There's a discussion thread at: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU > I have tended to revser the dictum - RUNNING code and rough > consensus. It seems to be the only way to make progress. > >> As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit >> biased, because I was document editor for >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in >> that. >> >> Brian -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Sat Nov 9 16:02:03 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:02:03 -0800 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <87imnsgbmc.fsf@taht.net> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> <87imnsgbmc.fsf@taht.net> Message-ID: <4098a024-0898-afbe-648e-76dbcec928b9@3kitty.org> Curious.? I never received that message from Brian.? Internet Managers, what's the problem with your networks' mail service!!?? Ohh, not you...who do I talk to?... Why are you all pointing fingers?? ? [Sigh.] I looked at that draft iab document, and the abstract brought a sense of deja vu: "The robustness principle, often phrased as "be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you accept", has long guided the design and implementation of Internet protocols. The posture this statement advocates promotes interoperability in the short term, but can negatively affect the protocol ecosystem over time. For a protocol that is actively maintained, the robustness principle can, and should, be avoided." I recall having exactly that discussion with Jon back in the day, when we were both on the ICCB(IAB).?? Several times.? My much less eloquent argument was that you should fix bugs, not let them fester forever hidden by bandaids of "be liberal".?? If there's a bug, report it, and make an interim workaround if possible.? Otherwise you're just laying land mines hidden in flawed code all over the Internet that will some day blow up and be much harder to fix.?? It's similar to dealing with a new nasty virus - find Patient Zero, contain the problem and get it fixed asap before it explodes as a pandemic. I lost that argument with Jon about the Robustness Principle, but have always been supportive of Consensus and Code - and you pragmatically couldn't get consensus unless you had running code. I must shamefully admit that I haven't been following RFCs since about when they became 4-digit numbers.? Maybe it exceeded the number of bits in some header field in my brain.? I had been fighting such kinds of "interoperability" fights for a while - e.g., see https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc722 which came about during the email wars, errr, discussions in the 70s. Sounds like 2019 is when those land mines are becoming an issue... /Jack On 11/9/19 10:15 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history > writes: > >> This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, topic. >> >> On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >>> In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough >>> Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time? >> First, read this draft: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 >> >> There's a discussion thread at: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU > I have tended to revser the dictum - RUNNING code and rough > consensus. It seems to be the only way to make progress. > >> As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit >> biased, because I was document editor for >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in >> that. >> >> Brian From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 15:06:53 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:06:53 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There were two other things happening at the time which IMHO impact a retrospective view of "Levelness". First, TCP had been introduced and was firmly a multiple-source environment (IIRC at one point you could buy 30 different vendor implementations of TCP just for Windows on PCs).??? TCP performed a lot of functions that had traditionally been done by a network switch.?? In particular, the two cooperating TCPs at the endpoints had to recreate a stable, intact, ordered flow of data by compensating for whatever mangling might have occurred somewhere along the packets' paths - i.e., a "virtual circuit".? Networks were no longer assumed or required to do that internally.? For some uses, e.g., voice, such behavior was even undesirable. Of course, the networks to which Gateways were connected in those days still did a lot of those functions.? E.g., the internals of the ARPANET painstakingly created a "virtual circuit" as seen by its customers (Gateways and Hosts).?? What you put in one end came out the other, intact, complete, and in its original order.??? There was a "datagram mode" which could bypass all of that functionality, but the ARPANET managers were reluctant to permit it for fear of a network meltdown. So there was a lot of redundancy at that "Fuzzy Peach Arpanet" stage of the Internet history, where a good part of the Internet looked like a gaggle of Gateways all interconnected by ARPANET and its dozens of switches.?? I don't recall the details, but I think the other primary longhaul networks - SATNET and WBNET - performed similar circuit-like functions.? The host TCPs often didn't have to do much when the underlying networks did their work. Gateways were still interconnecting Networks and Hosts, but the tasks involved had started shifting around. Second, since there was such redundancy, someone (may have been me, don't remember...) noticed that there wasn't a need for having so many boxes in series, and that too-many-boxes was generally a Bad Thing.?? A Gateway typically plugged in to an IMP which plugged into a TelCo wire.? It was straightforward (a little software and hardware) to pull the Telco wire out of the IMP, and plug it in to the Gateway directly.? We actually did exactly that just to see what happened. Mostly everything just worked.? A TelCo wire was essentially a very simple "network" with exactly two Hosts or Gateways, one at each end.? The TCP's in the Hosts had taken over all responsibility for recreating that virtual-circuit service from the IP datagram streams. Gateways connecting Networks became Routers, interconnected by wires.? The Internet became a Network all by itself.?? Over time, the ARPANET "peach" at the core of the Internet shrank away and disappeared.? The Internet became a Network, with its functionality implemented in a very distributed fashion among all the computers involved. I don't recall the timing, so when Bob mandated the level field for those IP boxes we were creating, I'm not sure if he was thinking of them as Gateways, or as Routers.? Whatever they were, we were to make sure other people could make them. If he was thinking of them as Gateways, it sounds the same as Pouzin's view, with Gateways from multiple vendors interconnecting clouds of single-vendor networks (e.g., different PTTs) If he was thinking of them as Routers, then it was, IMHO, a new notion, that Networks themselves should be built out of switching nodes obtained from multiple sources, rather than the single-vendor norm of other networks' switches of the day. Regardless, somewhere along the way, the Internet became itself a Network, Gateways became Routers, and the end-users' computers took over responsibility for a lot of the work previously performed by network equipment. To me, that was one salient part of the "Internet Experiment" -- is it possible to build a large-scale Network where all of the pieces came from different sources, and were owned, managed, and operated by different organizations, with the distinction between Hosts and Switches becoming a bit blurry? ? It would be the ultimate "level playing field". I think the Experiment is still going.....but with most of the planet now on the net, things look pretty promising. Even without tools... /Jack On 11/9/19 11:30 AM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > Bob pioneered the idea that networks should be more or less independent but > joined by gateways and generally transparent to the hosts on an end-to-end > basis. It's possible that Louis had a similar view. > > v > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 2:25 PM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> I think that for the "principle of levelness", as for so much else about >> the Internet, credit belongs most strongly to Louis Pouzin. For Louis, the >> biggest fear of walled gardens was the strength of the European PTTs. I >> remember many talks he gave stating that, if they were allowed, they would >> allocate to themselves the right to all the intelligence in any network, >> rather than simply the carriage of bits. Louis worked tirelessly for >> internet design that allowed multiple players. >> Cheers,Alex >> >> On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:10:53 PM EST, Jack Haverty via >> Internet-history wrote: >> >> I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of Levelness or >> if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board. That led to >> EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool to >> enable multi-vendor implementation. >> >> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 14:13:50 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 12:13:50 -1000 Subject: [ih] Internet/Wireless Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: this interesting cuz The Big Wireless infrastructure vendors would (still do?) blackmail/extort and hold their cellular carrier customers hostage to using Only THEIR OWN Equipment under the threat that if any not-of-their-own manufactured/provided/sold gear was "attached"/used/put in place of their own they would summarily VOID the maintenance and warranty thereof...! as a result, in the evolution of wireless carriage: a number of co's that had built a faster, better, cheaper (and more spectrally beneficial/efficient!) "mouse traps" died on the vine. this one wonders how Louis Pouzin reacted to/when his PTT -- France Telecom --unleashed The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel on his country... On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I think that for the "principle of levelness", as for so much else about > the Internet, credit belongs most strongly to Louis Pouzin. For Louis, the > biggest fear of walled gardens was the strength of the European PTTs. I > remember many talks he gave stating that, if they were allowed, they would > allocate to themselves the right to all the intelligence in any network, > rather than simply the carriage of bits. Louis worked tirelessly for > internet design that allowed multiple players. > Cheers,Alex > > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:10:53 PM EST, Jack Haverty via > Internet-history wrote: > > I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of Levelness or > if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board. That led to > EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool to > enable multi-vendor implementation. > > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From pschow at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 14:03:32 2019 From: pschow at gmail.com (Peter Schow) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:03:32 -0700 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> Message-ID: A few comments on SNMP from the trenches, back in the late 80's to the mid-90s: * SNMP made the conscious choice to use only a limited subset of the ASN.1 constructs, CMIP/CMOT required the full language thus increasing memory requirements, CPU cycles, etc. * SNMP the protocol was well-fielded and did very well in its golden years. It was definitely a RFP-checkoff item for any device manufacturer that wanted to sell its gear. At it's peak, it excelled as a *monitoring* protocol and some very useful commercial and FOSS software (e.g. MRTG) became available that did some good things with just MIB-II interface data. * Relational databases were certainly attempted in the late 80's as the backing store for management platforms. The problem was that their memory and CPU demands were too high for the turnkey systems that we were trying to ship. For instance, we attempted to run Oracle RDBMS 3 (and then migrated to 4) on both a MicroVax II and then a DECStation 3100 (MIPS) but neither could keep up with the demands of large-scale (thousands of elements) network management. * Where SNMP had problems was in MIB interoperability. The MIB files themselves were hardly ever portable between all of the MIB importers out there, they usually had to be tweaked and thus management platform vendors had to ship their own collections of MIBs, massaged to make them importable. A regular MIB bakeoff event would have been useful but as has already been mentioned, device vendors for the most part weren't too interested in having a third-party management platform control their devices and not all them made their MIBs publicly available which was definitely against the spirit of SNMP and open internetworking management. * Finally, it is helpful to see what type of *management* interface was actually preferred. One emerging router company, named after a Cape Cod town, based their management platform on SNMP w/full-featured MIBs and shipped a UI that used underlying SNMP operations to configure the router. The leading router vendor at the time also offered SNMP as a monitoring interface but their primary configuration interface was command-line, with the entire router configuration captured in a text file. These text files were handily swapped, quoted, and cut/pasted regularly between network admins, for troubleshooting and training purposes. The first router vendor eventually did offer a CLI but it was too late. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 11:30:58 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Vint Cerf via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 14:30:58 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bob pioneered the idea that networks should be more or less independent but joined by gateways and generally transparent to the hosts on an end-to-end basis. It's possible that Louis had a similar view. v On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 2:25 PM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I think that for the "principle of levelness", as for so much else about > the Internet, credit belongs most strongly to Louis Pouzin. For Louis, the > biggest fear of walled gardens was the strength of the European PTTs. I > remember many talks he gave stating that, if they were allowed, they would > allocate to themselves the right to all the intelligence in any network, > rather than simply the carriage of bits. Louis worked tirelessly for > internet design that allowed multiple players. > Cheers,Alex > > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:10:53 PM EST, Jack Haverty via > Internet-history wrote: > > I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of Levelness or > if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board. That led to > EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool to > enable multi-vendor implementation. > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 11:25:06 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Alex McKenzie via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 19:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Internet Principle of Levelness In-Reply-To: <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <1483218206.1803245.1573327506534@mail.yahoo.com> I think that for the "principle of levelness", as for so much else about the Internet, credit belongs most strongly to Louis Pouzin.? For Louis, the biggest fear of walled gardens was the strength of the European PTTs.? I remember many talks he gave stating that, if they were allowed, they would allocate to themselves the right to all the intelligence in any network, rather than simply the carriage of bits.? Louis worked tirelessly for internet design that allowed multiple players. Cheers,Alex On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 2:10:53 PM EST, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of Levelness or if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board.? That led to EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool to enable multi-vendor implementation. ?? -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 11:10:11 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:10:11 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> Message-ID: <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of Levelness or if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board.? That led to EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool to enable multi-vendor implementation. Somewhat later (a year or two?), I recall being asked to come to a meeting in DC at DCA.? There were maybe a dozen or so people in the room, and reps from some west coast startup pitching their product for use in the government world.? After the pitch there was lots of discussion.? At one point, one of the DCA guys turned to me and asked "Will this work?".?? I had my DCA-sponsored Systems Engineering hat on at the time, so I looked at the diagrams and said "Yes, it should." BBN of course made routers too.? If there had been a Sales rep in the room with me, you probably would have found me dead in the parking lot.?? The pitch was given by either Sandy Lerner or Len Bosack (can't remember).?? The new product was a router.? The company was cisco Systems. IMHO, the multi-vendor nature of the router mesh is a distinguishing characteristic of the Internet.? The other networks of the time, e.g., from IBM, DEC, BBN, NorTel, etc., all required that their nodes all be from that vendor.? The Internet broke that lock and levelled at least that part of the playing field - for a while.? Another possible milestone for Internet History timelines. /Jack On 11/9/19 10:06 AM, Dan Lynch wrote: > So Bob Kahn created the level playing field possibilities early on! Bravo. I know the folks at Stanford were eager to build their own gateways. And at ISI my group were eager to get gateways that we could manipulate without the loving stranglehold hold of BBN. We were in development mode and couldn?t wait for ?products?. > > Dan > > Cell 650-776-7313 > >> On Nov 8, 2019, at 11:08 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> >> ?On 11/8/19 10:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> If you are clever, you can build a standards-compliant management system that only works with your own kit. >> Wow. From "Rough Consensus and Running Code" to "Works Great, If You >> Buy All Your Internet Stuff From Us". >> >> Back in the early 80s, when I was in charge of the gateway work at BBN, >> Bob Kahn collared me one day (in a subway car on the way to dinner) to >> convince me that we had to do whatever it took to make it so that people >> other than BBN could implement gateways and participate in a >> multi-vendor Internet. That was another Internet Principle like Jon's >> catchphrase - no vendor lock-ins like the one that existed with the >> ARPANET and its IMPs. Bob was the Boss, so that's what we did. >> >> When did that Principle disappear? It would make a good, if sad IMHO, >> point on the Internet History timeline, marking the emergence of Walls >> in the Internet Garden. >> >> /Jack >> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Sat Nov 9 11:10:11 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:10:11 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> Message-ID: <2dc09ca7-c7c4-ad3e-44f5-b23434b1b280@3kitty.org> I don't know whether Bob created that Internet Principle of Levelness or if it came earlier, but he's the one who got me on board.? That led to EGP as a key new element of the Internet architecture as a first tool to enable multi-vendor implementation. Somewhat later (a year or two?), I recall being asked to come to a meeting in DC at DCA.? There were maybe a dozen or so people in the room, and reps from some west coast startup pitching their product for use in the government world.? After the pitch there was lots of discussion.? At one point, one of the DCA guys turned to me and asked "Will this work?".?? I had my DCA-sponsored Systems Engineering hat on at the time, so I looked at the diagrams and said "Yes, it should." BBN of course made routers too.? If there had been a Sales rep in the room with me, you probably would have found me dead in the parking lot.?? The pitch was given by either Sandy Lerner or Len Bosack (can't remember).?? The new product was a router.? The company was cisco Systems. IMHO, the multi-vendor nature of the router mesh is a distinguishing characteristic of the Internet.? The other networks of the time, e.g., from IBM, DEC, BBN, NorTel, etc., all required that their nodes all be from that vendor.? The Internet broke that lock and levelled at least that part of the playing field - for a while.? Another possible milestone for Internet History timelines. /Jack On 11/9/19 10:06 AM, Dan Lynch wrote: > So Bob Kahn created the level playing field possibilities early on! Bravo. I know the folks at Stanford were eager to build their own gateways. And at ISI my group were eager to get gateways that we could manipulate without the loving stranglehold hold of BBN. We were in development mode and couldn?t wait for ?products?. > > Dan > > Cell 650-776-7313 > >> On Nov 8, 2019, at 11:08 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> >> ?On 11/8/19 10:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> If you are clever, you can build a standards-compliant management system that only works with your own kit. >> Wow. From "Rough Consensus and Running Code" to "Works Great, If You >> Buy All Your Internet Stuff From Us". >> >> Back in the early 80s, when I was in charge of the gateway work at BBN, >> Bob Kahn collared me one day (in a subway car on the way to dinner) to >> convince me that we had to do whatever it took to make it so that people >> other than BBN could implement gateways and participate in a >> multi-vendor Internet. That was another Internet Principle like Jon's >> catchphrase - no vendor lock-ins like the one that existed with the >> ARPANET and its IMPs. Bob was the Boss, so that's what we did. >> >> When did that Principle disappear? It would make a good, if sad IMHO, >> point on the Internet History timeline, marking the emergence of Walls >> in the Internet Garden. >> >> /Jack >> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From dave at taht.net Sat Nov 9 10:21:36 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:21:36 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> (Jack Haverty via Internet-history's message of "Fri, 8 Nov 2019 23:07:59 -0800") References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <318951781.1702766.1573276603357@mail.yahoo.com> <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <87bltkgbbj.fsf@taht.net> Jack Haverty via Internet-history writes: > On 11/8/19 10:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > >> If you are clever, you can build a standards-compliant management system that only works with your own kit. > > Wow.?? From "Rough Consensus and Running Code" to "Works Great, If You > Buy All Your Internet Stuff From Us".?? > > Back in the early 80s, when I was in charge of the gateway work at BBN, > Bob Kahn collared me one day (in a subway car on the way to dinner) to > convince me that we had to do whatever it took to make it so that people > other than BBN could implement gateways and participate in a > multi-vendor Internet.?? That was another Internet Principle like Jon's > catchphrase - no vendor lock-ins like the one that existed with the > ARPANET and its IMPs.?? Bob was the Boss, so that's what we did. > > When did that Principle disappear?? It would make a good, if sad IMHO, > point on the Internet History timeline, marking the emergence of Walls > in the Internet Garden. I think a lot of the ending imputus is coming from the celluar providers and monopolistic ISPs that build their own hw and have their own content to push. Feel free to look over the L4S and 3GPP work going on as for the final end of the Internet as we knew it. Having a fast and slow lane embedded into the IP header is seemingly well on its way towards completion. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/pX-7Bei9mR3jutTjSF-MG-vxizg (fighting back tooth and nail with the SCE alternative, but I feel like we're going to lose, at this point. The oppo is just too well funded, and too deeply engrained. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-tsvwg-sce-01 ) > > /Jack From dave at taht.net Sat Nov 9 10:15:07 2019 From: dave at taht.net (Dave Taht) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:15:07 -0800 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> (Brian E. Carpenter via Internet-history's message of "Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:12:03 +1300") References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87imnsgbmc.fsf@taht.net> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history writes: > This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, topic. > > On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote: > >> In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough >> Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time? > > First, read this draft: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 > > There's a discussion thread at: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU I have tended to revser the dictum - RUNNING code and rough consensus. It seems to be the only way to make progress. > > As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit > biased, because I was document editor for > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in > that. > > Brian From dan at lynch.com Sat Nov 9 10:06:32 2019 From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 10:06:32 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> References: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <99EAFF37-2760-40E8-991D-ADC5B8EE19EC@lynch.com> So Bob Kahn created the level playing field possibilities early on! Bravo. I know the folks at Stanford were eager to build their own gateways. And at ISI my group were eager to get gateways that we could manipulate without the loving stranglehold hold of BBN. We were in development mode and couldn?t wait for ?products?. Dan Cell 650-776-7313 > On Nov 8, 2019, at 11:08 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > ?On 11/8/19 10:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > >> If you are clever, you can build a standards-compliant management system that only works with your own kit. > > Wow. From "Rough Consensus and Running Code" to "Works Great, If You > Buy All Your Internet Stuff From Us". > > Back in the early 80s, when I was in charge of the gateway work at BBN, > Bob Kahn collared me one day (in a subway car on the way to dinner) to > convince me that we had to do whatever it took to make it so that people > other than BBN could implement gateways and participate in a > multi-vendor Internet. That was another Internet Principle like Jon's > catchphrase - no vendor lock-ins like the one that existed with the > ARPANET and its IMPs. Bob was the Boss, so that's what we did. > > When did that Principle disappear? It would make a good, if sad IMHO, > point on the Internet History timeline, marking the emergence of Walls > in the Internet Garden. > > /Jack > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 06:27:52 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Linn via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 09:27:52 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <65226ea0-c3f7-c036-f69a-db956750b265@gmail.com> On 11/8/19 2:16 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote, excerpting: > Some other factoids I recalled: > > ??? - The original ARPANET management software at BBN was called "U", > for Utilities.? Later we developed a successor tool, cleverly called > "NU", for New Utilities.?? I'm pretty sure that the Internet management > was integrated into NU when the NOC assumed 24x7 operations responsibility. > Yes. I got to write several pieces of the NU system, under Jim Herman's direction and alongside others including Susan Bernstein, Brownell Chalstrom, and Jim Dempsey. I still remember the thrill of debugging the Unix-side code that ran the routing algorithm as driven by updates forwarded from IMPs so as to derive a dynamic map of internode connectivity. I can't comment on NU's possible subsequent extension to Internet-level operations, as I wasn't still on the project at that point. There was a paper on the system, in case anyone finds interest to investigate it: P. J. Santos, Jr., H.B. Chalstrom, J. Linn, and J.G. Herman, "Architecture of a Network Monitoring, Control and Management System", Fifth ICCC, Atlanta, October 1980. --jl -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 06:15:27 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Suzanne Woolf via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 09:15:27 -0500 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> Message-ID: <88970DE7-8919-47D2-BE53-3AF5637E48A8@gmail.com> +1 that both are worth revisiting, perhaps :-) 20+ years later, I sometimes wonder how Jon?s views would have evolved if he were still with us. Not that the basic principles would have changed, but his views on how to apply them might have. Suzanne > On Nov 9, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Brian Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > Correct, I was referring to the robustness principle, sorry. The two are of > course somewhat related. > > Regards > Brian > (via tiny screen & keyboard) > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, 20:43 Vint Cerf, wrote: > >> I thought the rough consensus quote was David Clark's. >> >> V >> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 22:12 Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, >>> topic. >>> >>> On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>>> In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough >>>> Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time? >>> >>> First, read this draft: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 >>> >>> There's a discussion thread at: >>> >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU >>> >>> As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit >>> biased, because I was document editor for >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in that. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Sat Nov 9 06:02:32 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 09:02:32 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <7C60D426-2D4D-4318-B9DC-8C0AA1CBF96F@comcast.net> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> <7C60D426-2D4D-4318-B9DC-8C0AA1CBF96F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <925E83F3-4793-4FE7-842A-5DB3CFC918E0@comcast.net> If you were just monitoring, the performance of relational might not have been a big problem. You probably didn?t notice. But something like configuration and other functions, it is. In the late 80s when everyone was building network management systems, DEC, HP, and IBM all tried to use relational and discarded it. Today, many communication companies use the new graph databases for management, which is as close as you can get to E-R or OO. > On Nov 9, 2019, at 07:23, John Day via Internet-history wrote: > > ;-) As they say, Jack, ignorance is bliss! ;-) Were you doing configuration with it? Or was it just monitoring? > > Our system would automatically deploy configurations, which is basically a tree walk. > > John > >> On Nov 9, 2019, at 01:44, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> I guess it was fortunate that we didn't know that relational databases >> weren't appropriate for use in network management. We just used what >> was available to cobble together some tools to keep our intranet running >> well. I don't recall having any trouble figuring out how to load SNMP >> results into some database tables and use common database mechanisms to >> use that data for doing management. We didn't try much to optimize and >> make it super efficient, we just wanted something that would work. I >> never did any performance measurements; it worked a lot better than the >> alternatives which were non-existent.as >> >> /J >> >> On 11/8/19 7:14 PM, John Day wrote: >>> Snip >>> >>>> RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: >>>> >>>> "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP >>>> and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other >>>> than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical >>>> information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, >>>> beginning in 30 minutes)? >>> Things like that belong in the object models. That is why there was an Action in CMIP. (I would have preferred limiting it Start and Stop.) Or the Manager schedules it and sends the Do X in 30 minutes. Not everything has to be in the protocol. >>> >>> This is something I have looked at several times. If you do the fundamental operators: Create/Delete, Read/Write, and Start/Stop. It is to some degree too rudimentary and you have what I call the "Turing Machine problem," i.e. you can do it but it is like using a Turing Machine to do it. This was SNMP?s biggest problem. Not only was it a Turing Machine, but it had severe limits on each ?action? imposed by UDP. The problem turns out to be there doesn?t seem to be any half-way point. You either do the minimum or you have a full blown programming language. In that case, the protocol may as well download a script and start it. It would be more efficient than trying to do the language over a connection. >>> >>> The one thing that CMIP had that did save a lot of overhead was scope and filter. One could say, ?Set X to 0 on all (1000) objects in this part of the MIB tree with Y < Z.? That would be one Request/Response in CMIP. It would be a lot more in SNMP. >>>> Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a >>>> challenge. When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it >>>> turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries >>>> for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or >>>> demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use >>>> cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed. Melding SNMP >>>> and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty >>>> straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the >>>> intranet. >>> Correct. MIBs were databases. That was the whole point. That is why those things were easy in HEMS and CMIP where the MIB was a database (or made to look like one) as opposed to SNMP where it wasn?t. The other thing you had to know which most people didn?t was for network management don?t use a relational database. You want either an E-R model or an object-model or one of the so-called graph models, which is a shadow of the E-R model. (Why not relational? Network management structures have a lot of ?bill of materials? structures (trees). I use to argue with Bachman (who invented the E-R model. He would say you can?t do one in a relational database, and I would say, you can, but who would want to!! ;-) It would be like writing a COBOL compiler for a Turing Machine. You can do it, but gawd I wouldn?t want to! ;-) I remember DEC tried relational database and went all the way back to Index-Sequential files!! We never made the mistake but we had a new hire from MIT who had their head filled with the current fad. So we said, go try it. When we finally asked what happened with it, it turned out that in the best case, the relational database was only 19 times slower. >>> >>> I should have mentioned before, OSI didn?t achieve much commonality in their MIB work. They went about it wrong. We achieved much more in the product I mentioned earlier. Contrary to what RFC1109 says MIB structure for things below IP were quite straightforward and had a lot of commonality. >>> >>>> We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic >>>> loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that >>>> scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard >>>> distributed database techniques. It worked for industries managing >>>> sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network >>>> data. I'm not sure if we ever did that though. What we did in a few >>>> days was enough to put out the fires. >>>> >>>> Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate. What happened >>>> in the thirty years since...? A timeline/history of Network Management >>>> in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols >>>> and documents. >>> Not much of anything. Most everything is home-grown tools with various sorts of hacks. >>> >>> The problem that network management ran into was that the last thing vendors wanted was effective common network management. He who controls the network management controls the account. If it is necessary to use the vendor?s network management solution, then the vendor controls the account and it is a barrier to entry. A common effective network management solution would have made network equipment (routers, stat muxes, etc.) interchangeable. Not good. >>> >>>> I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... >>>> >>>> /Jack >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Sat Nov 9 04:23:32 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 07:23:32 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> Message-ID: <7C60D426-2D4D-4318-B9DC-8C0AA1CBF96F@comcast.net> ;-) As they say, Jack, ignorance is bliss! ;-) Were you doing configuration with it? Or was it just monitoring? Our system would automatically deploy configurations, which is basically a tree walk. John > On Nov 9, 2019, at 01:44, Jack Haverty wrote: > > I guess it was fortunate that we didn't know that relational databases > weren't appropriate for use in network management. We just used what > was available to cobble together some tools to keep our intranet running > well. I don't recall having any trouble figuring out how to load SNMP > results into some database tables and use common database mechanisms to > use that data for doing management. We didn't try much to optimize and > make it super efficient, we just wanted something that would work. I > never did any performance measurements; it worked a lot better than the > alternatives which were non-existent.as > > /J > > On 11/8/19 7:14 PM, John Day wrote: >> Snip >> >>> RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: >>> >>> "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP >>> and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other >>> than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical >>> information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, >>> beginning in 30 minutes)? >> Things like that belong in the object models. That is why there was an Action in CMIP. (I would have preferred limiting it Start and Stop.) Or the Manager schedules it and sends the Do X in 30 minutes. Not everything has to be in the protocol. >> >> This is something I have looked at several times. If you do the fundamental operators: Create/Delete, Read/Write, and Start/Stop. It is to some degree too rudimentary and you have what I call the "Turing Machine problem," i.e. you can do it but it is like using a Turing Machine to do it. This was SNMP?s biggest problem. Not only was it a Turing Machine, but it had severe limits on each ?action? imposed by UDP. The problem turns out to be there doesn?t seem to be any half-way point. You either do the minimum or you have a full blown programming language. In that case, the protocol may as well download a script and start it. It would be more efficient than trying to do the language over a connection. >> >> The one thing that CMIP had that did save a lot of overhead was scope and filter. One could say, ?Set X to 0 on all (1000) objects in this part of the MIB tree with Y < Z.? That would be one Request/Response in CMIP. It would be a lot more in SNMP. >>> Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a >>> challenge. When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it >>> turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries >>> for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or >>> demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use >>> cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed. Melding SNMP >>> and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty >>> straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the >>> intranet. >> Correct. MIBs were databases. That was the whole point. That is why those things were easy in HEMS and CMIP where the MIB was a database (or made to look like one) as opposed to SNMP where it wasn?t. The other thing you had to know which most people didn?t was for network management don?t use a relational database. You want either an E-R model or an object-model or one of the so-called graph models, which is a shadow of the E-R model. (Why not relational? Network management structures have a lot of ?bill of materials? structures (trees). I use to argue with Bachman (who invented the E-R model. He would say you can?t do one in a relational database, and I would say, you can, but who would want to!! ;-) It would be like writing a COBOL compiler for a Turing Machine. You can do it, but gawd I wouldn?t want to! ;-) I remember DEC tried relational database and went all the way back to Index-Sequential files!! We never made the mistake but we had a new hire from MIT who had their head filled with the current fad. So we said, go try it. When we finally asked what happened with it, it turned out that in the best case, the relational database was only 19 times slower. >> >> I should have mentioned before, OSI didn?t achieve much commonality in their MIB work. They went about it wrong. We achieved much more in the product I mentioned earlier. Contrary to what RFC1109 says MIB structure for things below IP were quite straightforward and had a lot of commonality. >> >>> We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic >>> loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that >>> scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard >>> distributed database techniques. It worked for industries managing >>> sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network >>> data. I'm not sure if we ever did that though. What we did in a few >>> days was enough to put out the fires. >>> >>> Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate. What happened >>> in the thirty years since...? A timeline/history of Network Management >>> in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols >>> and documents. >> Not much of anything. Most everything is home-grown tools with various sorts of hacks. >> >> The problem that network management ran into was that the last thing vendors wanted was effective common network management. He who controls the network management controls the account. If it is necessary to use the vendor?s network management solution, then the vendor controls the account and it is a barrier to entry. A common effective network management solution would have made network equipment (routers, stat muxes, etc.) interchangeable. Not good. >> >>> I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Sat Nov 9 04:21:04 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Day via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 07:21:04 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <318951781.1702766.1573276603357@mail.yahoo.com> References: <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e- a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <318951781.1702766.1573276603357@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Most companies sell network management as a loss leader. Give the razor away (or very cheap) so you can sell more blades. And it creates a barrier to entry. Most companies will tell you that they only buy one kind of router or maybe two but concentrate on one, because of the cost of training and the problem that in the heat of the moment an operator might do something out of habit for one kind that is very wrong for the other kind. This is why the management system is really the account control. A management system that can manage (or even partially manage) another company?s product can break that account and open it up to your products. John > On Nov 9, 2019, at 00:16, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: > > I have a memory of talking to a friend who was working at a prominent Internet vendor about network management in the late 80s (timeframe of the first release of SNMP). If I am remembering correctly he said he couldn't get any traction to really do anything because from the company's perspective you could only sell one to a customer so they would rather devote their resources to other efforts. > I am not sure we were entirely without any companies trying to develop a product in the network management space in the late 80s/early 90s. I vaguely remember having to look at what was available. I think this was for a military testbed in Korea. Unfortunately I don't remember much about the software products, or names, since it was very short term project/effort for me (Other than the software did more monitoring than management). > barbara > > On Friday, November 8, 2019, 05:34:09 PM PST, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > >> I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had >> been around since the early 80s. Still can't in ~2020. > > The answer to that mystery is, I believe, that this stuff is aimed at large operatorss willing to buy expensive proprietary tools or write their own tools. > > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/storage-networking/management/200933-YANG-NETCONF-Configuration-Validation.html > > https://www.tail-f.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tail-f_NCS_NEP_Overview_Brochure.pdf > > A lot of the independent network management tools that you can buy don't seem have got past SNMP though, from a quick Google trawl. But from the number of operators involved in defining YANG modules, I'm guessing that they have toolsets up and running (replacing PERL scripts driving proprietary CLIs). > > Regards > Brian > > On 09-Nov-19 12:53, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> On 11/8/19 2:23 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> see RFC 1109 >>> v >> >> Thanks for the pointer. I now remember encountering RFC1109 (published >> 1989) back in the early 90s when I was looking for tools to manage our >> intranet. There's a key sentence in 1109: >> >> "It was generally agreed that the actual network management tools >> available to operators, rather than the specifics of the protocols >> supporting the tools, would be the determining factor in the >> effectiveness of any Internet network management system." >> >> I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had >> been around since the early 80s. Still can't in ~2020. Lots of >> documents and protocols though. >> >> I've explored a bit into the NETCONF/(P)YANG pointers but haven't >> encountered anything that even seems related to Network Management, or >> any sign of tools/code. The material at "readthedocs" tells me that >> NETCONF has clients and servers, but casts no light on what those >> servers actually do. That netconf documentation is somewhat circular: >> >> "This package supports creating both netconf clients and servers. >> Additionally a CLI netconf utility is included. Additionally netconf >> uses _sshutil and thus supports your SSH agent and SSH config when using >> the client as well as socket caching for optimal performance." >> >> OOOKKKKAAAYYY...the netconf package creates netconfs, but what does a >> netconf do? I gather that maybe it carries YANGs? >> >> Somehow I'm increasingly skeptical that, even if I find some modern >> tools, there's not a high probability that the devices I have scattered >> now around my LAN will play their game. Back to PING and TCPDUMP et >> al. I wonder if my devices respond to SNMP. I'm sure I have a >> database lying around here somewhere, and could probably refresh my >> memory of shell scripts. >> >> RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: >> >> "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP >> and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other >> than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical >> information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, >> beginning in 30 minutes)" >> >> Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a >> challenge. When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it >> turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries >> for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or >> demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use >> cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed. Melding SNMP >> and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty >> straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the >> intranet. >> >> We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic >> loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that >> scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard >> distributed database techniques. It worked for industries managing >> sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network >> data. I'm not sure if we ever did that though. What we did in a few >> days was enough to put out the fires. >> >> Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate. What happened >> in the thirty years since...? A timeline/history of Network Management >> in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols >> and documents. >> >> I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... >> >> /Jack >> >> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 00:15:37 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian Carpenter) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 21:15:37 +1300 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> Message-ID: Correct, I was referring to the robustness principle, sorry. The two are of course somewhat related. Regards Brian (via tiny screen & keyboard) On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, 20:43 Vint Cerf, wrote: > I thought the rough consensus quote was David Clark's. > > V > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 22:12 Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, >> topic. >> >> On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> > In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough >> > Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time? >> >> First, read this draft: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 >> >> There's a discussion thread at: >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU >> >> As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit >> biased, because I was document editor for >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in that. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Fri Nov 8 23:43:45 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 02:43:45 -0500 Subject: [ih] The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> Message-ID: I thought the rough consensus quote was David Clark's. V On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 22:12 Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, > topic. > > On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote: > > > In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough > > Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time? > > First, read this draft: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 > > There's a discussion thread at: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU > > As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit > biased, because I was document editor for > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in that. > > Brian > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 23:07:59 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 23:07:59 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e- a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <318951781.1702766.1573276603357@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1e622d8d-1ced-f5fb-b436-197050529e0f@3kitty.org> On 11/8/19 10:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > If you are clever, you can build a standards-compliant management system that only works with your own kit. Wow.?? From "Rough Consensus and Running Code" to "Works Great, If You Buy All Your Internet Stuff From Us".?? Back in the early 80s, when I was in charge of the gateway work at BBN, Bob Kahn collared me one day (in a subway car on the way to dinner) to convince me that we had to do whatever it took to make it so that people other than BBN could implement gateways and participate in a multi-vendor Internet.?? That was another Internet Principle like Jon's catchphrase - no vendor lock-ins like the one that existed with the ARPANET and its IMPs.?? Bob was the Boss, so that's what we did. When did that Principle disappear?? It would make a good, if sad IMHO, point on the Internet History timeline, marking the emergence of Walls in the Internet Garden. /Jack -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 22:44:19 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:44:19 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> Message-ID: I guess it was fortunate that we didn't know that relational databases weren't appropriate for use in network management.??? We just used what was available to cobble together some tools to keep our intranet running well.?? I don't recall having any trouble figuring out how to load SNMP results into some database tables and use common database mechanisms to use that data for doing management. ? We didn't try much to optimize and make it super efficient, we just wanted something that would work.? I never did any performance measurements;? it worked a lot better than the alternatives which were non-existent. /J On 11/8/19 7:14 PM, John Day wrote: > Snip > >> RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: >> >> "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP >> and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other >> than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical >> information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, >> beginning in 30 minutes)? > Things like that belong in the object models. That is why there was an Action in CMIP. (I would have preferred limiting it Start and Stop.) Or the Manager schedules it and sends the Do X in 30 minutes. Not everything has to be in the protocol. > > This is something I have looked at several times. If you do the fundamental operators: Create/Delete, Read/Write, and Start/Stop. It is to some degree too rudimentary and you have what I call the "Turing Machine problem," i.e. you can do it but it is like using a Turing Machine to do it. This was SNMP?s biggest problem. Not only was it a Turing Machine, but it had severe limits on each ?action? imposed by UDP. The problem turns out to be there doesn?t seem to be any half-way point. You either do the minimum or you have a full blown programming language. In that case, the protocol may as well download a script and start it. It would be more efficient than trying to do the language over a connection. > > The one thing that CMIP had that did save a lot of overhead was scope and filter. One could say, ?Set X to 0 on all (1000) objects in this part of the MIB tree with Y < Z.? That would be one Request/Response in CMIP. It would be a lot more in SNMP. >> Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a >> challenge. When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it >> turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries >> for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or >> demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use >> cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed. Melding SNMP >> and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty >> straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the >> intranet. > Correct. MIBs were databases. That was the whole point. That is why those things were easy in HEMS and CMIP where the MIB was a database (or made to look like one) as opposed to SNMP where it wasn?t. The other thing you had to know which most people didn?t was for network management don?t use a relational database. You want either an E-R model or an object-model or one of the so-called graph models, which is a shadow of the E-R model. (Why not relational? Network management structures have a lot of ?bill of materials? structures (trees). I use to argue with Bachman (who invented the E-R model. He would say you can?t do one in a relational database, and I would say, you can, but who would want to!! ;-) It would be like writing a COBOL compiler for a Turing Machine. You can do it, but gawd I wouldn?t want to! ;-) I remember DEC tried relational database and went all the way back to Index-Sequential files!! We never made the mistake but we had a new hire from MIT who had their head filled with the current fad. So we said, go try it. When we finally asked what happened with it, it turned out that in the best case, the relational database was only 19 times slower. > > I should have mentioned before, OSI didn?t achieve much commonality in their MIB work. They went about it wrong. We achieved much more in the product I mentioned earlier. Contrary to what RFC1109 says MIB structure for things below IP were quite straightforward and had a lot of commonality. > >> We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic >> loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that >> scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard >> distributed database techniques. It worked for industries managing >> sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network >> data. I'm not sure if we ever did that though. What we did in a few >> days was enough to put out the fires. >> >> Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate. What happened >> in the thirty years since...? A timeline/history of Network Management >> in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols >> and documents. > Not much of anything. Most everything is home-grown tools with various sorts of hacks. > > The problem that network management ran into was that the last thing vendors wanted was effective common network management. He who controls the network management controls the account. If it is necessary to use the vendor?s network management solution, then the vendor controls the account and it is a barrier to entry. A common effective network management solution would have made network equipment (routers, stat muxes, etc.) interchangeable. Not good. > >> I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... >> >> /Jack >> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Nov 8 22:44:19 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:44:19 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> Message-ID: I guess it was fortunate that we didn't know that relational databases weren't appropriate for use in network management.??? We just used what was available to cobble together some tools to keep our intranet running well.?? I don't recall having any trouble figuring out how to load SNMP results into some database tables and use common database mechanisms to use that data for doing management. ? We didn't try much to optimize and make it super efficient, we just wanted something that would work.? I never did any performance measurements;? it worked a lot better than the alternatives which were non-existent. /J On 11/8/19 7:14 PM, John Day wrote: > Snip > >> RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: >> >> "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP >> and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other >> than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical >> information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, >> beginning in 30 minutes)? > Things like that belong in the object models. That is why there was an Action in CMIP. (I would have preferred limiting it Start and Stop.) Or the Manager schedules it and sends the Do X in 30 minutes. Not everything has to be in the protocol. > > This is something I have looked at several times. If you do the fundamental operators: Create/Delete, Read/Write, and Start/Stop. It is to some degree too rudimentary and you have what I call the "Turing Machine problem," i.e. you can do it but it is like using a Turing Machine to do it. This was SNMP?s biggest problem. Not only was it a Turing Machine, but it had severe limits on each ?action? imposed by UDP. The problem turns out to be there doesn?t seem to be any half-way point. You either do the minimum or you have a full blown programming language. In that case, the protocol may as well download a script and start it. It would be more efficient than trying to do the language over a connection. > > The one thing that CMIP had that did save a lot of overhead was scope and filter. One could say, ?Set X to 0 on all (1000) objects in this part of the MIB tree with Y < Z.? That would be one Request/Response in CMIP. It would be a lot more in SNMP. >> Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a >> challenge. When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it >> turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries >> for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or >> demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use >> cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed. Melding SNMP >> and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty >> straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the >> intranet. > Correct. MIBs were databases. That was the whole point. That is why those things were easy in HEMS and CMIP where the MIB was a database (or made to look like one) as opposed to SNMP where it wasn?t. The other thing you had to know which most people didn?t was for network management don?t use a relational database. You want either an E-R model or an object-model or one of the so-called graph models, which is a shadow of the E-R model. (Why not relational? Network management structures have a lot of ?bill of materials? structures (trees). I use to argue with Bachman (who invented the E-R model. He would say you can?t do one in a relational database, and I would say, you can, but who would want to!! ;-) It would be like writing a COBOL compiler for a Turing Machine. You can do it, but gawd I wouldn?t want to! ;-) I remember DEC tried relational database and went all the way back to Index-Sequential files!! We never made the mistake but we had a new hire from MIT who had their head filled with the current fad. So we said, go try it. When we finally asked what happened with it, it turned out that in the best case, the relational database was only 19 times slower. > > I should have mentioned before, OSI didn?t achieve much commonality in their MIB work. They went about it wrong. We achieved much more in the product I mentioned earlier. Contrary to what RFC1109 says MIB structure for things below IP were quite straightforward and had a lot of commonality. > >> We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic >> loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that >> scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard >> distributed database techniques. It worked for industries managing >> sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network >> data. I'm not sure if we ever did that though. What we did in a few >> days was enough to put out the fires. >> >> Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate. What happened >> in the thirty years since...? A timeline/history of Network Management >> in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols >> and documents. > Not much of anything. Most everything is home-grown tools with various sorts of hacks. > > The problem that network management ran into was that the last thing vendors wanted was effective common network management. He who controls the network management controls the account. If it is necessary to use the vendor?s network management solution, then the vendor controls the account and it is a barrier to entry. A common effective network management solution would have made network equipment (routers, stat muxes, etc.) interchangeable. Not good. > >> I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... >> >> /Jack >> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 22:12:18 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 19:12:18 +1300 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <318951781.1702766.1573276603357@mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e- a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <318951781.1702766.1573276603357@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > network management in the late 80s Yes, we were developing homebrew solutions at CERN in those days and into the early 90s. There really wasn't any alternative for a large site. I think it's always been a great tool for customer capture, and still is, judging by what I see in the NETCONF/YANG space. If you are clever, you can build a standards-compliant management system that only works with your own kit. We began to see commercial offerings that claimed to support multi-vendor networks by 1995 iirc; we bought Cabletron's Spectrum product. There's a slice of history at https://www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/trip/cern-1996.html Regards Brian Carpenter On 09-Nov-19 18:16, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: > I? have a memory of talking to a friend who was working at a prominent Internet vendor about network management in the late 80s (timeframe of the first release of SNMP).? If I am remembering correctly he said he couldn't get any traction to really do anything because from the company's perspective you could only sell one to a customer so they would rather devote their resources to other efforts. > I am not sure we were entirely without any companies trying to develop a product in the network management space in the late 80s/early 90s. I vaguely remember having to look at what was available.? I think this was for a military testbed in Korea.? Unfortunately I don't remember much about the software products, or names, since it was very short term project/effort for me (Other than the software did more monitoring than management). > barbara > > On Friday, November 8, 2019, 05:34:09 PM PST, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > > I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had >> been around since the early 80s.? Still can't in ~2020. > > The answer to that mystery is, I believe, that this stuff is aimed at large operatorss willing to buy expensive proprietary tools or write their own tools. > > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/storage-networking/management/200933-YANG-NETCONF-Configuration-Validation.html > > https://www.tail-f.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tail-f_NCS_NEP_Overview_Brochure.pdf > > A lot of the independent network management tools that you can buy don't seem have got past SNMP though, from a quick Google trawl. But from the number of operators involved in defining YANG modules, I'm guessing that they have toolsets up and running (replacing PERL scripts driving proprietary CLIs). > > Regards > ? Brian > > On 09-Nov-19 12:53, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> On 11/8/19 2:23 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> see RFC 1109 >>> v >> >> Thanks for the pointer.? I now remember encountering RFC1109 (published >> 1989) back in the early 90s when I was looking for tools to manage our >> intranet.? There's a key sentence in 1109: >> >> "It was generally agreed that the actual network management tools >> available to operators, rather than the specifics of the protocols >> supporting the tools, would be the determining factor in the >> effectiveness of any Internet network management system." >> >> I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had >> been around since the early 80s.?? Still can't in ~2020.?? Lots of >> documents and protocols though. >> >> I've explored a bit into the NETCONF/(P)YANG pointers but haven't >> encountered anything that even seems related to Network Management, or >> any sign of tools/code.? The material at "readthedocs" tells me that >> NETCONF has clients and servers, but casts no light on what those >> servers actually do.? That netconf documentation is somewhat circular: >> >> "This package supports creating both netconf clients and servers. >> Additionally a CLI netconf utility is included. Additionally netconf >> uses _sshutil and thus supports your SSH agent and SSH config when using >> the client as well as socket caching for optimal performance." >> >> OOOKKKKAAAYYY...the netconf package creates netconfs, but what does a >> netconf do??? I gather that maybe it carries YANGs? >> >> Somehow I'm increasingly skeptical that, even if I find some modern >> tools, there's not a high probability that the devices I have scattered >> now around my LAN will play their game.? Back to PING and TCPDUMP et >> al.?? I wonder if my devices respond to SNMP.? I'm sure I have a >> database lying around here somewhere, and could probably refresh my >> memory of shell scripts. >> >> RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: >> >> "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP >> and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other >> than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical >> information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, >> beginning in 30 minutes)" >> >> Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a >> challenge.? When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it >> turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries >> for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or >> demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use >> cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed.? Melding SNMP >> and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty >> straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the >> intranet.?? >> >> We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic >> loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that >> scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard >> distributed database techniques.? It worked for industries managing >> sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network >> data.?? I'm not sure if we ever did that though.? What we did in a few >> days was enough to put out the fires. >> >> Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate.? What happened >> in the thirty years since...?? A timeline/history of Network Management >> in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols >> and documents. >> >> I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... >> >> /Jack >> >> > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 21:16:43 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Barbara Denny via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 05:16:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> References: <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e- a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <318951781.1702766.1573276603357@mail.yahoo.com> I? have a memory of talking to a friend who was working at a prominent Internet vendor about network management in the late 80s (timeframe of the first release of SNMP).? If I am remembering correctly he said he couldn't get any traction to really do anything because from the company's perspective you could only sell one to a customer so they would rather devote their resources to other efforts. I am not sure we were entirely without any companies trying to develop a product in the network management space in the late 80s/early 90s. I vaguely remember having to look at what was available.? I think this was for a military testbed in Korea.? Unfortunately I don't remember much about the software products, or names, since it was very short term project/effort for me (Other than the software did more monitoring than management). barbara On Friday, November 8, 2019, 05:34:09 PM PST, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had > been around since the early 80s.? Still can't in ~2020. The answer to that mystery is, I believe, that this stuff is aimed at large operatorss willing to buy expensive proprietary tools or write their own tools. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/storage-networking/management/200933-YANG-NETCONF-Configuration-Validation.html https://www.tail-f.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tail-f_NCS_NEP_Overview_Brochure.pdf A lot of the independent network management tools that you can buy don't seem have got past SNMP though, from a quick Google trawl. But from the number of operators involved in defining YANG modules, I'm guessing that they have toolsets up and running (replacing PERL scripts driving proprietary CLIs). Regards ? Brian On 09-Nov-19 12:53, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > On 11/8/19 2:23 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > >> see RFC 1109 >> v > > Thanks for the pointer.? I now remember encountering RFC1109 (published > 1989) back in the early 90s when I was looking for tools to manage our > intranet.? There's a key sentence in 1109: > > "It was generally agreed that the actual network management tools > available to operators, rather than the specifics of the protocols > supporting the tools, would be the determining factor in the > effectiveness of any Internet network management system." > > I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had > been around since the early 80s.?? Still can't in ~2020.?? Lots of > documents and protocols though. > > I've explored a bit into the NETCONF/(P)YANG pointers but haven't > encountered anything that even seems related to Network Management, or > any sign of tools/code.? The material at "readthedocs" tells me that > NETCONF has clients and servers, but casts no light on what those > servers actually do.? That netconf documentation is somewhat circular: > > "This package supports creating both netconf clients and servers. > Additionally a CLI netconf utility is included. Additionally netconf > uses _sshutil and thus supports your SSH agent and SSH config when using > the client as well as socket caching for optimal performance." > > OOOKKKKAAAYYY...the netconf package creates netconfs, but what does a > netconf do??? I gather that maybe it carries YANGs? > > Somehow I'm increasingly skeptical that, even if I find some modern > tools, there's not a high probability that the devices I have scattered > now around my LAN will play their game.? Back to PING and TCPDUMP et > al.?? I wonder if my devices respond to SNMP.? I'm sure I have a > database lying around here somewhere, and could probably refresh my > memory of shell scripts. > > RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: > > "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP > and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other > than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical > information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, > beginning in 30 minutes)" > > Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a > challenge.? When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it > turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries > for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or > demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use > cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed.? Melding SNMP > and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty > straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the > intranet.?? > > We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic > loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that > scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard > distributed database techniques.? It worked for industries managing > sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network > data.?? I'm not sure if we ever did that though.? What we did in a few > days was enough to put out the fires. > > Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate.? What happened > in the thirty years since...?? A timeline/history of Network Management > in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols > and documents. > > I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... > > /Jack > > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Nov 8 19:14:49 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:14:49 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> References: <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <7820BBCD-E33A-4172-8C1F-52218AA80763@comcast.net> Snip > > RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: > > "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP > and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other > than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical > information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, > beginning in 30 minutes)? Things like that belong in the object models. That is why there was an Action in CMIP. (I would have preferred limiting it Start and Stop.) Or the Manager schedules it and sends the Do X in 30 minutes. Not everything has to be in the protocol. This is something I have looked at several times. If you do the fundamental operators: Create/Delete, Read/Write, and Start/Stop. It is to some degree too rudimentary and you have what I call the "Turing Machine problem," i.e. you can do it but it is like using a Turing Machine to do it. This was SNMP?s biggest problem. Not only was it a Turing Machine, but it had severe limits on each ?action? imposed by UDP. The problem turns out to be there doesn?t seem to be any half-way point. You either do the minimum or you have a full blown programming language. In that case, the protocol may as well download a script and start it. It would be more efficient than trying to do the language over a connection. The one thing that CMIP had that did save a lot of overhead was scope and filter. One could say, ?Set X to 0 on all (1000) objects in this part of the MIB tree with Y < Z.? That would be one Request/Response in CMIP. It would be a lot more in SNMP. > > Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a > challenge. When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it > turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries > for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or > demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use > cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed. Melding SNMP > and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty > straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the > intranet. Correct. MIBs were databases. That was the whole point. That is why those things were easy in HEMS and CMIP where the MIB was a database (or made to look like one) as opposed to SNMP where it wasn?t. The other thing you had to know which most people didn?t was for network management don?t use a relational database. You want either an E-R model or an object-model or one of the so-called graph models, which is a shadow of the E-R model. (Why not relational? Network management structures have a lot of ?bill of materials? structures (trees). I use to argue with Bachman (who invented the E-R model. He would say you can?t do one in a relational database, and I would say, you can, but who would want to!! ;-) It would be like writing a COBOL compiler for a Turing Machine. You can do it, but gawd I wouldn?t want to! ;-) I remember DEC tried relational database and went all the way back to Index-Sequential files!! We never made the mistake but we had a new hire from MIT who had their head filled with the current fad. So we said, go try it. When we finally asked what happened with it, it turned out that in the best case, the relational database was only 19 times slower. I should have mentioned before, OSI didn?t achieve much commonality in their MIB work. They went about it wrong. We achieved much more in the product I mentioned earlier. Contrary to what RFC1109 says MIB structure for things below IP were quite straightforward and had a lot of commonality. > > We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic > loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that > scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard > distributed database techniques. It worked for industries managing > sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network > data. I'm not sure if we ever did that though. What we did in a few > days was enough to put out the fires. > > Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate. What happened > in the thirty years since...? A timeline/history of Network Management > in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols > and documents. Not much of anything. Most everything is home-grown tools with various sorts of hacks. The problem that network management ran into was that the last thing vendors wanted was effective common network management. He who controls the network management controls the account. If it is necessary to use the vendor?s network management solution, then the vendor controls the account and it is a barrier to entry. A common effective network management solution would have made network equipment (routers, stat muxes, etc.) interchangeable. Not good. > > I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... > > /Jack > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 19:12:03 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:12:03 +1300 Subject: The Postel Principle In-Reply-To: <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <22024242-cdd1-76c6-b908-6ea0c2d14b7b@gmail.com> This deserves to be a new thread. It turns out to be a warm, if not hot, topic. On 09-Nov-19 15:32, Jack Haverty wrote: > In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough > Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time? First, read this draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 There's a discussion thread at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/?gbt=1&index=jBCAqATbCy0kzt8bR_59LNlWjCU As you will see, your question is apposite to that draft. I'm a bit biased, because I was document editor for https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958 and of course Jon had a hand in that. Brian From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 18:32:57 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 18:32:57 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.? That's essentially what we did as a network operator in the 1990s when we couldn't find any tools.?? We didn't try to make it into a product, but we did just give it to some of our customers to play with.? It was literally a few person-days of work. There seem to have been lots of documents and protocols created though in the Internet community relating to management.?? Did the people creating all that code any tools and evaluate them in a live network to prove the concepts??? Perhaps they did but the resultant tools are captive in proprietary jails?? In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time??? That's another Internet History Timeline that would be interesting -- how did the process and mechanisms of technology development change over 50 years.? I wonder if The Internet has become OSIfied over the years, now producing documents more than code. BTW, if there's any Internet hacker entrepreneurs lurking, who have experienced pain in operating their network, you might take a look at that database approach to build something useful as a network management tool.?? If I were to do a DIY tool again today, I'd use some kind of front-end like Ruby-on-Rails, attached to some database like MySQL or MariaDB, and grabbing data from whatever is available, e.g., via SNMP, using some Python to interact with the stuff out on the net.? Node-Red might also be a useful component.? All are free so there's no need for much if any VC funding.? But I pick those pieces just because I've played with them so they're familiar. /Jack On 11/8/19 5:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had >> been around since the early 80s. Still can't in ~2020. > The answer to that mystery is, I believe, that this stuff is aimed at large operatorss willing to buy expensive proprietary tools or write their own tools. > > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/storage-networking/management/200933-YANG-NETCONF-Configuration-Validation.html > > https://www.tail-f.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tail-f_NCS_NEP_Overview_Brochure.pdf > > A lot of the independent network management tools that you can buy don't seem have got past SNMP though, from a quick Google trawl. But from the number of operators involved in defining YANG modules, I'm guessing that they have toolsets up and running (replacing PERL scripts driving proprietary CLIs). > > Regards > Brian > > On 09-Nov-19 12:53, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> On 11/8/19 2:23 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> see RFC 1109 >>> v >> Thanks for the pointer.? I now remember encountering RFC1109 (published >> 1989) back in the early 90s when I was looking for tools to manage our >> intranet.? There's a key sentence in 1109: >> >> "It was generally agreed that the actual network management tools >> available to operators, rather than the specifics of the protocols >> supporting the tools, would be the determining factor in the >> effectiveness of any Internet network management system." >> >> I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had >> been around since the early 80s.?? Still can't in ~2020.?? Lots of >> documents and protocols though. >> >> I've explored a bit into the NETCONF/(P)YANG pointers but haven't >> encountered anything that even seems related to Network Management, or >> any sign of tools/code.? The material at "readthedocs" tells me that >> NETCONF has clients and servers, but casts no light on what those >> servers actually do.? That netconf documentation is somewhat circular: >> >> "This package supports creating both netconf clients and servers. >> Additionally a CLI netconf utility is included. Additionally netconf >> uses _sshutil and thus supports your SSH agent and SSH config when using >> the client as well as socket caching for optimal performance." >> >> OOOKKKKAAAYYY...the netconf package creates netconfs, but what does a >> netconf do??? I gather that maybe it carries YANGs? >> >> Somehow I'm increasingly skeptical that, even if I find some modern >> tools, there's not a high probability that the devices I have scattered >> now around my LAN will play their game.? Back to PING and TCPDUMP et >> al.?? I wonder if my devices respond to SNMP.? I'm sure I have a >> database lying around here somewhere, and could probably refresh my >> memory of shell scripts. >> >> RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: >> >> "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP >> and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other >> than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical >> information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, >> beginning in 30 minutes)" >> >> Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a >> challenge.? When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it >> turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries >> for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or >> demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use >> cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed.? Melding SNMP >> and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty >> straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the >> intranet.?? >> >> We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic >> loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that >> scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard >> distributed database techniques.? It worked for industries managing >> sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network >> data.?? I'm not sure if we ever did that though.? What we did in a few >> days was enough to put out the fires. >> >> Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate.? What happened >> in the thirty years since...?? A timeline/history of Network Management >> in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols >> and documents. >> >> I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... >> >> /Jack >> >> > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Nov 8 18:32:57 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 18:32:57 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> References: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c38c06b-d300-370d-c880-eb854cfeb675@3kitty.org> Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.? That's essentially what we did as a network operator in the 1990s when we couldn't find any tools.?? We didn't try to make it into a product, but we did just give it to some of our customers to play with.? It was literally a few person-days of work. There seem to have been lots of documents and protocols created though in the Internet community relating to management.?? Did the people creating all that code any tools and evaluate them in a live network to prove the concepts??? Perhaps they did but the resultant tools are captive in proprietary jails?? In the annals of Internet History, did Jon Postel's mantra of "Rough Consensus and Running Code" fade away over time??? That's another Internet History Timeline that would be interesting -- how did the process and mechanisms of technology development change over 50 years.? I wonder if The Internet has become OSIfied over the years, now producing documents more than code. BTW, if there's any Internet hacker entrepreneurs lurking, who have experienced pain in operating their network, you might take a look at that database approach to build something useful as a network management tool.?? If I were to do a DIY tool again today, I'd use some kind of front-end like Ruby-on-Rails, attached to some database like MySQL or MariaDB, and grabbing data from whatever is available, e.g., via SNMP, using some Python to interact with the stuff out on the net.? Node-Red might also be a useful component.? All are free so there's no need for much if any VC funding.? But I pick those pieces just because I've played with them so they're familiar. /Jack On 11/8/19 5:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had >> been around since the early 80s. Still can't in ~2020. > The answer to that mystery is, I believe, that this stuff is aimed at large operatorss willing to buy expensive proprietary tools or write their own tools. > > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/storage-networking/management/200933-YANG-NETCONF-Configuration-Validation.html > > https://www.tail-f.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tail-f_NCS_NEP_Overview_Brochure.pdf > > A lot of the independent network management tools that you can buy don't seem have got past SNMP though, from a quick Google trawl. But from the number of operators involved in defining YANG modules, I'm guessing that they have toolsets up and running (replacing PERL scripts driving proprietary CLIs). > > Regards > Brian > > On 09-Nov-19 12:53, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> On 11/8/19 2:23 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> see RFC 1109 >>> v >> Thanks for the pointer.? I now remember encountering RFC1109 (published >> 1989) back in the early 90s when I was looking for tools to manage our >> intranet.? There's a key sentence in 1109: >> >> "It was generally agreed that the actual network management tools >> available to operators, rather than the specifics of the protocols >> supporting the tools, would be the determining factor in the >> effectiveness of any Internet network management system." >> >> I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had >> been around since the early 80s.?? Still can't in ~2020.?? Lots of >> documents and protocols though. >> >> I've explored a bit into the NETCONF/(P)YANG pointers but haven't >> encountered anything that even seems related to Network Management, or >> any sign of tools/code.? The material at "readthedocs" tells me that >> NETCONF has clients and servers, but casts no light on what those >> servers actually do.? That netconf documentation is somewhat circular: >> >> "This package supports creating both netconf clients and servers. >> Additionally a CLI netconf utility is included. Additionally netconf >> uses _sshutil and thus supports your SSH agent and SSH config when using >> the client as well as socket caching for optimal performance." >> >> OOOKKKKAAAYYY...the netconf package creates netconfs, but what does a >> netconf do??? I gather that maybe it carries YANGs? >> >> Somehow I'm increasingly skeptical that, even if I find some modern >> tools, there's not a high probability that the devices I have scattered >> now around my LAN will play their game.? Back to PING and TCPDUMP et >> al.?? I wonder if my devices respond to SNMP.? I'm sure I have a >> database lying around here somewhere, and could probably refresh my >> memory of shell scripts. >> >> RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: >> >> "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP >> and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other >> than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical >> information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, >> beginning in 30 minutes)" >> >> Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a >> challenge.? When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it >> turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries >> for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or >> demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use >> cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed.? Melding SNMP >> and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty >> straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the >> intranet.?? >> >> We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic >> loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that >> scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard >> distributed database techniques.? It worked for industries managing >> sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network >> data.?? I'm not sure if we ever did that though.? What we did in a few >> days was enough to put out the fires. >> >> Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate.? What happened >> in the thirty years since...?? A timeline/history of Network Management >> in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols >> and documents. >> >> I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... >> >> /Jack >> >> > From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 17:33:35 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 14:33:35 +1300 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> References: <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <722ded3a-e1b2-04c6-e43e-a221c55e2cc7@gmail.com> > I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had > been around since the early 80s. Still can't in ~2020. The answer to that mystery is, I believe, that this stuff is aimed at large operatorss willing to buy expensive proprietary tools or write their own tools. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/storage-networking/management/200933-YANG-NETCONF-Configuration-Validation.html https://www.tail-f.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tail-f_NCS_NEP_Overview_Brochure.pdf A lot of the independent network management tools that you can buy don't seem have got past SNMP though, from a quick Google trawl. But from the number of operators involved in defining YANG modules, I'm guessing that they have toolsets up and running (replacing PERL scripts driving proprietary CLIs). Regards Brian On 09-Nov-19 12:53, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > On 11/8/19 2:23 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > >> see RFC 1109 >> v > > Thanks for the pointer.? I now remember encountering RFC1109 (published > 1989) back in the early 90s when I was looking for tools to manage our > intranet.? There's a key sentence in 1109: > > "It was generally agreed that the actual network management tools > available to operators, rather than the specifics of the protocols > supporting the tools, would be the determining factor in the > effectiveness of any Internet network management system." > > I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had > been around since the early 80s.?? Still can't in ~2020.?? Lots of > documents and protocols though. > > I've explored a bit into the NETCONF/(P)YANG pointers but haven't > encountered anything that even seems related to Network Management, or > any sign of tools/code.? The material at "readthedocs" tells me that > NETCONF has clients and servers, but casts no light on what those > servers actually do.? That netconf documentation is somewhat circular: > > "This package supports creating both netconf clients and servers. > Additionally a CLI netconf utility is included. Additionally netconf > uses _sshutil and thus supports your SSH agent and SSH config when using > the client as well as socket caching for optimal performance." > > OOOKKKKAAAYYY...the netconf package creates netconfs, but what does a > netconf do??? I gather that maybe it carries YANGs? > > Somehow I'm increasingly skeptical that, even if I find some modern > tools, there's not a high probability that the devices I have scattered > now around my LAN will play their game.? Back to PING and TCPDUMP et > al.?? I wonder if my devices respond to SNMP.? I'm sure I have a > database lying around here somewhere, and could probably refresh my > memory of shell scripts. > > RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: > > "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP > and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other > than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical > information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, > beginning in 30 minutes)" > > Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a > challenge.? When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it > turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries > for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or > demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use > cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed.? Melding SNMP > and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty > straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the > intranet.?? > > We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic > loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that > scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard > distributed database techniques.? It worked for industries managing > sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network > data.?? I'm not sure if we ever did that though.? What we did in a few > days was enough to put out the fires. > > Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate.? What happened > in the thirty years since...?? A timeline/history of Network Management > in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols > and documents. > > I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... > > /Jack > > From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 15:53:42 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 15:53:42 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: <2dd29445-325b-6bce-ddeb-a05dbd68046c@3kitty.org> On 11/8/19 2:23 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > see RFC 1109 > v Thanks for the pointer.? I now remember encountering RFC1109 (published 1989) back in the early 90s when I was looking for tools to manage our intranet.? There's a key sentence in 1109: "It was generally agreed that the actual network management tools available to operators, rather than the specifics of the protocols supporting the tools, would be the determining factor in the effectiveness of any Internet network management system." I couldn't find any such tools in ~1991 other than the ones that had been around since the early 80s.?? Still can't in ~2020.?? Lots of documents and protocols though. I've explored a bit into the NETCONF/(P)YANG pointers but haven't encountered anything that even seems related to Network Management, or any sign of tools/code.? The material at "readthedocs" tells me that NETCONF has clients and servers, but casts no light on what those servers actually do.? That netconf documentation is somewhat circular: "This package supports creating both netconf clients and servers. Additionally a CLI netconf utility is included. Additionally netconf uses _sshutil and thus supports your SSH agent and SSH config when using the client as well as socket caching for optimal performance." OOOKKKKAAAYYY...the netconf package creates netconfs, but what does a netconf do??? I gather that maybe it carries YANGs? Somehow I'm increasingly skeptical that, even if I find some modern tools, there's not a high probability that the devices I have scattered now around my LAN will play their game.? Back to PING and TCPDUMP et al.?? I wonder if my devices respond to SNMP.? I'm sure I have a database lying around here somewhere, and could probably refresh my memory of shell scripts. RFC1109 also identified a key missing piece: "It was acknowledged that the present service interfaces of both SNMP and CMIS have limitations (e.g., neither has any sense of time other than "now"; this makes it impossible to express queries for historical information, or to issue command requests of the form: Do X at device Y, beginning in 30 minutes)" Well, at a database company, "impossible to express queries" is a challenge.? When we cobbled together our adhoc management system, it turned out that databases are really good at handling time and queries for historical information, for performing actions on schedules or demand (see TRIGGER in database lingo, or for simple stuff just use cron) and for collecting and distributing data as needed.? Melding SNMP and a database with a little Shell-script and SQL glue was pretty straightforward and turned out to be very useful for managing the intranet.?? We even mused about scattering databases around the net to limit traffic loads by collecting high-volume SNMP data locally, and all of that scattered data would be automatically aggregated using standard distributed database techniques.? It worked for industries managing sales, inventory, shipments, orders, etc., so it would work for network data.?? I'm not sure if we ever did that though.? What we did in a few days was enough to put out the fires. Those observations in 1109 were very wise and accurate.? What happened in the thirty years since...?? A timeline/history of Network Management in the Internet might be fascinating - Tools, not meetings, protocols and documents. I think somebody hit my hot button... I'll stop typing..... /Jack -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 15:18:05 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Bernie Cosell via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:18:05 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <8bc2ad5b-58df-ee6f-0621-1e46fef32913@meetinghouse.net> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <8bc2ad5b-58df-ee6f-0621-1e46fef32913@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <16e4d4f7bc8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> > > > I seem to recall that the ARPANET was controlled by a C/70, certainly > the DDN was controlled by several C/70s distributed between CONUS, > Europe, and Hawaii (I had the dubious distinction of designing the DDN > Network Management Architecture, as my first task at BBN, working for > Jim Herman. ... > > > Now, it could be that ARPANET monitoring & control predated the C/70 - > given that the C machines didn't exist in the early days. indeed. as mentioned, the first "control center" was cobbled together stuff on the PDP-1, snd eventually TEXEX. the c/70 was still years away i don't remember whose idea it was to crowbar unix into the MBB, BBN's "microprogrammable building block", but al nemeth {unix kernel}, carl howe {microcode} and me {cross C compiler from TENEX} ended up trying to do it. you are correct, though - when the NOC relocated to the lower level of bldg 2 they had a bunch of c/70s. /b\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm. com ? Too many people, too few sheep ? -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 14:51:45 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Miles Fidelman via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 17:51:45 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <8bc2ad5b-58df-ee6f-0621-1e46fef32913@meetinghouse.net> On 11/7/19 5:11 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > thanks jack... a couple of quips: > > #1.) yours truly believes that the ARPANET, et all was managed by the folks > an "entity" known -- during that time -- as the NCC (Network Control > Center), not the NOC. > > #2.) yours truly also seems to recall that the ARPANET was software-ly > controlled by a PDP-1 not a PDP-10, viz. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc301: I seem to recall that the ARPANET was controlled by a C/70, certainly the DDN was controlled by several C/70s distributed between CONUS, Europe, and Hawaii (I had the dubious distinction of designing the DDN Network Management Architecture, as my first task at BBN, working for Jim Herman.? It turned out to be a lot more about operating procedures, than technology - e.g, figuring out how to get AT&T Long Lines to respond to a "noisy line" call from a central NOC, rather than the communications officer who "owned" that specific circuit, though we did have to figure out how to report bit error rate, rather than just packet error rate - the folks at AT&T didn't have a clue what packet error rate meant.) Now, it could be that ARPANET monitoring & control predated the C/70 - given that the C machines didn't exist in the early days. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 14:45:11 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:45:11 +1300 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <3be49fe9-7195-bfea-de0f-0acd3c4634a8@3kitty.org> References: <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2af61b22-207e-ea19-7c97-6bc3cfd719e2@3kitty.org> <0B2433C6-69EF-4D65-9141-0F1FF4295987@gmail.com> <3be49fe9-7195-bfea-de0f-0acd3c4634a8@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <28a8a88c-7d48-69e9-16d1-0958ea118b65@gmail.com> YANG travels over NETCONF, so you also need to look at https://netconf.readthedocs.io/, which takes you to NETCONF in Python. (And NETCONF itself normally travels over TLS.) Regards Brian On 09-Nov-19 10:12, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > I'm glad to see Github being used.? But I just poked around there a bit > and couldn't find any actual code, i.e., something I might be able to > compile and run on some computer.? Maybe I just haven't explored far > enough yet.? Is there code there somewhere? > > I tried pyang: > > jfh at Chaka:~$ pip install pyang > Collecting pyang > ? Installing collected packages: lxml, pyang > ... > ? Successfully installed lxml-4.4.1 pyang-2.1 > jfh at Chaka:~$ man pyang > No manual entry for pyang > > Looked at github and found this description for pyang: "A YANG (RFC > 6020/7950) validator and converter".?? Doesn't sound like it has much to > do with network management.....? > > IMHO, this is somewhat typical of the historical experience of the > Internet over time from the users' side.? Tools are hard to find, and > the documentation on what they do or how to use them even more so. > > A historical timeline of The Internet, written to capture the users' > perspective, might be a fascinating read. > > ------ > > BTW, my pragmatic motivation is that I've noticed that my in-house LAN > seems to have acquired about 100 hosts over the last few years, > including things like my attic fan and irrigation system, plus several > routers/wifi boxes, and a mix of computers, phones, tablets, etc.? How > do you manage such a piece of the Internet?? > > I'm curious to know, for example, who my fan and irrigation system are > conversing with, and what are they doing other than moving air and > water. ?? I can find out some such information by using ancient tools > like TCPDUMP, which I remember from using it in the 80s.? After almost > 40 more years of Internet History, is there now anything newer?? Is > there some router or other networking box that I should buy that comes > with such tools? > > /Jack > > > On 11/8/19 12:27 PM, Tony Li wrote: >>> IMHO, the game's not over until there is working code that has proven >>> useful in actual operation of a real network. >> >> >> https://github.com/openconfig/public >> >> >>> jfh at Chaka:~$ man yang >>> No manual entry for yang >>> jfh at Chaka:~$? >>> >>> Something else I should try...? >> >> >> Try: >> >> pip install pyang >> man pyang >> >> Tony >> From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 14:23:08 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Vint Cerf via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 17:23:08 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: see RFC 1109 v On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 3:32 PM Craig Partridge via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:41 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Marshall Rose once told me that he regretted the "S" in SNMP, because it > > was anything but simple. And I think he also said that ASN/1 was chosen > > mainly to build bridges with the OSI world. But SNMP was a success (about > > 300 related RFCs exist). > > > > Re: ASN.1. My recollection of the history runs as follows. HEMS needed an > extensible external data format -- we wanted folks to be able to add MIB > extensions w/o having to publish them. That is, you'd just retrieve a > module of variables associated with an interface and in addition to the > standard variables you'd get anything else the vendor wanted you to know. > And at the time, almost all external data formats were of the form > "receiver knows what is coming". So XDR and NDR and such. I didn't want > to invent an external data format so I asked around BBN and Debbie Deutsch, > who had been part of the team that developed the ASN.1 BER said "how about > ASN.1?". It met the need, so I grabbed it. ASN.1 also made the OSI folks > happy but that wasn't the goal.* > > When Jeff Case and team decided NSFNET couldn't wait for HEMS, they grabbed > what they considered the best parts of HEMS and subsetted it to make SGMP > (which became SNMP). Now the OSI folks were around and it may be that Jeff > and team decided that to avoid annoying the OSI crowd, they'd stick with > ASN. I don't recall them saying that, but it is possible and would be > consistent with Marshall's remark. > > Craig > > *The interactions of HEMS and SNMP with OSI were politically complex. But > technically it was pretty simple. Within six weeks of the HEMS effort > starting we were ahead of the OSI network management efforts and we stayed > ahead until HEMS ended. I would argue that SNMP was also ahead as soon as > SNMP was implemented. The OSI thinking at the time was fragmentary (not > enough folks were trying to manage a big network) and, if I remember right, > the first time the OSI network management standards went up for a vote they > failed. > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and > mailing lists. > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 13:41:15 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Alex McKenzie via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 21:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <52285092-a88b-a3c2-ed8e-134ccd85d3aa@3kitty.org> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <18f19393-570d-74a4-9d36-2771a0b657fa@bbiw.net> <52285092-a88b-a3c2-ed8e-134ccd85d3aa@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <363035649.1541816.1573249275172@mail.yahoo.com> In reference to Jack's 2nd paragraph, there were two papers published about the early ARPAnet NOC.? They are: McKenzie,A.A.; Cosell, B.P.; McQuillan, J.M.; Thrope, M.J. TheNetwork Control Center for the ARPA Network. Proceedingsof the First International Conference on Computer Communication,Winkler (Ed.), Washington, DC, pp. 185-191.October1972 McKenzie,A.A. TheARPA Network Control Center. FourthData Communications Symposium, Quebec City, Canada, pp. 5-1 to 5-6.October 1975 Alex On Thursday, November 7, 2019, 7:37:17 PM EST, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: I think the beginning of the story is captured in IEN 105 - see http://www.postel.org/ien/pdf/ien105.pdf?? David Floodpage wrote that in 1979, as part of our work in operating SATNET and beginning to think about how to use ARPANET-style tools in the context of the "Catenet" which Vint had popularized at the time as the name for what we now call Internet.??? David and Marty Schoffstall worked in my group on those kinds of things; Marty later was one of the authors of SNMP. I don't recall that much was ever written about the internal IMP operations and management tools and techniques developed during the ARPANET growth through the 70s.? So that technology may never have escaped BBN, or is perhaps captured in some obscure QTRs that few ever read.? But those "gateway guys", including Floodpage and Schoffstall, and the "Arpanet guys" were intermixed in the BBN building so lots of technology transfer occurred even if only in the hallways and around coffee. If you read IEN105, and replace "gateway" with "IMP", and "CMCC" with "NCC", you'll get a reasonable concept of how some of the ARPANET internals worked through the 70s.?? That was David's charter - to figure out and then transfer the ARPANET tools and methods into the "Catenet" world.? IIRC, this was all before the IETF got started.? I just looked at the "Internet Timeline" in RFC2235, which claims the IETF was created in 1986.? My personal recollection is that it happened much earlier; I recall being present at the ICCB meeting when the IETF and IRTF were formed out of the unwieldy "Internet Group".?? If it was 1986, I wouldn't have been there.? I'll have to look at my paper notebooks if the mold in the basement permits. I don't think there ever was an NMP defined; it may have been just a vague term used within BBN as a placeholder for some yet-to-be-defined mechanism.? That's why I said it was more of a concept than a protocol.?? Concept?? Fantasy?? Yep, but the thinking was still based on real-world experiences. Floodpage started the ball rolling in the Internet (aka Catenet) world, using the ARPANET world as a working example.? More or less concurrent with that IEN in 1979, his work involved building the CMCC (Catenet Monitoring and Control Center), which actually got used.? In that era, documentation like RFCs and IENs often represented what had already been built and tested out -- even if it was couched as a "proposal".?? Politics didn't have the chance to delay implementation. Marty Schoffstall was in the same group, and later an author of the SNMP RFCs.? SNMP came quite a bit later, and that's when we had the musings about exactly which component was meant to be "Simple". In retrospect, I think having the people doing development also in some way responsible for operations is really important.? When you're fighting fires with angry users lurking, there's little time for politics. /Jack On 11/7/19 3:46 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/7/2019 3:33 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP >> (Network Management Protocol).?? As I recall, NMP was more of a concept >> than a protocol.? It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. > > That doesn't match my memory at all.? There were all sorts of > fantasies being spun around these efforts, so perhaps that was part of > the mix, but it had nothing to do with the actual work, as I remember it. > > SNMP was the result of a few pragmatic operational people creating a > really simple protocol, with some of the usual IETF pixy dust tossed > onto it, except for the political s--t storm it got stuck in with CMIP. > > The CMIP people were very well organized and very political, but had > produce a very complicated spec and had trouble making it pratical. > > Craig's worthy HEMS proposal was in this mix, of course, but didn't > have the track record or political support to overcome the... politics. > > It was amusing to those of us at Wollongong, at the time, that I had a > senior person in multiple, critical positions for both SNMP and CMIP > (-> CMOT) included the just-lost Keith McGlogrie. > > The (unfortunate) effect of the politics, besides quite a bit of > delay, was forcing SNMP to use data cast in ASN.1 -- in the hope there > would at least be that level of interoperability with CMIP/CMOT -- but > thereby substantially increasing the complexity of using SNMP. > > d/ -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 13:12:11 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:12:11 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <0B2433C6-69EF-4D65-9141-0F1FF4295987@gmail.com> References: <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2af61b22-207e-ea19-7c97-6bc3cfd719e2@3kitty.org> <0B2433C6-69EF-4D65-9141-0F1FF4295987@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3be49fe9-7195-bfea-de0f-0acd3c4634a8@3kitty.org> I'm glad to see Github being used.? But I just poked around there a bit and couldn't find any actual code, i.e., something I might be able to compile and run on some computer.? Maybe I just haven't explored far enough yet.? Is there code there somewhere? I tried pyang: jfh at Chaka:~$ pip install pyang Collecting pyang ? Installing collected packages: lxml, pyang ... ? Successfully installed lxml-4.4.1 pyang-2.1 jfh at Chaka:~$ man pyang No manual entry for pyang Looked at github and found this description for pyang: "A YANG (RFC 6020/7950) validator and converter".?? Doesn't sound like it has much to do with network management.....? IMHO, this is somewhat typical of the historical experience of the Internet over time from the users' side.? Tools are hard to find, and the documentation on what they do or how to use them even more so. A historical timeline of The Internet, written to capture the users' perspective, might be a fascinating read. ------ BTW, my pragmatic motivation is that I've noticed that my in-house LAN seems to have acquired about 100 hosts over the last few years, including things like my attic fan and irrigation system, plus several routers/wifi boxes, and a mix of computers, phones, tablets, etc.? How do you manage such a piece of the Internet?? I'm curious to know, for example, who my fan and irrigation system are conversing with, and what are they doing other than moving air and water. ?? I can find out some such information by using ancient tools like TCPDUMP, which I remember from using it in the 80s.? After almost 40 more years of Internet History, is there now anything newer?? Is there some router or other networking box that I should buy that comes with such tools? /Jack On 11/8/19 12:27 PM, Tony Li wrote: >> IMHO, the game's not over until there is working code that has proven >> useful in actual operation of a real network. > > > https://github.com/openconfig/public > > >> jfh at Chaka:~$ man yang >> No manual entry for yang >> jfh at Chaka:~$? >> >> Something else I should try...? > > > Try: > > pip install pyang > man pyang > > Tony > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 13:14:53 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Clem Cole via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:14:53 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:42 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Marshall Rose once told me that he regretted the "S" in SNMP, because it > was anything but simple. > Chuckle.... I have told my younger programmers never name anything 'simple' or 'new' as in time, they are neither. ? -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Nov 8 13:12:11 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:12:11 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <0B2433C6-69EF-4D65-9141-0F1FF4295987@gmail.com> References: <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2af61b22-207e-ea19-7c97-6bc3cfd719e2@3kitty.org> <0B2433C6-69EF-4D65-9141-0F1FF4295987@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3be49fe9-7195-bfea-de0f-0acd3c4634a8@3kitty.org> I'm glad to see Github being used.? But I just poked around there a bit and couldn't find any actual code, i.e., something I might be able to compile and run on some computer.? Maybe I just haven't explored far enough yet.? Is there code there somewhere? I tried pyang: jfh at Chaka:~$ pip install pyang Collecting pyang ? Installing collected packages: lxml, pyang ... ? Successfully installed lxml-4.4.1 pyang-2.1 jfh at Chaka:~$ man pyang No manual entry for pyang Looked at github and found this description for pyang: "A YANG (RFC 6020/7950) validator and converter".?? Doesn't sound like it has much to do with network management.....? IMHO, this is somewhat typical of the historical experience of the Internet over time from the users' side.? Tools are hard to find, and the documentation on what they do or how to use them even more so. A historical timeline of The Internet, written to capture the users' perspective, might be a fascinating read. ------ BTW, my pragmatic motivation is that I've noticed that my in-house LAN seems to have acquired about 100 hosts over the last few years, including things like my attic fan and irrigation system, plus several routers/wifi boxes, and a mix of computers, phones, tablets, etc.? How do you manage such a piece of the Internet?? I'm curious to know, for example, who my fan and irrigation system are conversing with, and what are they doing other than moving air and water. ?? I can find out some such information by using ancient tools like TCPDUMP, which I remember from using it in the 80s.? After almost 40 more years of Internet History, is there now anything newer?? Is there some router or other networking box that I should buy that comes with such tools? /Jack On 11/8/19 12:27 PM, Tony Li wrote: >> IMHO, the game's not over until there is working code that has proven >> useful in actual operation of a real network. > > > https://github.com/openconfig/public > > >> jfh at Chaka:~$ man yang >> No manual entry for yang >> jfh at Chaka:~$? >> >> Something else I should try...? > > > Try: > > pip install pyang > man pyang > > Tony > From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 13:01:59 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Day via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:01:59 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: <70D12FF3-8B4C-4D6F-A531-B2AD6567682F@comcast.net> Things went off the rails with SNMP because they didn?t understand the importance of commonality across MIBs until it was too late. In the mid-80s we were able to create considerable commonality across technologies for a product we did at Motorola and it provided considerable leverage and was much more powerful. It was able to do things that are still not possible. Maximizing commonality across devices is what makes network management easy. At the same time, one has to be careful to let what has to be different be different. But the big advantage with network management is that the communication must have a fair amount of commonality or it won?t work. Once that horse was out of that barn, the game was over. It was all complexity after that. While YANG and NETCONF may have taken over, the horse has never been put back. And to my mind there hasn?t been any real progress in network management in decades. Take care, John > On Nov 8, 2019, at 14:41, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > Marshall Rose once told me that he regretted the "S" in SNMP, because it > was anything but simple. And I think he also said that ASN/1 was chosen > mainly to build bridges with the OSI world. But SNMP was a success (about > 300 related RFCs exist). > > Anyway, NETCONF and YANG are currently taking over the universe. I haven't > noticed a new MIB module in the IETF world for quite a while. Only two > MIB RFCs were published in 2018, and none this year. There are also only > two MIBs in Internet Draft format, one started in 2014 and the other started > in 2016. MIBs are apparently a dying breed. There are currently 152 active > Internet Drafts related to YANG. Game over. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 09-Nov-19 06:54, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:20 AM John Day wrote: >> >>> You told me once the implementation was smaller. Also, I also know from >>> Randy Presuhn that the CMIP implementation was smaller than SNMP as well. >>> It seemed that lexicographical order takes more code that object-oriented. >>> For me, HEMS would have been a better way forward. A few years earlier >>> IEEE 802 had tried a protocol like SNMP and found it inferior, which is why >>> CMIP was done. Also that HEMS used TCP for request/response and UDP for >>> events was simply sane, rather than trying to do everything over UDP. In >>> which case, GetNest is unnecessary. The inability to get a snapshot of >>> anything large-ish was a real problem. >>> >> >> Your recollection is better than mine. I have a vague recollection that >> the initial SNMP implementations were large because they had some ASN >> library or code generator that generated volumes of code, while HEMS had a >> much tighter handwritten ASN.1 module. I don't know if that would have >> been true in perpetuity. >> >> >>> >>> A further advantage would have been had by CMIP since it could use the >>> Packed-Encoding Rules for ASN.1 rather than having to use the Basic >>> Encoding Rules wired into SNMP. PER was sufficiently efficient that often >>> compressing a PER encoding was larger. >>> >> >> BER was wired into HEMS to support the private MIBs. >> >> Craig >> >> >> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 12:36:17 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Crocker via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:36:17 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 11/8/2019 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > Now the OSI folks were around and it may be that Jeff > and team decided that to avoid annoying the OSI crowd, they'd stick with > ASN. I don't recall them saying that, but it is possible and would be > consistent with Marshall's remark. My recollection is of a far less passive and pleasant process, with the competition between CMIP and SNMP being intense and inflexible, finally resulting in what was essentially an aribrated edict that they share the ASN.1 MIB. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 12:31:58 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Craig Partridge via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:31:58 -0700 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:41 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > Marshall Rose once told me that he regretted the "S" in SNMP, because it > was anything but simple. And I think he also said that ASN/1 was chosen > mainly to build bridges with the OSI world. But SNMP was a success (about > 300 related RFCs exist). > Re: ASN.1. My recollection of the history runs as follows. HEMS needed an extensible external data format -- we wanted folks to be able to add MIB extensions w/o having to publish them. That is, you'd just retrieve a module of variables associated with an interface and in addition to the standard variables you'd get anything else the vendor wanted you to know. And at the time, almost all external data formats were of the form "receiver knows what is coming". So XDR and NDR and such. I didn't want to invent an external data format so I asked around BBN and Debbie Deutsch, who had been part of the team that developed the ASN.1 BER said "how about ASN.1?". It met the need, so I grabbed it. ASN.1 also made the OSI folks happy but that wasn't the goal.* When Jeff Case and team decided NSFNET couldn't wait for HEMS, they grabbed what they considered the best parts of HEMS and subsetted it to make SGMP (which became SNMP). Now the OSI folks were around and it may be that Jeff and team decided that to avoid annoying the OSI crowd, they'd stick with ASN. I don't recall them saying that, but it is possible and would be consistent with Marshall's remark. Craig *The interactions of HEMS and SNMP with OSI were politically complex. But technically it was pretty simple. Within six weeks of the HEMS effort starting we were ahead of the OSI network management efforts and we stayed ahead until HEMS ended. I would argue that SNMP was also ahead as soon as SNMP was implemented. The OSI thinking at the time was fragmentary (not enough folks were trying to manage a big network) and, if I remember right, the first time the OSI network management standards went up for a vote they failed. -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From tony1athome at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 12:27:44 2019 From: tony1athome at gmail.com (Tony Li) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:27:44 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <2af61b22-207e-ea19-7c97-6bc3cfd719e2@3kitty.org> References: <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> <2af61b22-207e-ea19-7c97-6bc3cfd719e2@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <0B2433C6-69EF-4D65-9141-0F1FF4295987@gmail.com> > IMHO, the game's not over until there is working code that has proven > useful in actual operation of a real network. https://github.com/openconfig/public > jfh at Chaka:~$ man yang > No manual entry for yang > jfh at Chaka:~$ > > Something else I should try...? Try: pip install pyang man pyang Tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 12:12:30 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:12:30 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: <2af61b22-207e-ea19-7c97-6bc3cfd719e2@3kitty.org> On 11/8/19 11:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > There are currently 152 active > Internet Drafts related to YANG. Game over. IMHO, the game's not over until there is working code that has proven useful in actual operation of a real network. I wonder if anyone has ever summarized all of such Internet Drafts et al to show which have been implemented, and which are actually used in operating some parts of the Internet.? And what those operators think of those tools. Sadly, I just looked on my desktop machine by doing 'man snmp'; and discovered it does still exist!? But it seems now to have something to do with printers.......sigh. jfh at Chaka:~$ man yang No manual entry for yang jfh at Chaka:~$? Something else I should try...? /Jack -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 12:04:45 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Tony Li via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:04:45 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: <64AD5485-1638-429C-BBDB-3FC83568E232@tony.li> > > Anyway, NETCONF and YANG are currently taking over the universe. I haven't > noticed a new MIB module in the IETF world for quite a while. Only two > MIB RFCs were published in 2018, and none this year. There are also only > two MIBs in Internet Draft format, one started in 2014 and the other started > in 2016. MIBs are apparently a dying breed. There are currently 152 active > Internet Drafts related to YANG. Game over. We need to use past tense here. NETCONF and YANG _have_ taken over the universe. Done. Game, set, and match. The bad news is that the YANG models have forked, with OpenConfig publishing an entirely separate, incompatible set of models. And the industry is following OpenConfig. >From the front lines, Tony -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 11:41:53 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:41:53 +1300 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: Marshall Rose once told me that he regretted the "S" in SNMP, because it was anything but simple. And I think he also said that ASN/1 was chosen mainly to build bridges with the OSI world. But SNMP was a success (about 300 related RFCs exist). Anyway, NETCONF and YANG are currently taking over the universe. I haven't noticed a new MIB module in the IETF world for quite a while. Only two MIB RFCs were published in 2018, and none this year. There are also only two MIBs in Internet Draft format, one started in 2014 and the other started in 2016. MIBs are apparently a dying breed. There are currently 152 active Internet Drafts related to YANG. Game over. Regards Brian Carpenter On 09-Nov-19 06:54, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:20 AM John Day wrote: > >> You told me once the implementation was smaller. Also, I also know from >> Randy Presuhn that the CMIP implementation was smaller than SNMP as well. >> It seemed that lexicographical order takes more code that object-oriented. >> For me, HEMS would have been a better way forward. A few years earlier >> IEEE 802 had tried a protocol like SNMP and found it inferior, which is why >> CMIP was done. Also that HEMS used TCP for request/response and UDP for >> events was simply sane, rather than trying to do everything over UDP. In >> which case, GetNest is unnecessary. The inability to get a snapshot of >> anything large-ish was a real problem. >> > > Your recollection is better than mine. I have a vague recollection that > the initial SNMP implementations were large because they had some ASN > library or code generator that generated volumes of code, while HEMS had a > much tighter handwritten ASN.1 module. I don't know if that would have > been true in perpetuity. > > >> >> A further advantage would have been had by CMIP since it could use the >> Packed-Encoding Rules for ASN.1 rather than having to use the Basic >> Encoding Rules wired into SNMP. PER was sufficiently efficient that often >> compressing a PER encoding was larger. >> > > BER was wired into HEMS to support the private MIBs. > > Craig > > > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 11:42:08 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Bernie Cosell via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:42:08 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: <5DC5C510.6563.16658714@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 8 Nov 2019 at 11:16, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Some other factoids I recalled: > > ??? - The original ARPANET management software at BBN was called > "U", > for Utilities.? Later we developed a successor tool, cleverly called > "NU", for New Utilities.?? I'm pretty sure that the Internet > management > was integrated into NU when the NOC assumed 24x7 operations > responsibility. 'U' I think was the system that Steve Butterfield hacked up on TENEX. Before that there was the PDP-1 and after that a standalone management system on a spare 316 in the computer room. Those systems had a "light box" showing which lines and IMPs were up and down. The 316 system also had a hack where it understood the network topology and so when the network separated, it figured out the IMP(s) and LINE(s) potentially responsible for the outage and suppressed the tidal wave of IMP down and LINE down reports. It allowed the NOC folk to know what to look at/whom to call. [it also suppressed the tidal wave of IMP UP and LINE UP messages when the network was reconnected]. The most handy case was if something happened to IMP 5. Instead of reporting *every* IMPand Line down, it just say "IMP 5 down". And of course we downloaded patches [since at that time the system was being assembled on the PDP-1]. There was no MIB and nothing fancy: the IMPs reported their status every 56{?} seconds and it was from those packets the up/down/connectivity was figured out. and patches and other investigations were just done via a reasonable interface to the on-IMP DDT. When TENEX got its ARPAnet connection, Steve hacked up a package that kinda worked like the stuff we had cobbled up. I have *no* idea when the IMP sources moved to TENEX nor who cobbled up an assembler for them there. [I'm assuming, withouth knowing, that they _did_ get moved to TENEX]. /Bernie\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm.com -- Too many people; too few sheep -- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 11:40:01 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dr Eberhard W Lisse via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:40:01 +0100 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: References: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> Message-ID: <80e3712c-6e0f-4b82-8ba5-7baec3e1f2e2@Spark> What was complicated about sendmail :-)-O? divert(-1) OSTYPE(linux) FEATURE(use_cw_file) define(`confCW_FILE', `-o /etc/sendmail/sendmail.cw') FEATURE(mailertable,`hash -o /etc/sendmail/mailertable.db') FEATURE(local_procmail) define(`STATUS_FILE',`/etc/sendmail/sendmail.st') MAILER(procmail) MAILER(smtp) and then run m4 on this :-)-O I remember using something to BSMTP to batch the mails and gzip the batches, very efficient. UUPC/Extended is another very cool story. Initially written by the well known Rick Lamb, and then brought into prime time by Drew Derbyshire who wanted to communicate with his girlfriend on the other coast of the US (which worked out apparently, resulting in her surname change :-)-O). A friend of mine wrote a mini-elm for DOS so I wrote a little script to tie this together (I think 2000 lines of BAT or so :-)-O), this all worked so well, that even my mother could use it (she even figured MicroEmacs out) :-)-O As late as in the early 2000?s I corresponded with colleagues from Cuba working in my hospital in Namibia (when they went home on leave) and found UUPC/Extended headers in the mails, apparently phone calls are free inside Cuba so the universities and hospitals used that. Never mind the political baggage surrounding. el ? Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 On 8 Nov 2019, 05:00 +0100, Jorge Amodio , wrote: > > [?] > Later it got more interesting?using sendmail to digest and process the mail queues, we also used for a while another mail processing program from the University of Toronto, hmm was it cfmail, can't remember the name now. Not as cryptic as the sendmail configuration but still sort of black magic stuff, but highly efficient processing multiple queues for our old national "gateway" [?] -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 11:16:28 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:16:28 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Craig - that fills in some detail from after I "lost track".?? But I'm still not sure if it's Simple Networks, Simple Management, or Simple Protocol.... My use of the term "NMP" was probably misleading - it was more of a concept than a Protocol.? At the time, whenever you started a new project, one of the obvious first tasks was to define the necessary protocol.? NMP might better expand to Network Management Principles - the concepts, techniques, mechanisms, and tools that had developed over the previous decade of ARPANET operations. In ARPANET operations, I wasn't there until 1977 but there were lots of horror stories from that first decade of operational experience that fed into thinking about managing the neonatal Internet.? There had been situations in the ARPANET such as some minor problem somewhere that would flood the network with management traffic as every node that noticed a problem had to yell "Fire! Fire!" strongly and continuously.? The NMP (Principles) had evolved to preclude such events. I still think of that ARPANET "NMP" experience as the ultimate source leading to the later work on management in the Internet.? But that's just what I saw from my viewpoint, so there were probably other contemporaneous sources of inspiration as well.? Maybe someone will write about those too.? E.G., how did Xerox do such things in their internet universe...?? Or maybe Novell? Some other factoids I recalled: ??? - The original ARPANET management software at BBN was called "U", for Utilities.? Later we developed a successor tool, cleverly called "NU", for New Utilities.?? I'm pretty sure that the Internet management was integrated into NU when the NOC assumed 24x7 operations responsibility. ??? - There was another possibly related project I ran at BBN in the early 80s called "Remote Site Maintenance" or RSM.? This involved doing SysAdmin tasks remotely, managing a bunch of Unix systems that had no local expertise at their remote sites.?? For extra flavor, those Unix systems were all Navy machines in classified environments, which added a lot of pragmatic complexity.?? You couldn't just ssh in to the Unix console as root....? That project is somewhat documented in the BBN CCRs.? I suspect the experience fed into the subsequent work involving "Host Management". --------- While I'm thinking of it, here's a little more Internet history, early 1990s.? This time it's from my "outsider" perspective, i.e., as a mere User, just trying to use this newfangled internet stuff. When I joined Oracle in 1990, our group had responsibility for development of Internet-related products, and also for operating/managing the corporate internal internet (intranet?).? At the time, it was pretty sizable, with nodes (most, maybe all, Cisco routers) in ~100+ countries, growing rapidly.?? There were virtually no management tools available so operating our internet was like driving blindfolded from fire to fire.?? Of course we couldn't even look at the router or hosts' TCP/IP code!?? That's how users saw the Internet... I dove back into the Internet world, from the "outside", to see what kind of tools were around.? It was harder then since TimBL hadn't invented the Web yet.?? I found some of the old familiar tools, e.g., traceroute, ping, tcpdump, and flakeway but not much else.?? There were lots of documents (RFCs et al), but little code to be found. Since Oracle's mission was to provide software on any computer you liked, we had at least one of every kind of computer you can imagine.? Our data center was kaleidoscopic rather than all blue or red or whatever color the manufacturer picked.?? I noticed that a mechanism (MIB?) had been defined for getting information out of a TCP on a host -- but didn't find a single computer that seemed to have implemented it. Two of us sat down one day and started playing with the tools we found in some Unix system (probably a Sun workstation) - mainly SNMP basics, something like "snmpget", "snmpput" or such.?? We made up some shell scripts that collected information continuously from all of our cisco routers scattered around the world, and simply stuffed it all into a database.? A MIB in database lingo is akin to a "schema" and the contents are just data, so it was a natural use for a database.? A few more shell scripts collected things like ping data for roundtrip times and it all went into the database.?? Curiously, I don't recall that we had to deal with ASN.1, but maybe I've suppressed such memories. Of course there were lots of tools developed over the years in the database world to analyze, manipulate, compare, and display data, and to create new data such as trends and predictions.? Data becomes Information.? We also had lots of people who knew how to use those tools.?? I think it took a few days to put together a very useful NOC/NCC that included things like real-time display of network behavior, traffic history and trends, and the like.? Much of that time involved setting up more workstations to make a wall of displays.? The software was mostly a few pages of shell scripts and fragments of SQL. That experience made me realize that much of the work of "managing internets" is about manipulating data, and that there was lots of off-the-shelf software available for making raw network data into useful management information.?? I wish we had realized that 10 years earlier.? It might have greatly simplified many things in addition to internet management. E.g., DNS could readily be characterized as a distributed database.? Even the routing mechanism of gateways can be viewed as a distributed database. But I, at least, never had databases "on my radar", and I don't recall anyone else in the Internet community ever mentioning databases as possible components in any system, or offering any database-world techniques for consideration (e.g., "two-phase commit").??? We didn't speak that language.? Perhaps that's because we never encountered them in school so didn't know much about them.? Also, the Internet community seemed inclined to shun technologies from the "Real World", except sometimes for hardware and operating systems. The History of The Internet is also about Roads Not Taken (with apologies to Robert Frost...) /Jack Haverty On 11/8/19 6:56 AM, Craig Partridge wrote: > Hi Jack: > > You're crossing network management streams. > > SNMP had nothing to do with NMP except, perhaps, some influences on > Marty Schoffstall.? You are probably thinking of HMP (Host Management > Protocol). > > Around 1983, network management work at BBN started going down two > paths.? One was the stuff that Hinden's team was doing for the NOC.? > The other was Jil Wescott's distributed network management system (I > think called NOMS?) with Charlie Lynn and I think Ross Callon and > Karen Seo and, briefly me, working on it.? Then DCA funded a large > project (name I've forgotten) trying to build a better suite of tools > (but not protocols as I recall) for the MILNET NOC. That work never > made it out of BBN. > > In 1987, NSF realized the cupboard for multi-vendor network management > protocols was bare.? Steve Wolff asked me to come up with a solution, > which become HEMS and was based on my experience with NOMS and > discussions at IETF and some great ideas from Glenn Trewitt (who had > been dealing with Stanford's substantial internet).? Jeff Case and > Marty Schoffstall (and others) felt HEMS was too complex to deploy > ASAP (and ASAP was the need -- NSFNET was growing like topsy) and > devised SGMP (Simple Gateway Management Protocol) which the IETF then > evolved into SNMP. > > Thanks! > > Craig > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:33 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history > > wrote: > > On 11/7/19 1:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > > Don't forget CMIP, HEMS AND SNMP > > Hmmm.?? Well, what I remember is: > > SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP > (Network Management Protocol).?? As I recall, NMP was more of a > concept > than a protocol.? It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. > > As we were struggling to make the Internet 24x7, we did a lot of > cogitating about what it meant to manage a network, which went well > beyond basic real-time monitoring and control.?? In addition to the > Internet "core gateways", at BBN we were managing and/or operating a > variety of networks, so we had a fairly broad view of the issues that > crop as you operate and evolve networks over 5 or 10 years. > > One dimension of that exploration was into life-cycle management.? > That > involved things like how to measure traffic statistics and patterns, > identify and predict trends, plan for topology alterations to handle > future traffic, plan for changes needed to add new users or > applications, etc. > > It also included operational disturbances.? How do you deploy a new > major software release without disrupting users' activities?? How > do you > add a large number of new users with a new application without > disrupting current activity??? How do you debug problems, without > disrupting other users? > > In the DDN context, a memorable one of those was the release of a > major > new IMP version.? To make that run smoothly, we had to create a lot of > mechanisms and processes even beyond those needed within the IMPs > themselves to smoothly convert to the new release.? E.G., we created a > service product called "TestNet" which allowed systems integrators to > test and debug their software in the new environment via a dial-up > link > and get it all running smoothly before going live in the users' > environment. > > I recall one motivation for that was some Army system -- the one that > provided payroll services and issued the soldiers' checks.? If it > didn't > work the week after the software transition.... well, those guys have > some serious capability to protest such disrespect. > > At one point an ARPANET clone was involved in the systems that are > used > by the officers at points of entry into the US.? When something was > wrong... well, it seemed like having a BBN identifier on your > paperwork > made you much more likely to be randomly selected for extra > scrutiny at > the airport. > > Another dimension of network management was into management of > resources > - i.e., respecting the "boundaries" Dave mentioned.? This came up > in the > context of SATNET and the VAN Gateway (ARPANET connected to the public > X.25 world).?? Whoever owned something, and paid for its operation, > wanted it used for their purposes only.?? So ARPA research traffic > could > use SATNET, but other stuff should use the X.25 service (and > getting the > bill to go to the right place depended on quirky details like > which side > "dialed the phone" to establish the X.25 connection between > gateways.)? > In the technical environment, this requirement appeared as "policy > routing" and related technologies, protocols, etc.? > > Resource management extended into the security world as well, i.e., > making sure that only authorized "people" (humans, computers, > software, > whatever) were able to access only the appropriate resources.?? It > also > impacted functionality like TOS - how do you make traffic go down the > most appropriate path for the kind of service it required. > > All of that kind of "management" was folded under "Network > Management".? > It was, and is, a huge area.?? It went far beyond the basic > monitoring/control of SNMP.? But to get something quickly for the > network we were trying to operate, SNMP was created. > > SNMP was Simple Network Management Protocol.? I remember we had > discussions about exactly which noun the adjective "Simple" was > modifying.?? My thought was that it really should have been Simple > Protocol for Simple Management of Simple Networks - i.e., SPSMSN or > something like that. > > Anyway, SNMP was an "interim" solution while the larger issues were > sorted out.? I recall that Bob Kahn and I circa 1983 initiated a new > project area called "Automated Network Management" where we would > explore the more esoteric resource management ideas aligned with > ARPA's > charter.? We also put together (got funded) projects from several > of the > various "operational" clients we had, who were pretty desperate for > near-term pragmatic tools to help them manage their own stuff (those > research guys never write the Users' Manual!).?? All of that combined > would make a foundation project for further NMP development. > > Sometime in late 1983, I lost track of the "NMP" work.?? BBN > reorganized > and those various projects and contracts ended up scattered around to > different divisions after the upheavals settled.? I think that > separation of the? "research" and "operational" worlds might have > had a > noticeable effect on the history of the Internet, by breaking the > "pipeline" from research to operations that Vint started when he moved > the gateways to become 24x7 services. > > I don't know anything about HEMS.? It may be what later came out > of the > Automated Network Management project as a protocol part of NMP, > but I'm > not sure if it ever got deployed or transitioned and used in any > of the > operational network environments. > > I know even less about CMIP.? I could never get my teeth into ISO > technology.? There wasn't any code to play with, and every time I > tried > to read those stacks of documents I'd fall asleep. > > Fun times though, > > /Jack Haverty > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities > and mailing lists. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Nov 8 11:16:28 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:16:28 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Craig - that fills in some detail from after I "lost track".?? But I'm still not sure if it's Simple Networks, Simple Management, or Simple Protocol.... My use of the term "NMP" was probably misleading - it was more of a concept than a Protocol.? At the time, whenever you started a new project, one of the obvious first tasks was to define the necessary protocol.? NMP might better expand to Network Management Principles - the concepts, techniques, mechanisms, and tools that had developed over the previous decade of ARPANET operations. In ARPANET operations, I wasn't there until 1977 but there were lots of horror stories from that first decade of operational experience that fed into thinking about managing the neonatal Internet.? There had been situations in the ARPANET such as some minor problem somewhere that would flood the network with management traffic as every node that noticed a problem had to yell "Fire! Fire!" strongly and continuously.? The NMP (Principles) had evolved to preclude such events. I still think of that ARPANET "NMP" experience as the ultimate source leading to the later work on management in the Internet.? But that's just what I saw from my viewpoint, so there were probably other contemporaneous sources of inspiration as well.? Maybe someone will write about those too.? E.G., how did Xerox do such things in their internet universe...?? Or maybe Novell? Some other factoids I recalled: ??? - The original ARPANET management software at BBN was called "U", for Utilities.? Later we developed a successor tool, cleverly called "NU", for New Utilities.?? I'm pretty sure that the Internet management was integrated into NU when the NOC assumed 24x7 operations responsibility. ??? - There was another possibly related project I ran at BBN in the early 80s called "Remote Site Maintenance" or RSM.? This involved doing SysAdmin tasks remotely, managing a bunch of Unix systems that had no local expertise at their remote sites.?? For extra flavor, those Unix systems were all Navy machines in classified environments, which added a lot of pragmatic complexity.?? You couldn't just ssh in to the Unix console as root....? That project is somewhat documented in the BBN CCRs.? I suspect the experience fed into the subsequent work involving "Host Management". --------- While I'm thinking of it, here's a little more Internet history, early 1990s.? This time it's from my "outsider" perspective, i.e., as a mere User, just trying to use this newfangled internet stuff. When I joined Oracle in 1990, our group had responsibility for development of Internet-related products, and also for operating/managing the corporate internal internet (intranet?).? At the time, it was pretty sizable, with nodes (most, maybe all, Cisco routers) in ~100+ countries, growing rapidly.?? There were virtually no management tools available so operating our internet was like driving blindfolded from fire to fire.?? Of course we couldn't even look at the router or hosts' TCP/IP code!?? That's how users saw the Internet... I dove back into the Internet world, from the "outside", to see what kind of tools were around.? It was harder then since TimBL hadn't invented the Web yet.?? I found some of the old familiar tools, e.g., traceroute, ping, tcpdump, and flakeway but not much else.?? There were lots of documents (RFCs et al), but little code to be found. Since Oracle's mission was to provide software on any computer you liked, we had at least one of every kind of computer you can imagine.? Our data center was kaleidoscopic rather than all blue or red or whatever color the manufacturer picked.?? I noticed that a mechanism (MIB?) had been defined for getting information out of a TCP on a host -- but didn't find a single computer that seemed to have implemented it. Two of us sat down one day and started playing with the tools we found in some Unix system (probably a Sun workstation) - mainly SNMP basics, something like "snmpget", "snmpput" or such.?? We made up some shell scripts that collected information continuously from all of our cisco routers scattered around the world, and simply stuffed it all into a database.? A MIB in database lingo is akin to a "schema" and the contents are just data, so it was a natural use for a database.? A few more shell scripts collected things like ping data for roundtrip times and it all went into the database.?? Curiously, I don't recall that we had to deal with ASN.1, but maybe I've suppressed such memories. Of course there were lots of tools developed over the years in the database world to analyze, manipulate, compare, and display data, and to create new data such as trends and predictions.? Data becomes Information.? We also had lots of people who knew how to use those tools.?? I think it took a few days to put together a very useful NOC/NCC that included things like real-time display of network behavior, traffic history and trends, and the like.? Much of that time involved setting up more workstations to make a wall of displays.? The software was mostly a few pages of shell scripts and fragments of SQL. That experience made me realize that much of the work of "managing internets" is about manipulating data, and that there was lots of off-the-shelf software available for making raw network data into useful management information.?? I wish we had realized that 10 years earlier.? It might have greatly simplified many things in addition to internet management. E.g., DNS could readily be characterized as a distributed database.? Even the routing mechanism of gateways can be viewed as a distributed database. But I, at least, never had databases "on my radar", and I don't recall anyone else in the Internet community ever mentioning databases as possible components in any system, or offering any database-world techniques for consideration (e.g., "two-phase commit").??? We didn't speak that language.? Perhaps that's because we never encountered them in school so didn't know much about them.? Also, the Internet community seemed inclined to shun technologies from the "Real World", except sometimes for hardware and operating systems. The History of The Internet is also about Roads Not Taken (with apologies to Robert Frost...) /Jack Haverty On 11/8/19 6:56 AM, Craig Partridge wrote: > Hi Jack: > > You're crossing network management streams. > > SNMP had nothing to do with NMP except, perhaps, some influences on > Marty Schoffstall.? You are probably thinking of HMP (Host Management > Protocol). > > Around 1983, network management work at BBN started going down two > paths.? One was the stuff that Hinden's team was doing for the NOC.? > The other was Jil Wescott's distributed network management system (I > think called NOMS?) with Charlie Lynn and I think Ross Callon and > Karen Seo and, briefly me, working on it.? Then DCA funded a large > project (name I've forgotten) trying to build a better suite of tools > (but not protocols as I recall) for the MILNET NOC. That work never > made it out of BBN. > > In 1987, NSF realized the cupboard for multi-vendor network management > protocols was bare.? Steve Wolff asked me to come up with a solution, > which become HEMS and was based on my experience with NOMS and > discussions at IETF and some great ideas from Glenn Trewitt (who had > been dealing with Stanford's substantial internet).? Jeff Case and > Marty Schoffstall (and others) felt HEMS was too complex to deploy > ASAP (and ASAP was the need -- NSFNET was growing like topsy) and > devised SGMP (Simple Gateway Management Protocol) which the IETF then > evolved into SNMP. > > Thanks! > > Craig > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:33 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history > > wrote: > > On 11/7/19 1:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > > Don't forget CMIP, HEMS AND SNMP > > Hmmm.?? Well, what I remember is: > > SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP > (Network Management Protocol).?? As I recall, NMP was more of a > concept > than a protocol.? It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. > > As we were struggling to make the Internet 24x7, we did a lot of > cogitating about what it meant to manage a network, which went well > beyond basic real-time monitoring and control.?? In addition to the > Internet "core gateways", at BBN we were managing and/or operating a > variety of networks, so we had a fairly broad view of the issues that > crop as you operate and evolve networks over 5 or 10 years. > > One dimension of that exploration was into life-cycle management.? > That > involved things like how to measure traffic statistics and patterns, > identify and predict trends, plan for topology alterations to handle > future traffic, plan for changes needed to add new users or > applications, etc. > > It also included operational disturbances.? How do you deploy a new > major software release without disrupting users' activities?? How > do you > add a large number of new users with a new application without > disrupting current activity??? How do you debug problems, without > disrupting other users? > > In the DDN context, a memorable one of those was the release of a > major > new IMP version.? To make that run smoothly, we had to create a lot of > mechanisms and processes even beyond those needed within the IMPs > themselves to smoothly convert to the new release.? E.G., we created a > service product called "TestNet" which allowed systems integrators to > test and debug their software in the new environment via a dial-up > link > and get it all running smoothly before going live in the users' > environment. > > I recall one motivation for that was some Army system -- the one that > provided payroll services and issued the soldiers' checks.? If it > didn't > work the week after the software transition.... well, those guys have > some serious capability to protest such disrespect. > > At one point an ARPANET clone was involved in the systems that are > used > by the officers at points of entry into the US.? When something was > wrong... well, it seemed like having a BBN identifier on your > paperwork > made you much more likely to be randomly selected for extra > scrutiny at > the airport. > > Another dimension of network management was into management of > resources > - i.e., respecting the "boundaries" Dave mentioned.? This came up > in the > context of SATNET and the VAN Gateway (ARPANET connected to the public > X.25 world).?? Whoever owned something, and paid for its operation, > wanted it used for their purposes only.?? So ARPA research traffic > could > use SATNET, but other stuff should use the X.25 service (and > getting the > bill to go to the right place depended on quirky details like > which side > "dialed the phone" to establish the X.25 connection between > gateways.)? > In the technical environment, this requirement appeared as "policy > routing" and related technologies, protocols, etc.? > > Resource management extended into the security world as well, i.e., > making sure that only authorized "people" (humans, computers, > software, > whatever) were able to access only the appropriate resources.?? It > also > impacted functionality like TOS - how do you make traffic go down the > most appropriate path for the kind of service it required. > > All of that kind of "management" was folded under "Network > Management".? > It was, and is, a huge area.?? It went far beyond the basic > monitoring/control of SNMP.? But to get something quickly for the > network we were trying to operate, SNMP was created. > > SNMP was Simple Network Management Protocol.? I remember we had > discussions about exactly which noun the adjective "Simple" was > modifying.?? My thought was that it really should have been Simple > Protocol for Simple Management of Simple Networks - i.e., SPSMSN or > something like that. > > Anyway, SNMP was an "interim" solution while the larger issues were > sorted out.? I recall that Bob Kahn and I circa 1983 initiated a new > project area called "Automated Network Management" where we would > explore the more esoteric resource management ideas aligned with > ARPA's > charter.? We also put together (got funded) projects from several > of the > various "operational" clients we had, who were pretty desperate for > near-term pragmatic tools to help them manage their own stuff (those > research guys never write the Users' Manual!).?? All of that combined > would make a foundation project for further NMP development. > > Sometime in late 1983, I lost track of the "NMP" work.?? BBN > reorganized > and those various projects and contracts ended up scattered around to > different divisions after the upheavals settled.? I think that > separation of the? "research" and "operational" worlds might have > had a > noticeable effect on the history of the Internet, by breaking the > "pipeline" from research to operations that Vint started when he moved > the gateways to become 24x7 services. > > I don't know anything about HEMS.? It may be what later came out > of the > Automated Network Management project as a protocol part of NMP, > but I'm > not sure if it ever got deployed or transitioned and used in any > of the > operational network environments. > > I know even less about CMIP.? I could never get my teeth into ISO > technology.? There wasn't any code to play with, and every time I > tried > to read those stacks of documents I'd fall asleep. > > Fun times though, > > /Jack Haverty > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities > and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 09:54:36 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Craig Partridge via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 10:54:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:20 AM John Day wrote: > You told me once the implementation was smaller. Also, I also know from > Randy Presuhn that the CMIP implementation was smaller than SNMP as well. > It seemed that lexicographical order takes more code that object-oriented. > For me, HEMS would have been a better way forward. A few years earlier > IEEE 802 had tried a protocol like SNMP and found it inferior, which is why > CMIP was done. Also that HEMS used TCP for request/response and UDP for > events was simply sane, rather than trying to do everything over UDP. In > which case, GetNest is unnecessary. The inability to get a snapshot of > anything large-ish was a real problem. > Your recollection is better than mine. I have a vague recollection that the initial SNMP implementations were large because they had some ASN library or code generator that generated volumes of code, while HEMS had a much tighter handwritten ASN.1 module. I don't know if that would have been true in perpetuity. > > A further advantage would have been had by CMIP since it could use the > Packed-Encoding Rules for ASN.1 rather than having to use the Basic > Encoding Rules wired into SNMP. PER was sufficiently efficient that often > compressing a PER encoding was larger. > BER was wired into HEMS to support the private MIBs. Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 09:20:36 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (John Day via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:20:36 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: You told me once the implementation was smaller. Also, I also know from Randy Presuhn that the CMIP implementation was smaller than SNMP as well. It seemed that lexicographical order takes more code that object-oriented. For me, HEMS would have been a better way forward. A few years earlier IEEE 802 had tried a protocol like SNMP and found it inferior, which is why CMIP was done. Also that HEMS used TCP for request/response and UDP for events was simply sane, rather than trying to do everything over UDP. In which case, GetNest is unnecessary. The inability to get a snapshot of anything large-ish was a real problem. A further advantage would have been had by CMIP since it could use the Packed-Encoding Rules for ASN.1 rather than having to use the Basic Encoding Rules wired into SNMP. PER was sufficiently efficient that often compressing a PER encoding was larger. I always got a good laugh that SNMPv1 was insecure as argued by certain router vendors. It would be okay for monitoring but not for configuration. Of course, strictly speaking, it was insecure. (My rejoinder was, Isn?t ASN.1 an encryption algorithm?) ;-) Their solution was a telnet connection with passwords in the clear. Almost no one had an ASN.1 compiler but every PC had a telnet program. Hilarious. > On Nov 8, 2019, at 11:44, Craig Partridge wrote: > > Hi John: > > Thanks for the nice words about HEMS! > > It is hard to make the assessment of which would have been more simpler and smaller now, some 30 years later, but since this list is about rethinking and understanding the past I'll take a swing at it. > > Both HEMS and SNMP had similar MIB structures -- a named tree with data formatted in ASN.1. Both would have required similar amounts of software to locate, manage, and configure MIB variables. Not surprising as SNMP was designed to be a stripped down HEMS. So the issue is how much the features that SNMP stripped out of HEMS came back to bite the SNMP implementers. Clearly proxies, which HEMS handled seamlessly, required more code in SNMP. Also HEMS handled private MIBs seamlessly (you just added your private variables to the MIB -- HEMS leveraged ASN.1 to make those variables self-describing), while incorporating private MIB definitions is a continuing pain for SNMP management stations. But HEMS had a (simple) language interpreter that SNMP did not and a much richer system for traps. In the balance, I'd guess management station code for SNMP would be bigger and more complex and that SNMP on the managed device would be about equal except for the simplest of devices (where SNMP would win). Your mileage may vary. > > Thanks! > > Craig > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:00 AM John Day > wrote: > And from what I understand, the HEMS implementation turned out to be simpler and smaller than the SNMP implementation. > > > On Nov 8, 2019, at 09:56, Craig Partridge via Internet-history > wrote: > > > > Hi Jack: > > > > You're crossing network management streams. > > > > SNMP had nothing to do with NMP except, perhaps, some influences on Marty > > Schoffstall. You are probably thinking of HMP (Host Management Protocol). > > > > Around 1983, network management work at BBN started going down two paths. > > One was the stuff that Hinden's team was doing for the NOC. The other was > > Jil Wescott's distributed network management system (I think called NOMS?) > > with Charlie Lynn and I think Ross Callon and Karen Seo and, briefly me, > > working on it. Then DCA funded a large project (name I've forgotten) > > trying to build a better suite of tools (but not protocols as I recall) for > > the MILNET NOC. That work never made it out of BBN. > > > > In 1987, NSF realized the cupboard for multi-vendor network management > > protocols was bare. Steve Wolff asked me to come up with a solution, which > > become HEMS and was based on my experience with NOMS and discussions at > > IETF and some great ideas from Glenn Trewitt (who had been dealing with > > Stanford's substantial internet). Jeff Case and Marty Schoffstall (and > > others) felt HEMS was too complex to deploy ASAP (and ASAP was the need -- > > NSFNET was growing like topsy) and devised SGMP (Simple Gateway Management > > Protocol) which the IETF then evolved into SNMP. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Craig > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:33 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org > wrote: > > > >> On 11/7/19 1:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > >> > >>> Don't forget CMIP, HEMS AND SNMP > >> > >> Hmmm. Well, what I remember is: > >> > >> SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP > >> (Network Management Protocol). As I recall, NMP was more of a concept > >> than a protocol. It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. > >> > >> As we were struggling to make the Internet 24x7, we did a lot of > >> cogitating about what it meant to manage a network, which went well > >> beyond basic real-time monitoring and control. In addition to the > >> Internet "core gateways", at BBN we were managing and/or operating a > >> variety of networks, so we had a fairly broad view of the issues that > >> crop as you operate and evolve networks over 5 or 10 years. > >> > >> One dimension of that exploration was into life-cycle management. That > >> involved things like how to measure traffic statistics and patterns, > >> identify and predict trends, plan for topology alterations to handle > >> future traffic, plan for changes needed to add new users or > >> applications, etc. > >> > >> It also included operational disturbances. How do you deploy a new > >> major software release without disrupting users' activities? How do you > >> add a large number of new users with a new application without > >> disrupting current activity? How do you debug problems, without > >> disrupting other users? > >> > >> In the DDN context, a memorable one of those was the release of a major > >> new IMP version. To make that run smoothly, we had to create a lot of > >> mechanisms and processes even beyond those needed within the IMPs > >> themselves to smoothly convert to the new release. E.G., we created a > >> service product called "TestNet" which allowed systems integrators to > >> test and debug their software in the new environment via a dial-up link > >> and get it all running smoothly before going live in the users' > >> environment. > >> > >> I recall one motivation for that was some Army system -- the one that > >> provided payroll services and issued the soldiers' checks. If it didn't > >> work the week after the software transition.... well, those guys have > >> some serious capability to protest such disrespect. > >> > >> At one point an ARPANET clone was involved in the systems that are used > >> by the officers at points of entry into the US. When something was > >> wrong... well, it seemed like having a BBN identifier on your paperwork > >> made you much more likely to be randomly selected for extra scrutiny at > >> the airport. > >> > >> Another dimension of network management was into management of resources > >> - i.e., respecting the "boundaries" Dave mentioned. This came up in the > >> context of SATNET and the VAN Gateway (ARPANET connected to the public > >> X.25 world). Whoever owned something, and paid for its operation, > >> wanted it used for their purposes only. So ARPA research traffic could > >> use SATNET, but other stuff should use the X.25 service (and getting the > >> bill to go to the right place depended on quirky details like which side > >> "dialed the phone" to establish the X.25 connection between gateways.) > >> In the technical environment, this requirement appeared as "policy > >> routing" and related technologies, protocols, etc. > >> > >> Resource management extended into the security world as well, i.e., > >> making sure that only authorized "people" (humans, computers, software, > >> whatever) were able to access only the appropriate resources. It also > >> impacted functionality like TOS - how do you make traffic go down the > >> most appropriate path for the kind of service it required. > >> > >> All of that kind of "management" was folded under "Network Management". > >> It was, and is, a huge area. It went far beyond the basic > >> monitoring/control of SNMP. But to get something quickly for the > >> network we were trying to operate, SNMP was created. > >> > >> SNMP was Simple Network Management Protocol. I remember we had > >> discussions about exactly which noun the adjective "Simple" was > >> modifying. My thought was that it really should have been Simple > >> Protocol for Simple Management of Simple Networks - i.e., SPSMSN or > >> something like that. > >> > >> Anyway, SNMP was an "interim" solution while the larger issues were > >> sorted out. I recall that Bob Kahn and I circa 1983 initiated a new > >> project area called "Automated Network Management" where we would > >> explore the more esoteric resource management ideas aligned with ARPA's > >> charter. We also put together (got funded) projects from several of the > >> various "operational" clients we had, who were pretty desperate for > >> near-term pragmatic tools to help them manage their own stuff (those > >> research guys never write the Users' Manual!). All of that combined > >> would make a foundation project for further NMP development. > >> > >> Sometime in late 1983, I lost track of the "NMP" work. BBN reorganized > >> and those various projects and contracts ended up scattered around to > >> different divisions after the upheavals settled. I think that > >> separation of the "research" and "operational" worlds might have had a > >> noticeable effect on the history of the Internet, by breaking the > >> "pipeline" from research to operations that Vint started when he moved > >> the gateways to become 24x7 services. > >> > >> I don't know anything about HEMS. It may be what later came out of the > >> Automated Network Management project as a protocol part of NMP, but I'm > >> not sure if it ever got deployed or transitioned and used in any of the > >> operational network environments. > >> > >> I know even less about CMIP. I could never get my teeth into ISO > >> technology. There wasn't any code to play with, and every time I tried > >> to read those stacks of documents I'd fall asleep. > >> > >> Fun times though, > >> > >> /Jack Haverty > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > > > > > > -- > > ***** > > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and > > mailing lists. > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From craig at tereschau.net Fri Nov 8 08:44:41 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:44:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> Message-ID: Hi John: Thanks for the nice words about HEMS! It is hard to make the assessment of which would have been more simpler and smaller now, some 30 years later, but since this list is about rethinking and understanding the past I'll take a swing at it. Both HEMS and SNMP had similar MIB structures -- a named tree with data formatted in ASN.1. Both would have required similar amounts of software to locate, manage, and configure MIB variables. Not surprising as SNMP was designed to be a stripped down HEMS. So the issue is how much the features that SNMP stripped out of HEMS came back to bite the SNMP implementers. Clearly proxies, which HEMS handled seamlessly, required more code in SNMP. Also HEMS handled private MIBs seamlessly (you just added your private variables to the MIB -- HEMS leveraged ASN.1 to make those variables self-describing), while incorporating private MIB definitions is a continuing pain for SNMP management stations. But HEMS had a (simple) language interpreter that SNMP did not and a much richer system for traps. In the balance, I'd guess management station code for SNMP would be bigger and more complex and that SNMP on the managed device would be about equal except for the simplest of devices (where SNMP would win). Your mileage may vary. Thanks! Craig On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:00 AM John Day wrote: > And from what I understand, the HEMS implementation turned out to be > simpler and smaller than the SNMP implementation. > > > On Nov 8, 2019, at 09:56, Craig Partridge via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Jack: > > > > You're crossing network management streams. > > > > SNMP had nothing to do with NMP except, perhaps, some influences on Marty > > Schoffstall. You are probably thinking of HMP (Host Management > Protocol). > > > > Around 1983, network management work at BBN started going down two paths. > > One was the stuff that Hinden's team was doing for the NOC. The other > was > > Jil Wescott's distributed network management system (I think called > NOMS?) > > with Charlie Lynn and I think Ross Callon and Karen Seo and, briefly me, > > working on it. Then DCA funded a large project (name I've forgotten) > > trying to build a better suite of tools (but not protocols as I recall) > for > > the MILNET NOC. That work never made it out of BBN. > > > > In 1987, NSF realized the cupboard for multi-vendor network management > > protocols was bare. Steve Wolff asked me to come up with a solution, > which > > become HEMS and was based on my experience with NOMS and discussions at > > IETF and some great ideas from Glenn Trewitt (who had been dealing with > > Stanford's substantial internet). Jeff Case and Marty Schoffstall (and > > others) felt HEMS was too complex to deploy ASAP (and ASAP was the need > -- > > NSFNET was growing like topsy) and devised SGMP (Simple Gateway > Management > > Protocol) which the IETF then evolved into SNMP. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Craig > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:33 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> On 11/7/19 1:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > >> > >>> Don't forget CMIP, HEMS AND SNMP > >> > >> Hmmm. Well, what I remember is: > >> > >> SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP > >> (Network Management Protocol). As I recall, NMP was more of a concept > >> than a protocol. It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. > >> > >> As we were struggling to make the Internet 24x7, we did a lot of > >> cogitating about what it meant to manage a network, which went well > >> beyond basic real-time monitoring and control. In addition to the > >> Internet "core gateways", at BBN we were managing and/or operating a > >> variety of networks, so we had a fairly broad view of the issues that > >> crop as you operate and evolve networks over 5 or 10 years. > >> > >> One dimension of that exploration was into life-cycle management. That > >> involved things like how to measure traffic statistics and patterns, > >> identify and predict trends, plan for topology alterations to handle > >> future traffic, plan for changes needed to add new users or > >> applications, etc. > >> > >> It also included operational disturbances. How do you deploy a new > >> major software release without disrupting users' activities? How do you > >> add a large number of new users with a new application without > >> disrupting current activity? How do you debug problems, without > >> disrupting other users? > >> > >> In the DDN context, a memorable one of those was the release of a major > >> new IMP version. To make that run smoothly, we had to create a lot of > >> mechanisms and processes even beyond those needed within the IMPs > >> themselves to smoothly convert to the new release. E.G., we created a > >> service product called "TestNet" which allowed systems integrators to > >> test and debug their software in the new environment via a dial-up link > >> and get it all running smoothly before going live in the users' > >> environment. > >> > >> I recall one motivation for that was some Army system -- the one that > >> provided payroll services and issued the soldiers' checks. If it didn't > >> work the week after the software transition.... well, those guys have > >> some serious capability to protest such disrespect. > >> > >> At one point an ARPANET clone was involved in the systems that are used > >> by the officers at points of entry into the US. When something was > >> wrong... well, it seemed like having a BBN identifier on your paperwork > >> made you much more likely to be randomly selected for extra scrutiny at > >> the airport. > >> > >> Another dimension of network management was into management of resources > >> - i.e., respecting the "boundaries" Dave mentioned. This came up in the > >> context of SATNET and the VAN Gateway (ARPANET connected to the public > >> X.25 world). Whoever owned something, and paid for its operation, > >> wanted it used for their purposes only. So ARPA research traffic could > >> use SATNET, but other stuff should use the X.25 service (and getting the > >> bill to go to the right place depended on quirky details like which side > >> "dialed the phone" to establish the X.25 connection between gateways.) > >> In the technical environment, this requirement appeared as "policy > >> routing" and related technologies, protocols, etc. > >> > >> Resource management extended into the security world as well, i.e., > >> making sure that only authorized "people" (humans, computers, software, > >> whatever) were able to access only the appropriate resources. It also > >> impacted functionality like TOS - how do you make traffic go down the > >> most appropriate path for the kind of service it required. > >> > >> All of that kind of "management" was folded under "Network Management". > >> It was, and is, a huge area. It went far beyond the basic > >> monitoring/control of SNMP. But to get something quickly for the > >> network we were trying to operate, SNMP was created. > >> > >> SNMP was Simple Network Management Protocol. I remember we had > >> discussions about exactly which noun the adjective "Simple" was > >> modifying. My thought was that it really should have been Simple > >> Protocol for Simple Management of Simple Networks - i.e., SPSMSN or > >> something like that. > >> > >> Anyway, SNMP was an "interim" solution while the larger issues were > >> sorted out. I recall that Bob Kahn and I circa 1983 initiated a new > >> project area called "Automated Network Management" where we would > >> explore the more esoteric resource management ideas aligned with ARPA's > >> charter. We also put together (got funded) projects from several of the > >> various "operational" clients we had, who were pretty desperate for > >> near-term pragmatic tools to help them manage their own stuff (those > >> research guys never write the Users' Manual!). All of that combined > >> would make a foundation project for further NMP development. > >> > >> Sometime in late 1983, I lost track of the "NMP" work. BBN reorganized > >> and those various projects and contracts ended up scattered around to > >> different divisions after the upheavals settled. I think that > >> separation of the "research" and "operational" worlds might have had a > >> noticeable effect on the history of the Internet, by breaking the > >> "pipeline" from research to operations that Vint started when he moved > >> the gateways to become 24x7 services. > >> > >> I don't know anything about HEMS. It may be what later came out of the > >> Automated Network Management project as a protocol part of NMP, but I'm > >> not sure if it ever got deployed or transitioned and used in any of the > >> operational network environments. > >> > >> I know even less about CMIP. I could never get my teeth into ISO > >> technology. There wasn't any code to play with, and every time I tried > >> to read those stacks of documents I'd fall asleep. > >> > >> Fun times though, > >> > >> /Jack Haverty > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > > > > > > -- > > ***** > > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and > > mailing lists. > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Fri Nov 8 07:26:21 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Bernie Cosell via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 10:26:21 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: <5DC5891D.25113.157B5BFF@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 8 Nov 2019 at 7:56, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > Around 1983, network management work at BBN started going down two > paths. > One was the stuff that Hinden's team was doing for the NOC. The other > was > Jil Wescott's distributed network management system (I think called > NOMS?) > with Charlie Lynn and I think Ross Callon and Karen Seo and, briefly > me, > working on it. I think that mutated into ANM [advanced network management]. Bruce Laird took it over and I was project lead. We were starting with the Lisp code that Jil's group had done and were porting/reinventing it as a distributed program for Sun workstations. We actually got it working and I heard, after I had retired and headed farm-wad, that it was actually in use in the CSNET. I forget who was working on it. For sure David Waitzman and Doug Gallagher. Bruce Laird or David will likely remember more about this than I do. Is either on this list? /Bernie\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm.com -- Too many people; too few sheep -- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Nov 8 07:00:22 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 10:00:22 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <37B805E0-3AB6-4D96-969C-1C0F13C6AE84@comcast.net> And from what I understand, the HEMS implementation turned out to be simpler and smaller than the SNMP implementation. > On Nov 8, 2019, at 09:56, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > > Hi Jack: > > You're crossing network management streams. > > SNMP had nothing to do with NMP except, perhaps, some influences on Marty > Schoffstall. You are probably thinking of HMP (Host Management Protocol). > > Around 1983, network management work at BBN started going down two paths. > One was the stuff that Hinden's team was doing for the NOC. The other was > Jil Wescott's distributed network management system (I think called NOMS?) > with Charlie Lynn and I think Ross Callon and Karen Seo and, briefly me, > working on it. Then DCA funded a large project (name I've forgotten) > trying to build a better suite of tools (but not protocols as I recall) for > the MILNET NOC. That work never made it out of BBN. > > In 1987, NSF realized the cupboard for multi-vendor network management > protocols was bare. Steve Wolff asked me to come up with a solution, which > become HEMS and was based on my experience with NOMS and discussions at > IETF and some great ideas from Glenn Trewitt (who had been dealing with > Stanford's substantial internet). Jeff Case and Marty Schoffstall (and > others) felt HEMS was too complex to deploy ASAP (and ASAP was the need -- > NSFNET was growing like topsy) and devised SGMP (Simple Gateway Management > Protocol) which the IETF then evolved into SNMP. > > Thanks! > > Craig > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:33 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 11/7/19 1:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >>> Don't forget CMIP, HEMS AND SNMP >> >> Hmmm. Well, what I remember is: >> >> SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP >> (Network Management Protocol). As I recall, NMP was more of a concept >> than a protocol. It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. >> >> As we were struggling to make the Internet 24x7, we did a lot of >> cogitating about what it meant to manage a network, which went well >> beyond basic real-time monitoring and control. In addition to the >> Internet "core gateways", at BBN we were managing and/or operating a >> variety of networks, so we had a fairly broad view of the issues that >> crop as you operate and evolve networks over 5 or 10 years. >> >> One dimension of that exploration was into life-cycle management. That >> involved things like how to measure traffic statistics and patterns, >> identify and predict trends, plan for topology alterations to handle >> future traffic, plan for changes needed to add new users or >> applications, etc. >> >> It also included operational disturbances. How do you deploy a new >> major software release without disrupting users' activities? How do you >> add a large number of new users with a new application without >> disrupting current activity? How do you debug problems, without >> disrupting other users? >> >> In the DDN context, a memorable one of those was the release of a major >> new IMP version. To make that run smoothly, we had to create a lot of >> mechanisms and processes even beyond those needed within the IMPs >> themselves to smoothly convert to the new release. E.G., we created a >> service product called "TestNet" which allowed systems integrators to >> test and debug their software in the new environment via a dial-up link >> and get it all running smoothly before going live in the users' >> environment. >> >> I recall one motivation for that was some Army system -- the one that >> provided payroll services and issued the soldiers' checks. If it didn't >> work the week after the software transition.... well, those guys have >> some serious capability to protest such disrespect. >> >> At one point an ARPANET clone was involved in the systems that are used >> by the officers at points of entry into the US. When something was >> wrong... well, it seemed like having a BBN identifier on your paperwork >> made you much more likely to be randomly selected for extra scrutiny at >> the airport. >> >> Another dimension of network management was into management of resources >> - i.e., respecting the "boundaries" Dave mentioned. This came up in the >> context of SATNET and the VAN Gateway (ARPANET connected to the public >> X.25 world). Whoever owned something, and paid for its operation, >> wanted it used for their purposes only. So ARPA research traffic could >> use SATNET, but other stuff should use the X.25 service (and getting the >> bill to go to the right place depended on quirky details like which side >> "dialed the phone" to establish the X.25 connection between gateways.) >> In the technical environment, this requirement appeared as "policy >> routing" and related technologies, protocols, etc. >> >> Resource management extended into the security world as well, i.e., >> making sure that only authorized "people" (humans, computers, software, >> whatever) were able to access only the appropriate resources. It also >> impacted functionality like TOS - how do you make traffic go down the >> most appropriate path for the kind of service it required. >> >> All of that kind of "management" was folded under "Network Management". >> It was, and is, a huge area. It went far beyond the basic >> monitoring/control of SNMP. But to get something quickly for the >> network we were trying to operate, SNMP was created. >> >> SNMP was Simple Network Management Protocol. I remember we had >> discussions about exactly which noun the adjective "Simple" was >> modifying. My thought was that it really should have been Simple >> Protocol for Simple Management of Simple Networks - i.e., SPSMSN or >> something like that. >> >> Anyway, SNMP was an "interim" solution while the larger issues were >> sorted out. I recall that Bob Kahn and I circa 1983 initiated a new >> project area called "Automated Network Management" where we would >> explore the more esoteric resource management ideas aligned with ARPA's >> charter. We also put together (got funded) projects from several of the >> various "operational" clients we had, who were pretty desperate for >> near-term pragmatic tools to help them manage their own stuff (those >> research guys never write the Users' Manual!). All of that combined >> would make a foundation project for further NMP development. >> >> Sometime in late 1983, I lost track of the "NMP" work. BBN reorganized >> and those various projects and contracts ended up scattered around to >> different divisions after the upheavals settled. I think that >> separation of the "research" and "operational" worlds might have had a >> noticeable effect on the history of the Internet, by breaking the >> "pipeline" from research to operations that Vint started when he moved >> the gateways to become 24x7 services. >> >> I don't know anything about HEMS. It may be what later came out of the >> Automated Network Management project as a protocol part of NMP, but I'm >> not sure if it ever got deployed or transitioned and used in any of the >> operational network environments. >> >> I know even less about CMIP. I could never get my teeth into ISO >> technology. There wasn't any code to play with, and every time I tried >> to read those stacks of documents I'd fall asleep. >> >> Fun times though, >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and > mailing lists. > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From craig at tereschau.net Fri Nov 8 06:56:21 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:56:21 -0700 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Hi Jack: You're crossing network management streams. SNMP had nothing to do with NMP except, perhaps, some influences on Marty Schoffstall. You are probably thinking of HMP (Host Management Protocol). Around 1983, network management work at BBN started going down two paths. One was the stuff that Hinden's team was doing for the NOC. The other was Jil Wescott's distributed network management system (I think called NOMS?) with Charlie Lynn and I think Ross Callon and Karen Seo and, briefly me, working on it. Then DCA funded a large project (name I've forgotten) trying to build a better suite of tools (but not protocols as I recall) for the MILNET NOC. That work never made it out of BBN. In 1987, NSF realized the cupboard for multi-vendor network management protocols was bare. Steve Wolff asked me to come up with a solution, which become HEMS and was based on my experience with NOMS and discussions at IETF and some great ideas from Glenn Trewitt (who had been dealing with Stanford's substantial internet). Jeff Case and Marty Schoffstall (and others) felt HEMS was too complex to deploy ASAP (and ASAP was the need -- NSFNET was growing like topsy) and devised SGMP (Simple Gateway Management Protocol) which the IETF then evolved into SNMP. Thanks! Craig On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:33 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 11/7/19 1:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > > > Don't forget CMIP, HEMS AND SNMP > > Hmmm. Well, what I remember is: > > SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP > (Network Management Protocol). As I recall, NMP was more of a concept > than a protocol. It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. > > As we were struggling to make the Internet 24x7, we did a lot of > cogitating about what it meant to manage a network, which went well > beyond basic real-time monitoring and control. In addition to the > Internet "core gateways", at BBN we were managing and/or operating a > variety of networks, so we had a fairly broad view of the issues that > crop as you operate and evolve networks over 5 or 10 years. > > One dimension of that exploration was into life-cycle management. That > involved things like how to measure traffic statistics and patterns, > identify and predict trends, plan for topology alterations to handle > future traffic, plan for changes needed to add new users or > applications, etc. > > It also included operational disturbances. How do you deploy a new > major software release without disrupting users' activities? How do you > add a large number of new users with a new application without > disrupting current activity? How do you debug problems, without > disrupting other users? > > In the DDN context, a memorable one of those was the release of a major > new IMP version. To make that run smoothly, we had to create a lot of > mechanisms and processes even beyond those needed within the IMPs > themselves to smoothly convert to the new release. E.G., we created a > service product called "TestNet" which allowed systems integrators to > test and debug their software in the new environment via a dial-up link > and get it all running smoothly before going live in the users' > environment. > > I recall one motivation for that was some Army system -- the one that > provided payroll services and issued the soldiers' checks. If it didn't > work the week after the software transition.... well, those guys have > some serious capability to protest such disrespect. > > At one point an ARPANET clone was involved in the systems that are used > by the officers at points of entry into the US. When something was > wrong... well, it seemed like having a BBN identifier on your paperwork > made you much more likely to be randomly selected for extra scrutiny at > the airport. > > Another dimension of network management was into management of resources > - i.e., respecting the "boundaries" Dave mentioned. This came up in the > context of SATNET and the VAN Gateway (ARPANET connected to the public > X.25 world). Whoever owned something, and paid for its operation, > wanted it used for their purposes only. So ARPA research traffic could > use SATNET, but other stuff should use the X.25 service (and getting the > bill to go to the right place depended on quirky details like which side > "dialed the phone" to establish the X.25 connection between gateways.) > In the technical environment, this requirement appeared as "policy > routing" and related technologies, protocols, etc. > > Resource management extended into the security world as well, i.e., > making sure that only authorized "people" (humans, computers, software, > whatever) were able to access only the appropriate resources. It also > impacted functionality like TOS - how do you make traffic go down the > most appropriate path for the kind of service it required. > > All of that kind of "management" was folded under "Network Management". > It was, and is, a huge area. It went far beyond the basic > monitoring/control of SNMP. But to get something quickly for the > network we were trying to operate, SNMP was created. > > SNMP was Simple Network Management Protocol. I remember we had > discussions about exactly which noun the adjective "Simple" was > modifying. My thought was that it really should have been Simple > Protocol for Simple Management of Simple Networks - i.e., SPSMSN or > something like that. > > Anyway, SNMP was an "interim" solution while the larger issues were > sorted out. I recall that Bob Kahn and I circa 1983 initiated a new > project area called "Automated Network Management" where we would > explore the more esoteric resource management ideas aligned with ARPA's > charter. We also put together (got funded) projects from several of the > various "operational" clients we had, who were pretty desperate for > near-term pragmatic tools to help them manage their own stuff (those > research guys never write the Users' Manual!). All of that combined > would make a foundation project for further NMP development. > > Sometime in late 1983, I lost track of the "NMP" work. BBN reorganized > and those various projects and contracts ended up scattered around to > different divisions after the upheavals settled. I think that > separation of the "research" and "operational" worlds might have had a > noticeable effect on the history of the Internet, by breaking the > "pipeline" from research to operations that Vint started when he moved > the gateways to become 24x7 services. > > I don't know anything about HEMS. It may be what later came out of the > Automated Network Management project as a protocol part of NMP, but I'm > not sure if it ever got deployed or transitioned and used in any of the > operational network environments. > > I know even less about CMIP. I could never get my teeth into ISO > technology. There wasn't any code to play with, and every time I tried > to read those stacks of documents I'd fall asleep. > > Fun times though, > > /Jack Haverty > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Nov 8 06:46:51 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 06:46:51 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <52285092-a88b-a3c2-ed8e-134ccd85d3aa@3kitty.org> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <18f19393-570d-74a4-9d36-2771a0b657fa@bbiw.net> <52285092-a88b-a3c2-ed8e-134ccd85d3aa@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <242a717a-eeae-cb23-037d-502b30e4f1f5@dcrocker.net> On 11/7/2019 4:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Marty Schoffstall was in the same group, and later an author of the SNMP > RFCs.? SNMP came quite a bit later, and that's when we had the musings > about exactly which component was meant to be "Simple". That's an historical linkage about Marty that I hadn't heard before. Thanks! > In retrospect, I think having the people doing development also in some > way responsible for operations is really important.? When you're > fighting fires with angry users lurking, there's little time for politics. Definitely. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 20:02:16 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jorge Amodio via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:02:16 -0600 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: References: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> Message-ID: Correcting myself, uux was to send the request for execution, uuxqt was the daemon (often ran after a uucico or via crontab) to scan the queue and execute if permitted. -J On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:00 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: > > Absolutely !! The uucp maps, I used to admin the chunk for .AR for a > while, collecting the records of each site, send it to Mary Ann Horton, > getting the updated ones from uunet and running pathalias every day, what a > pain !! > > Yes UUCP had several programs, uuxqt was to send a request for remote > execution. The original uuxqt only permitted execution at the host on the > other side of the "connection." We tweaked it to pass the ball along a path. > > Mail was simple a file transfer of two files, the envelope, the body of > the message, and a remote execution of the local mail program on the remote > site. > > Later it got more interesting using sendmail to digest and process the > mail queues, we also used for a while another mail processing program from > the University of Toronto, hmm was it cfmail, can't remember the name now. > Not as cryptic as the sendmail configuration but still sort of black magic > stuff, but highly efficient processing multiple queues for our old national > "gateway" > > It was fun ... we had some SPAM during those days, but mostly came in > metal cans :-) > > Cheers > Jorge > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:10 AM John R. Levine wrote: > >> > while the name is correct UUCP was not only a file copy mechanism, it >> also allowed execution of programs on the remote side (uux if I am not >> mistaken). That made pushing mails around possible. >> >> Right. It was both remote copy and remote execution, but remote >> execution >> is what made it useful. >> >> > It also allowed for batching and compressing and feeding mail into a >> rudimentary smail, or even into sendmail (brrrr!!!). >> >> We fed mail into all sorts of stuff. Remember the mapping project that >> tried to come up with the shortest bang path to everyone? >> >> R's >> John L, cca!ima!johnl > > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 20:00:03 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jorge Amodio via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:00:03 -0600 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: References: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> Message-ID: Absolutely !! The uucp maps, I used to admin the chunk for .AR for a while, collecting the records of each site, send it to Mary Ann Horton, getting the updated ones from uunet and running pathalias every day, what a pain !! Yes UUCP had several programs, uuxqt was to send a request for remote execution. The original uuxqt only permitted execution at the host on the other side of the "connection." We tweaked it to pass the ball along a path. Mail was simple a file transfer of two files, the envelope, the body of the message, and a remote execution of the local mail program on the remote site. Later it got more interesting using sendmail to digest and process the mail queues, we also used for a while another mail processing program from the University of Toronto, hmm was it cfmail, can't remember the name now. Not as cryptic as the sendmail configuration but still sort of black magic stuff, but highly efficient processing multiple queues for our old national "gateway" It was fun ... we had some SPAM during those days, but mostly came in metal cans :-) Cheers Jorge On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:10 AM John R. Levine wrote: > > while the name is correct UUCP was not only a file copy mechanism, it > also allowed execution of programs on the remote side (uux if I am not > mistaken). That made pushing mails around possible. > > Right. It was both remote copy and remote execution, but remote execution > is what made it useful. > > > It also allowed for batching and compressing and feeding mail into a > rudimentary smail, or even into sendmail (brrrr!!!). > > We fed mail into all sorts of stuff. Remember the mapping project that > tried to come up with the shortest bang path to everyone? > > R's > John L, cca!ima!johnl -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 19:51:16 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jorge Amodio via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:51:16 -0600 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: References: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Eberhard, yes uucp was used to copy/transfer files between unix boxes, uuxqt was the one used to send a command to execute on the remote system, actually it was also a file transfer but processed in a different way on the receiving end. The magic daemon performing the communication was uucico (Copy In Copy Out,) different implementations of uucico including various transfer protocols (which at the time we also talking about uucp protocol but it was sort of a family,) one of them was tailored for transfers via X.25 networks, there was one using TCP/IP as transport, various versions optimized to take advantage of the Telebit PEP Trailblazer modems, etc. Part of the initial negotiation phase on uucico was to set the protocol, like protocol "f" was a 7-bit used on X.25, "t" was for TCP links, "g" as far as I remember was for packet drivers, etc. We used uucp very extensively in those days, even for the project I was involved in to build a global network for the Argentinean Ministry of Foreign Affairs with all its embassies and consulates. To be honest, uucp with all its limitations and dealing the the local varieties of telco services around the world, ended being more effective and more fun than Telex :-) Cheers Jorge On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 8:54 AM Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > Jorge, > > while the name is correct UUCP was not only a file copy mechanism, it also > allowed execution of programs on the remote side (uux if I am not > mistaken). That made pushing mails around possible. > > It also allowed for batching and compressing and feeding mail into a > rudimentary smail, or even into sendmail (brrrr!!!). > > And when Taylor UUCP came along, sliding windows, longer packages and some > other stuff made this darn efficient. It can also run over TCP but that?s > rather counterproductive unless you use dialup. I am still very fond of > UUCP and even though Imam not using it any more I keep it on my computers > (like kermit). > > Btw, there was a thread about UUCP last year with Subject: [ih] Early > Internet history > > el > > ? > Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 > On 7 Nov 2019, 07:53 -0500, Jorge Amodio , wrote: > > > Actually UUCP was a file copy-transfer utility. > > UUCP = Unix to Unix CoPy > > In Argentina we started a major academic network using UUCP taking > advantage of a MSDOS implementation called at the time UUPC. > > Our first gateway to the ?Internet? was ?seismo? managed by Rick Adams, > which later became ?uunet? > > I was for some time uunet!atina!pete :-) > > -Jorge > > On Nov 6, 2019, at 2:01 PM, John Levine wrote: > > ?In article < > CAHxHggdmxtQOJdgmgrdLQkXe1QdrOOVd8jFea0p0mtPKCqahuA at mail.gmail.com> you > write: > > i think a lot of the interconnections were application layer gateways - > such as email relays. > Early USENET wasn't Internet if by this we mean TCP/IP based. UUCP was't > using TCP/IP ... > > > UUCP was a message forwarding transport protocol, USENET was (and is) > a distributed bulletin board system. UUCP was mostly over dialup > phone modems but I have heard claims that there is still the > occasional UUCP over TCP. > > From the beginning, we used UUCP for other applications, notably e-mail, > and USENET used other transports, ranging from LANs to mag tapes sent > by mail (and I don't mean e-mail.) > > R's > John L, cca!ima!johnl > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 16:36:44 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:36:44 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <18f19393-570d-74a4-9d36-2771a0b657fa@bbiw.net> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <18f19393-570d-74a4-9d36-2771a0b657fa@bbiw.net> Message-ID: <52285092-a88b-a3c2-ed8e-134ccd85d3aa@3kitty.org> I think the beginning of the story is captured in IEN 105 - see http://www.postel.org/ien/pdf/ien105.pdf?? David Floodpage wrote that in 1979, as part of our work in operating SATNET and beginning to think about how to use ARPANET-style tools in the context of the "Catenet" which Vint had popularized at the time as the name for what we now call Internet.??? David and Marty Schoffstall worked in my group on those kinds of things; Marty later was one of the authors of SNMP. I don't recall that much was ever written about the internal IMP operations and management tools and techniques developed during the ARPANET growth through the 70s.? So that technology may never have escaped BBN, or is perhaps captured in some obscure QTRs that few ever read.? But those "gateway guys", including Floodpage and Schoffstall, and the "Arpanet guys" were intermixed in the BBN building so lots of technology transfer occurred even if only in the hallways and around coffee. If you read IEN105, and replace "gateway" with "IMP", and "CMCC" with "NCC", you'll get a reasonable concept of how some of the ARPANET internals worked through the 70s.?? That was David's charter - to figure out and then transfer the ARPANET tools and methods into the "Catenet" world.? IIRC, this was all before the IETF got started.? I just looked at the "Internet Timeline" in RFC2235, which claims the IETF was created in 1986.? My personal recollection is that it happened much earlier; I recall being present at the ICCB meeting when the IETF and IRTF were formed out of the unwieldy "Internet Group".?? If it was 1986, I wouldn't have been there.? I'll have to look at my paper notebooks if the mold in the basement permits. I don't think there ever was an NMP defined; it may have been just a vague term used within BBN as a placeholder for some yet-to-be-defined mechanism.? That's why I said it was more of a concept than a protocol.?? Concept?? Fantasy?? Yep, but the thinking was still based on real-world experiences. Floodpage started the ball rolling in the Internet (aka Catenet) world, using the ARPANET world as a working example.? More or less concurrent with that IEN in 1979, his work involved building the CMCC (Catenet Monitoring and Control Center), which actually got used.? In that era, documentation like RFCs and IENs often represented what had already been built and tested out -- even if it was couched as a "proposal".?? Politics didn't have the chance to delay implementation. Marty Schoffstall was in the same group, and later an author of the SNMP RFCs.? SNMP came quite a bit later, and that's when we had the musings about exactly which component was meant to be "Simple". In retrospect, I think having the people doing development also in some way responsible for operations is really important.? When you're fighting fires with angry users lurking, there's little time for politics. /Jack On 11/7/19 3:46 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/7/2019 3:33 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP >> (Network Management Protocol).?? As I recall, NMP was more of a concept >> than a protocol.? It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. > > That doesn't match my memory at all.? There were all sorts of > fantasies being spun around these efforts, so perhaps that was part of > the mix, but it had nothing to do with the actual work, as I remember it. > > SNMP was the result of a few pragmatic operational people creating a > really simple protocol, with some of the usual IETF pixy dust tossed > onto it, except for the political s--t storm it got stuck in with CMIP. > > The CMIP people were very well organized and very political, but had > produce a very complicated spec and had trouble making it pratical. > > Craig's worthy HEMS proposal was in this mix, of course, but didn't > have the track record or political support to overcome the... politics. > > It was amusing to those of us at Wollongong, at the time, that I had a > senior person in multiple, critical positions for both SNMP and CMIP > (-> CMOT) included the just-lost Keith McGlogrie. > > The (unfortunate) effect of the politics, besides quite a bit of > delay, was forcing SNMP to use data cast in ASN.1 -- in the hope there > would at least be that level of interoperability with CMIP/CMOT -- but > thereby substantially increasing the complexity of using SNMP. > > d/ -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Nov 7 16:36:44 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:36:44 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <18f19393-570d-74a4-9d36-2771a0b657fa@bbiw.net> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> <18f19393-570d-74a4-9d36-2771a0b657fa@bbiw.net> Message-ID: <52285092-a88b-a3c2-ed8e-134ccd85d3aa@3kitty.org> I think the beginning of the story is captured in IEN 105 - see http://www.postel.org/ien/pdf/ien105.pdf?? David Floodpage wrote that in 1979, as part of our work in operating SATNET and beginning to think about how to use ARPANET-style tools in the context of the "Catenet" which Vint had popularized at the time as the name for what we now call Internet.??? David and Marty Schoffstall worked in my group on those kinds of things; Marty later was one of the authors of SNMP. I don't recall that much was ever written about the internal IMP operations and management tools and techniques developed during the ARPANET growth through the 70s.? So that technology may never have escaped BBN, or is perhaps captured in some obscure QTRs that few ever read.? But those "gateway guys", including Floodpage and Schoffstall, and the "Arpanet guys" were intermixed in the BBN building so lots of technology transfer occurred even if only in the hallways and around coffee. If you read IEN105, and replace "gateway" with "IMP", and "CMCC" with "NCC", you'll get a reasonable concept of how some of the ARPANET internals worked through the 70s.?? That was David's charter - to figure out and then transfer the ARPANET tools and methods into the "Catenet" world.? IIRC, this was all before the IETF got started.? I just looked at the "Internet Timeline" in RFC2235, which claims the IETF was created in 1986.? My personal recollection is that it happened much earlier; I recall being present at the ICCB meeting when the IETF and IRTF were formed out of the unwieldy "Internet Group".?? If it was 1986, I wouldn't have been there.? I'll have to look at my paper notebooks if the mold in the basement permits. I don't think there ever was an NMP defined; it may have been just a vague term used within BBN as a placeholder for some yet-to-be-defined mechanism.? That's why I said it was more of a concept than a protocol.?? Concept?? Fantasy?? Yep, but the thinking was still based on real-world experiences. Floodpage started the ball rolling in the Internet (aka Catenet) world, using the ARPANET world as a working example.? More or less concurrent with that IEN in 1979, his work involved building the CMCC (Catenet Monitoring and Control Center), which actually got used.? In that era, documentation like RFCs and IENs often represented what had already been built and tested out -- even if it was couched as a "proposal".?? Politics didn't have the chance to delay implementation. Marty Schoffstall was in the same group, and later an author of the SNMP RFCs.? SNMP came quite a bit later, and that's when we had the musings about exactly which component was meant to be "Simple". In retrospect, I think having the people doing development also in some way responsible for operations is really important.? When you're fighting fires with angry users lurking, there's little time for politics. /Jack On 11/7/19 3:46 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/7/2019 3:33 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP >> (Network Management Protocol).?? As I recall, NMP was more of a concept >> than a protocol.? It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. > > That doesn't match my memory at all.? There were all sorts of > fantasies being spun around these efforts, so perhaps that was part of > the mix, but it had nothing to do with the actual work, as I remember it. > > SNMP was the result of a few pragmatic operational people creating a > really simple protocol, with some of the usual IETF pixy dust tossed > onto it, except for the political s--t storm it got stuck in with CMIP. > > The CMIP people were very well organized and very political, but had > produce a very complicated spec and had trouble making it pratical. > > Craig's worthy HEMS proposal was in this mix, of course, but didn't > have the track record or political support to overcome the... politics. > > It was amusing to those of us at Wollongong, at the time, that I had a > senior person in multiple, critical positions for both SNMP and CMIP > (-> CMOT) included the just-lost Keith McGlogrie. > > The (unfortunate) effect of the politics, besides quite a bit of > delay, was forcing SNMP to use data cast in ASN.1 -- in the hope there > would at least be that level of interoperability with CMIP/CMOT -- but > thereby substantially increasing the complexity of using SNMP. > > d/ From dcrocker at bbiw.net Thu Nov 7 15:46:04 2019 From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:46:04 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <18f19393-570d-74a4-9d36-2771a0b657fa@bbiw.net> On 11/7/2019 3:33 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP > (Network Management Protocol).?? As I recall, NMP was more of a concept > than a protocol.? It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. That doesn't match my memory at all. There were all sorts of fantasies being spun around these efforts, so perhaps that was part of the mix, but it had nothing to do with the actual work, as I remember it. SNMP was the result of a few pragmatic operational people creating a really simple protocol, with some of the usual IETF pixy dust tossed onto it, except for the political s--t storm it got stuck in with CMIP. The CMIP people were very well organized and very political, but had produce a very complicated spec and had trouble making it pratical. Craig's worthy HEMS proposal was in this mix, of course, but didn't have the track record or political support to overcome the... politics. It was amusing to those of us at Wollongong, at the time, that I had a senior person in multiple, critical positions for both SNMP and CMIP (-> CMOT) included the just-lost Keith McGlogrie. The (unfortunate) effect of the politics, besides quite a bit of delay, was forcing SNMP to use data cast in ASN.1 -- in the hope there would at least be that level of interoperability with CMIP/CMOT -- but thereby substantially increasing the complexity of using SNMP. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 15:33:13 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:33:13 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On 11/7/19 1:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > Don't forget CMIP, HEMS AND SNMP Hmmm.?? Well, what I remember is: SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP (Network Management Protocol).?? As I recall, NMP was more of a concept than a protocol.? It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. As we were struggling to make the Internet 24x7, we did a lot of cogitating about what it meant to manage a network, which went well beyond basic real-time monitoring and control.?? In addition to the Internet "core gateways", at BBN we were managing and/or operating a variety of networks, so we had a fairly broad view of the issues that crop as you operate and evolve networks over 5 or 10 years. One dimension of that exploration was into life-cycle management.? That involved things like how to measure traffic statistics and patterns, identify and predict trends, plan for topology alterations to handle future traffic, plan for changes needed to add new users or applications, etc. It also included operational disturbances.? How do you deploy a new major software release without disrupting users' activities?? How do you add a large number of new users with a new application without disrupting current activity??? How do you debug problems, without disrupting other users? In the DDN context, a memorable one of those was the release of a major new IMP version.? To make that run smoothly, we had to create a lot of mechanisms and processes even beyond those needed within the IMPs themselves to smoothly convert to the new release.? E.G., we created a service product called "TestNet" which allowed systems integrators to test and debug their software in the new environment via a dial-up link and get it all running smoothly before going live in the users' environment. I recall one motivation for that was some Army system -- the one that provided payroll services and issued the soldiers' checks.? If it didn't work the week after the software transition.... well, those guys have some serious capability to protest such disrespect. At one point an ARPANET clone was involved in the systems that are used by the officers at points of entry into the US.? When something was wrong... well, it seemed like having a BBN identifier on your paperwork made you much more likely to be randomly selected for extra scrutiny at the airport. Another dimension of network management was into management of resources - i.e., respecting the "boundaries" Dave mentioned.? This came up in the context of SATNET and the VAN Gateway (ARPANET connected to the public X.25 world).?? Whoever owned something, and paid for its operation, wanted it used for their purposes only.?? So ARPA research traffic could use SATNET, but other stuff should use the X.25 service (and getting the bill to go to the right place depended on quirky details like which side "dialed the phone" to establish the X.25 connection between gateways.)? In the technical environment, this requirement appeared as "policy routing" and related technologies, protocols, etc.? Resource management extended into the security world as well, i.e., making sure that only authorized "people" (humans, computers, software, whatever) were able to access only the appropriate resources.?? It also impacted functionality like TOS - how do you make traffic go down the most appropriate path for the kind of service it required. All of that kind of "management" was folded under "Network Management".? It was, and is, a huge area.?? It went far beyond the basic monitoring/control of SNMP.? But to get something quickly for the network we were trying to operate, SNMP was created. SNMP was Simple Network Management Protocol.? I remember we had discussions about exactly which noun the adjective "Simple" was modifying.?? My thought was that it really should have been Simple Protocol for Simple Management of Simple Networks - i.e., SPSMSN or something like that. Anyway, SNMP was an "interim" solution while the larger issues were sorted out.? I recall that Bob Kahn and I circa 1983 initiated a new project area called "Automated Network Management" where we would explore the more esoteric resource management ideas aligned with ARPA's charter.? We also put together (got funded) projects from several of the various "operational" clients we had, who were pretty desperate for near-term pragmatic tools to help them manage their own stuff (those research guys never write the Users' Manual!).?? All of that combined would make a foundation project for further NMP development. Sometime in late 1983, I lost track of the "NMP" work.?? BBN reorganized and those various projects and contracts ended up scattered around to different divisions after the upheavals settled.? I think that separation of the? "research" and "operational" worlds might have had a noticeable effect on the history of the Internet, by breaking the "pipeline" from research to operations that Vint started when he moved the gateways to become 24x7 services. I don't know anything about HEMS.? It may be what later came out of the Automated Network Management project as a protocol part of NMP, but I'm not sure if it ever got deployed or transitioned and used in any of the operational network environments. I know even less about CMIP.? I could never get my teeth into ISO technology.? There wasn't any code to play with, and every time I tried to read those stacks of documents I'd fall asleep. Fun times though, /Jack Haverty -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Nov 7 15:33:13 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:33:13 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On 11/7/19 1:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > Don't forget CMIP, HEMS AND SNMP Hmmm.?? Well, what I remember is: SNMP was instantiated as a first step toward a comprehensive NMP (Network Management Protocol).?? As I recall, NMP was more of a concept than a protocol.? It was an umbrella covering a lot of pieces. As we were struggling to make the Internet 24x7, we did a lot of cogitating about what it meant to manage a network, which went well beyond basic real-time monitoring and control.?? In addition to the Internet "core gateways", at BBN we were managing and/or operating a variety of networks, so we had a fairly broad view of the issues that crop as you operate and evolve networks over 5 or 10 years. One dimension of that exploration was into life-cycle management.? That involved things like how to measure traffic statistics and patterns, identify and predict trends, plan for topology alterations to handle future traffic, plan for changes needed to add new users or applications, etc. It also included operational disturbances.? How do you deploy a new major software release without disrupting users' activities?? How do you add a large number of new users with a new application without disrupting current activity??? How do you debug problems, without disrupting other users? In the DDN context, a memorable one of those was the release of a major new IMP version.? To make that run smoothly, we had to create a lot of mechanisms and processes even beyond those needed within the IMPs themselves to smoothly convert to the new release.? E.G., we created a service product called "TestNet" which allowed systems integrators to test and debug their software in the new environment via a dial-up link and get it all running smoothly before going live in the users' environment. I recall one motivation for that was some Army system -- the one that provided payroll services and issued the soldiers' checks.? If it didn't work the week after the software transition.... well, those guys have some serious capability to protest such disrespect. At one point an ARPANET clone was involved in the systems that are used by the officers at points of entry into the US.? When something was wrong... well, it seemed like having a BBN identifier on your paperwork made you much more likely to be randomly selected for extra scrutiny at the airport. Another dimension of network management was into management of resources - i.e., respecting the "boundaries" Dave mentioned.? This came up in the context of SATNET and the VAN Gateway (ARPANET connected to the public X.25 world).?? Whoever owned something, and paid for its operation, wanted it used for their purposes only.?? So ARPA research traffic could use SATNET, but other stuff should use the X.25 service (and getting the bill to go to the right place depended on quirky details like which side "dialed the phone" to establish the X.25 connection between gateways.)? In the technical environment, this requirement appeared as "policy routing" and related technologies, protocols, etc.? Resource management extended into the security world as well, i.e., making sure that only authorized "people" (humans, computers, software, whatever) were able to access only the appropriate resources.?? It also impacted functionality like TOS - how do you make traffic go down the most appropriate path for the kind of service it required. All of that kind of "management" was folded under "Network Management".? It was, and is, a huge area.?? It went far beyond the basic monitoring/control of SNMP.? But to get something quickly for the network we were trying to operate, SNMP was created. SNMP was Simple Network Management Protocol.? I remember we had discussions about exactly which noun the adjective "Simple" was modifying.?? My thought was that it really should have been Simple Protocol for Simple Management of Simple Networks - i.e., SPSMSN or something like that. Anyway, SNMP was an "interim" solution while the larger issues were sorted out.? I recall that Bob Kahn and I circa 1983 initiated a new project area called "Automated Network Management" where we would explore the more esoteric resource management ideas aligned with ARPA's charter.? We also put together (got funded) projects from several of the various "operational" clients we had, who were pretty desperate for near-term pragmatic tools to help them manage their own stuff (those research guys never write the Users' Manual!).?? All of that combined would make a foundation project for further NMP development. Sometime in late 1983, I lost track of the "NMP" work.?? BBN reorganized and those various projects and contracts ended up scattered around to different divisions after the upheavals settled.? I think that separation of the? "research" and "operational" worlds might have had a noticeable effect on the history of the Internet, by breaking the "pipeline" from research to operations that Vint started when he moved the gateways to become 24x7 services. I don't know anything about HEMS.? It may be what later came out of the Automated Network Management project as a protocol part of NMP, but I'm not sure if it ever got deployed or transitioned and used in any of the operational network environments. I know even less about CMIP.? I could never get my teeth into ISO technology.? There wasn't any code to play with, and every time I tried to read those stacks of documents I'd fall asleep. Fun times though, /Jack Haverty From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 15:19:09 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Lawrence Stewart via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 18:19:09 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history Message-ID: <8B9026E4-92EF-4DDF-9369-E42FFB9FDFC7@serissa.com> As a minor footnote in internetworking, the Bay Area Packet Radio Network was also used as a transit network for Xerox PUP protocol internetwork packets in 1978/9-ish in a project I worked on with John Shoch. This was described in a DATACOMM 1979 paper as well as a PARC Blue&White and probably the PRNET reports somewhere. According to the paper, the PUP packets were fragmented into 1-3 PRNet Channel Access Protocol packets, (Not even IP). By that time, various Xerox sites were interconnected by 9.6 and sometimes faster leased lines. PRNet was used as a hop between PARC and the Ben Wegbreit/Charles Simonyi group farther down the hill. I found one of the Alto-1822 interfaces in my basement last year (photo attached). This was also used to connect the homemade PDP-10 PARC-MAXC2 to the Arpanet. IIRC it would run at a blistering 1.1 Mbps. -Larry -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 14:27:00 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:27:00 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <82e05a66-d5b5-b3be-ddc7-19eb452a5ea6@3kitty.org> Yes, the NCC was the name for the ARPANET network control center.? The NOC was the room - the Operations Center - from which a variety of networks were managed, including ARPANET, SATNET, DDN pieces (MILNET et al) as well as commercial networks.? It moved also as we had more and more networks to operate.? So the NCC was physically in the NOC. By the time we started doing gateway operations, the venerable PDP-1 that controlled the ARPANET circa 1970s had retired and PDP-10s had replaced it.? I suspect the timeline is documented in the various contract reports from that period, if they're still available through DTIC. /Jack On 11/7/19 2:11 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > thanks jack... a couple of quips: > > #1.) yours truly believes that the ARPANET, et all was managed by the > folks an "entity" known -- during that time -- as the NCC (Network > Control Center), not the NOC. > > #2.) yours truly also seems to recall that the ARPANET was software-ly > controlled by a PDP-1 not a PDP-10, > viz.?https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc301: > > Network Working Group R. Alter > Request for Comments #301 BBN > NIC #9073 11 February 1972 > References: None > Updates: None > Obsoletes: None > > > > > BBN IMP (#5) AND NCC SCHEDULE MARCH 4, 1971 > > > > On Saturday morning, March 4, 1972, at 0800 EST the BBN IMP (#5) > will go off the air to allow for a move of the equipment to a > new location in BBN's facilities. The NCC telephone and operators > will be available as usual during this period. We hope to have > the IMP back on the Network by early Saturday afternoon; the > choice of Saturday morning was made intentionally so that if by > some stroke of fate all our wideband lines stay down longer than > anticipated, the impact on others in the network will be minimized. > We anticipate that all other sites will operate normally through > this period. > > Shortly subsequent to this move, a new Host will be connected to > the net. This is a PDP-1D at BBN which will be used for certain > additional NCC functions. It will not be a Server site. We > prefer the Host name "BBN-1D"; its network address will be 197. > > > seem to also recall that (Bernie Cosell?) had provided yours truly > with the dialup phone # & access for the PDP-1 machine (since it was > only an ARPANET "USER" host and did not allow incoming connections) > that had a user telnet program called UTEL that yours truly connected > back to SRI-AI at the time with, just for grins and giggles. :D > > it would seem logical that at some point and time the yeoman's duty > PDP-1 was summarily retired and the runnage of The Net was then moved > to a more "modern" PDP-10 -- but don't have a timeline on that -- but > do remember XNET though. :D > > geoff > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:31 AM Jack Haverty > wrote: > > On 11/7/19 12:05 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > >> jack, that was Really Excellent... say, in The Interest in >> further documenting Internet History, could you please elucidate >> for us on *The Internet "Control Panel"* and its >> functionality/workings (as excerpted from your website >> --?http://3kitty.org/): >> >> ?... /(At one point back around 1980, the "control panel" for >> The Internet was on his desk!)/... >> > Thanks, Geoff.? Yes, there's lots of the history, perhaps most, > that was never captured in RFCs.? Some of that was captured in > various contract deliverables, e.g., the Quarterly Technical > Reports that we all had to do. > > That comment about the "control panel on my desk" came from an > offhand comment I made to someone who had asked about what I did > back in the early Internet days.?? The phrase was apparently a > good sound bite. > > Here's what happened, as far as I can remember it.? There's a lot > of detailed information about the early history in the QTRs we did > at BBN (and e.g., SRI), much of which is available online from DTIC. > > From the November 1981 BBN QTR (DTIC ADA108783): > > "During this quarter, responsibility for? gateway maintenance and > development was transferred from the Information Sciences Division > to the Computer Systems Division (now Communications Systems > Division).? The motivation for this transfer was the need to > emphasize the treatment of the gateways as an operational > communications system, rather than a research tool to support the > growing user community.? In this approach, we plan increasingly to > treat the gateway system much as we do the ARPANET and SATNET > systems in terms of monitoring and maintenance.? This will require > increased emphasis on the development and enhancement of tools for > the remote operation of the gateways." > > I remember writing that.? Vint had talked to me earlier that year > to see if I was willing to take over the gateway work and fold it > in to the "operations and maintenance" we had already been doing > on the ARPANET for the previous 10 years as well as more recently > SATNET.?? I think Vint saw the need for the Internet to be up all > the time, not just for experiments and demos, and for someone to > be called to report problems. > > To me now, this was an inflection point in the history of the > Internet -- when it went from being a research tool to being an > operational 7x24 service.? To accomplish that, we plagiarized > eagerly from the ARPANET, introducing the same kinds of tools and > processes that had evolved and been proven over the previous > decade. ? It also involved rewriting the gateways into assembly > language from the earlier research implementation in BCPL.??? Our > Division had been running the ARPANET for a decade, and the NOC > was just down the hall from the "Gateway Guys" offices, so > technology transfer was straightforward. > > At some point in that process, the gateways were added to the > repertoire of things that the ARPANET NOC operated on a 24x7 > basis, and a gateway control terminal appeared inside the > ARPANET/SATNET operations room, and the operator(s) on duty were > responsible for also keeping the gateways running, just as they > had been doing for the ARPANET and SATNET IMPs. > > Prior to that, of course we had to build and debug the appropriate > software.? The "control console" was simply a terminal connected > to the BBN PDP-10 where the management software ran.?? Sorry, I > can't remember the name of the software, or which BBN-xxx machine > it was on.? You could "control the Internet" simply by connecting > a terminal to that software, and your terminal became the "control > console". > > So, as that quote says, at some point before it went to the NOC > I'm sure I tried it out by connecting from the terminal on my > desk.? I had a reputation for being able to find bugs within > minutes after somebody declared something ready. > > However, it was much more likely that the control console was in > use by somebody else, either working in my group or one of the > ARPANET-related ones.? At the time, Bob Hinden, Mike Brescia, and > Alan Sheltzer were working on gateway development, and writing the > code.? David Floodpage had been developing the CMCC - Catenet > Monitoring and Control Center, which was used to operate SATNET.? > Marty Schoffstall was working on other pieces - e.g., what later > became SNMP.? Lots of other people who I have probably missed. > > We pushed very hard on getting mechanisms into place in the > IP/gateway world that reflected the tools that had proven useful > in the ARPANET - things like Traps, Software Download (see XNET), > traffic statistics, controls, patching, etc.? Lots of that stuff > eventually made its way into RFCs et al, and also made the > Internet into a 24x7 service. > > Hope this helps, > > /Jack Haverty > > > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com ?? > > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Nov 7 14:27:00 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:27:00 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <82e05a66-d5b5-b3be-ddc7-19eb452a5ea6@3kitty.org> Yes, the NCC was the name for the ARPANET network control center.? The NOC was the room - the Operations Center - from which a variety of networks were managed, including ARPANET, SATNET, DDN pieces (MILNET et al) as well as commercial networks.? It moved also as we had more and more networks to operate.? So the NCC was physically in the NOC. By the time we started doing gateway operations, the venerable PDP-1 that controlled the ARPANET circa 1970s had retired and PDP-10s had replaced it.? I suspect the timeline is documented in the various contract reports from that period, if they're still available through DTIC. /Jack On 11/7/19 2:11 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > thanks jack... a couple of quips: > > #1.) yours truly believes that the ARPANET, et all was managed by the > folks an "entity" known -- during that time -- as the NCC (Network > Control Center), not the NOC. > > #2.) yours truly also seems to recall that the ARPANET was software-ly > controlled by a PDP-1 not a PDP-10, > viz.?https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc301: > > Network Working Group R. Alter > Request for Comments #301 BBN > NIC #9073 11 February 1972 > References: None > Updates: None > Obsoletes: None > > > > > BBN IMP (#5) AND NCC SCHEDULE MARCH 4, 1971 > > > > On Saturday morning, March 4, 1972, at 0800 EST the BBN IMP (#5) > will go off the air to allow for a move of the equipment to a > new location in BBN's facilities. The NCC telephone and operators > will be available as usual during this period. We hope to have > the IMP back on the Network by early Saturday afternoon; the > choice of Saturday morning was made intentionally so that if by > some stroke of fate all our wideband lines stay down longer than > anticipated, the impact on others in the network will be minimized. > We anticipate that all other sites will operate normally through > this period. > > Shortly subsequent to this move, a new Host will be connected to > the net. This is a PDP-1D at BBN which will be used for certain > additional NCC functions. It will not be a Server site. We > prefer the Host name "BBN-1D"; its network address will be 197. > > > seem to also recall that (Bernie Cosell?) had provided yours truly > with the dialup phone # & access for the PDP-1 machine (since it was > only an ARPANET "USER" host and did not allow incoming connections) > that had a user telnet program called UTEL that yours truly connected > back to SRI-AI at the time with, just for grins and giggles. :D > > it would seem logical that at some point and time the yeoman's duty > PDP-1 was summarily retired and the runnage of The Net was then moved > to a more "modern" PDP-10 -- but don't have a timeline on that -- but > do remember XNET though. :D > > geoff > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:31 AM Jack Haverty > wrote: > > On 11/7/19 12:05 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > >> jack, that was Really Excellent... say, in The Interest in >> further documenting Internet History, could you please elucidate >> for us on *The Internet "Control Panel"* and its >> functionality/workings (as excerpted from your website >> --?http://3kitty.org/): >> >> ?... /(At one point back around 1980, the "control panel" for >> The Internet was on his desk!)/... >> > Thanks, Geoff.? Yes, there's lots of the history, perhaps most, > that was never captured in RFCs.? Some of that was captured in > various contract deliverables, e.g., the Quarterly Technical > Reports that we all had to do. > > That comment about the "control panel on my desk" came from an > offhand comment I made to someone who had asked about what I did > back in the early Internet days.?? The phrase was apparently a > good sound bite. > > Here's what happened, as far as I can remember it.? There's a lot > of detailed information about the early history in the QTRs we did > at BBN (and e.g., SRI), much of which is available online from DTIC. > > From the November 1981 BBN QTR (DTIC ADA108783): > > "During this quarter, responsibility for? gateway maintenance and > development was transferred from the Information Sciences Division > to the Computer Systems Division (now Communications Systems > Division).? The motivation for this transfer was the need to > emphasize the treatment of the gateways as an operational > communications system, rather than a research tool to support the > growing user community.? In this approach, we plan increasingly to > treat the gateway system much as we do the ARPANET and SATNET > systems in terms of monitoring and maintenance.? This will require > increased emphasis on the development and enhancement of tools for > the remote operation of the gateways." > > I remember writing that.? Vint had talked to me earlier that year > to see if I was willing to take over the gateway work and fold it > in to the "operations and maintenance" we had already been doing > on the ARPANET for the previous 10 years as well as more recently > SATNET.?? I think Vint saw the need for the Internet to be up all > the time, not just for experiments and demos, and for someone to > be called to report problems. > > To me now, this was an inflection point in the history of the > Internet -- when it went from being a research tool to being an > operational 7x24 service.? To accomplish that, we plagiarized > eagerly from the ARPANET, introducing the same kinds of tools and > processes that had evolved and been proven over the previous > decade. ? It also involved rewriting the gateways into assembly > language from the earlier research implementation in BCPL.??? Our > Division had been running the ARPANET for a decade, and the NOC > was just down the hall from the "Gateway Guys" offices, so > technology transfer was straightforward. > > At some point in that process, the gateways were added to the > repertoire of things that the ARPANET NOC operated on a 24x7 > basis, and a gateway control terminal appeared inside the > ARPANET/SATNET operations room, and the operator(s) on duty were > responsible for also keeping the gateways running, just as they > had been doing for the ARPANET and SATNET IMPs. > > Prior to that, of course we had to build and debug the appropriate > software.? The "control console" was simply a terminal connected > to the BBN PDP-10 where the management software ran.?? Sorry, I > can't remember the name of the software, or which BBN-xxx machine > it was on.? You could "control the Internet" simply by connecting > a terminal to that software, and your terminal became the "control > console". > > So, as that quote says, at some point before it went to the NOC > I'm sure I tried it out by connecting from the terminal on my > desk.? I had a reputation for being able to find bugs within > minutes after somebody declared something ready. > > However, it was much more likely that the control console was in > use by somebody else, either working in my group or one of the > ARPANET-related ones.? At the time, Bob Hinden, Mike Brescia, and > Alan Sheltzer were working on gateway development, and writing the > code.? David Floodpage had been developing the CMCC - Catenet > Monitoring and Control Center, which was used to operate SATNET.? > Marty Schoffstall was working on other pieces - e.g., what later > became SNMP.? Lots of other people who I have probably missed. > > We pushed very hard on getting mechanisms into place in the > IP/gateway world that reflected the tools that had proven useful > in the ARPANET - things like Traps, Software Download (see XNET), > traffic statistics, controls, patching, etc.? Lots of that stuff > eventually made its way into RFCs et al, and also made the > Internet into a 24x7 service. > > Hope this helps, > > /Jack Haverty > > > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com ?? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geoff at iconia.com Thu Nov 7 14:11:22 2019 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:11:22 -1000 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: thanks jack... a couple of quips: #1.) yours truly believes that the ARPANET, et all was managed by the folks an "entity" known -- during that time -- as the NCC (Network Control Center), not the NOC. #2.) yours truly also seems to recall that the ARPANET was software-ly controlled by a PDP-1 not a PDP-10, viz. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc301: Network Working Group R. Alter Request for Comments #301 BBN NIC #9073 11 February 1972 References: None Updates: None Obsoletes: None BBN IMP (#5) AND NCC SCHEDULE MARCH 4, 1971 On Saturday morning, March 4, 1972, at 0800 EST the BBN IMP (#5) will go off the air to allow for a move of the equipment to a new location in BBN's facilities. The NCC telephone and operators will be available as usual during this period. We hope to have the IMP back on the Network by early Saturday afternoon; the choice of Saturday morning was made intentionally so that if by some stroke of fate all our wideband lines stay down longer than anticipated, the impact on others in the network will be minimized. We anticipate that all other sites will operate normally through this period. Shortly subsequent to this move, a new Host will be connected to the net. This is a PDP-1D at BBN which will be used for certain additional NCC functions. It will not be a Server site. We prefer the Host name "BBN-1D"; its network address will be 197. seem to also recall that (Bernie Cosell?) had provided yours truly with the dialup phone # & access for the PDP-1 machine (since it was only an ARPANET "USER" host and did not allow incoming connections) that had a user telnet program called UTEL that yours truly connected back to SRI-AI at the time with, just for grins and giggles. :D it would seem logical that at some point and time the yeoman's duty PDP-1 was summarily retired and the runnage of The Net was then moved to a more "modern" PDP-10 -- but don't have a timeline on that -- but do remember XNET though. :D geoff On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:31 AM Jack Haverty wrote: > On 11/7/19 12:05 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > > jack, that was Really Excellent... say, in The Interest in further > documenting Internet History, could you please elucidate for us on *The > Internet "Control Panel"* and its functionality/workings (as excerpted > from your website -- http://3kitty.org/): > > ... *(At one point back around 1980, the "control panel" for The > Internet was on his desk!)*... > > Thanks, Geoff. Yes, there's lots of the history, perhaps most, that was > never captured in RFCs. Some of that was captured in various contract > deliverables, e.g., the Quarterly Technical Reports that we all had to do. > > That comment about the "control panel on my desk" came from an offhand > comment I made to someone who had asked about what I did back in the early > Internet days. The phrase was apparently a good sound bite. > > Here's what happened, as far as I can remember it. There's a lot of > detailed information about the early history in the QTRs we did at BBN (and > e.g., SRI), much of which is available online from DTIC. > > From the November 1981 BBN QTR (DTIC ADA108783): > > "During this quarter, responsibility for gateway maintenance and > development was transferred from the Information Sciences Division to the > Computer Systems Division (now Communications Systems Division). The > motivation for this transfer was the need to emphasize the treatment of the > gateways as an operational communications system, rather than a research > tool to support the growing user community. In this approach, we plan > increasingly to treat the gateway system much as we do the ARPANET and > SATNET systems in terms of monitoring and maintenance. This will require > increased emphasis on the development and enhancement of tools for the > remote operation of the gateways." > > I remember writing that. Vint had talked to me earlier that year to see > if I was willing to take over the gateway work and fold it in to the > "operations and maintenance" we had already been doing on the ARPANET for > the previous 10 years as well as more recently SATNET. I think Vint saw > the need for the Internet to be up all the time, not just for experiments > and demos, and for someone to be called to report problems. > > To me now, this was an inflection point in the history of the Internet -- > when it went from being a research tool to being an operational 7x24 > service. To accomplish that, we plagiarized eagerly from the ARPANET, > introducing the same kinds of tools and processes that had evolved and been > proven over the previous decade. It also involved rewriting the gateways > into assembly language from the earlier research implementation in BCPL. > Our Division had been running the ARPANET for a decade, and the NOC was > just down the hall from the "Gateway Guys" offices, so technology transfer > was straightforward. > > At some point in that process, the gateways were added to the repertoire > of things that the ARPANET NOC operated on a 24x7 basis, and a gateway > control terminal appeared inside the ARPANET/SATNET operations room, and > the operator(s) on duty were responsible for also keeping the gateways > running, just as they had been doing for the ARPANET and SATNET IMPs. > > Prior to that, of course we had to build and debug the appropriate > software. The "control console" was simply a terminal connected to the BBN > PDP-10 where the management software ran. Sorry, I can't remember the > name of the software, or which BBN-xxx machine it was on. You could > "control the Internet" simply by connecting a terminal to that software, > and your terminal became the "control console". > > So, as that quote says, at some point before it went to the NOC I'm sure I > tried it out by connecting from the terminal on my desk. I had a > reputation for being able to find bugs within minutes after somebody > declared something ready. > > However, it was much more likely that the control console was in use by > somebody else, either working in my group or one of the ARPANET-related > ones. At the time, Bob Hinden, Mike Brescia, and Alan Sheltzer were > working on gateway development, and writing the code. David Floodpage had > been developing the CMCC - Catenet Monitoring and Control Center, which was > used to operate SATNET. Marty Schoffstall was working on other pieces - > e.g., what later became SNMP. Lots of other people who I have probably > missed. > > We pushed very hard on getting mechanisms into place in the IP/gateway > world that reflected the tools that had proven useful in the ARPANET - > things like Traps, Software Download (see XNET), traffic statistics, > controls, patching, etc. Lots of that stuff eventually made its way into > RFCs et al, and also made the Internet into a 24x7 service. > > Hope this helps, > > /Jack Haverty > > > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Thu Nov 7 13:35:30 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:35:30 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Don't forget CMIP, HEMS AND SNMP V On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 16:30 Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 11/7/19 12:05 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > > > jack, that was Really Excellent... say, in The Interest in further > > documenting Internet History, could you please elucidate for us on > > *The Internet "Control Panel"* and its functionality/workings (as > > excerpted from your website -- http://3kitty.org/): > > > > ... /(At one point back around 1980, the "control panel" for The > > Internet was on his desk!)/... > > > Thanks, Geoff. Yes, there's lots of the history, perhaps most, that was > never captured in RFCs. Some of that was captured in various contract > deliverables, e.g., the Quarterly Technical Reports that we all had to do. > > That comment about the "control panel on my desk" came from an offhand > comment I made to someone who had asked about what I did back in the > early Internet days. The phrase was apparently a good sound bite. > > Here's what happened, as far as I can remember it. There's a lot of > detailed information about the early history in the QTRs we did at BBN > (and e.g., SRI), much of which is available online from DTIC. > > From the November 1981 BBN QTR (DTIC ADA108783): > > "During this quarter, responsibility for gateway maintenance and > development was transferred from the Information Sciences Division to > the Computer Systems Division (now Communications Systems Division). > The motivation for this transfer was the need to emphasize the treatment > of the gateways as an operational communications system, rather than a > research tool to support the growing user community. In this approach, > we plan increasingly to treat the gateway system much as we do the > ARPANET and SATNET systems in terms of monitoring and maintenance. This > will require increased emphasis on the development and enhancement of > tools for the remote operation of the gateways." > > I remember writing that. Vint had talked to me earlier that year to see > if I was willing to take over the gateway work and fold it in to the > "operations and maintenance" we had already been doing on the ARPANET > for the previous 10 years as well as more recently SATNET. I think > Vint saw the need for the Internet to be up all the time, not just for > experiments and demos, and for someone to be called to report problems. > > To me now, this was an inflection point in the history of the Internet > -- when it went from being a research tool to being an operational 7x24 > service. To accomplish that, we plagiarized eagerly from the ARPANET, > introducing the same kinds of tools and processes that had evolved and > been proven over the previous decade. It also involved rewriting the > gateways into assembly language from the earlier research implementation > in BCPL. Our Division had been running the ARPANET for a decade, and > the NOC was just down the hall from the "Gateway Guys" offices, so > technology transfer was straightforward. > > At some point in that process, the gateways were added to the repertoire > of things that the ARPANET NOC operated on a 24x7 basis, and a gateway > control terminal appeared inside the ARPANET/SATNET operations room, and > the operator(s) on duty were responsible for also keeping the gateways > running, just as they had been doing for the ARPANET and SATNET IMPs. > > Prior to that, of course we had to build and debug the appropriate > software. The "control console" was simply a terminal connected to the > BBN PDP-10 where the management software ran. Sorry, I can't remember > the name of the software, or which BBN-xxx machine it was on. You could > "control the Internet" simply by connecting a terminal to that software, > and your terminal became the "control console". > > So, as that quote says, at some point before it went to the NOC I'm sure > I tried it out by connecting from the terminal on my desk. I had a > reputation for being able to find bugs within minutes after somebody > declared something ready. > > However, it was much more likely that the control console was in use by > somebody else, either working in my group or one of the ARPANET-related > ones. At the time, Bob Hinden, Mike Brescia, and Alan Sheltzer were > working on gateway development, and writing the code. David Floodpage > had been developing the CMCC - Catenet Monitoring and Control Center, > which was used to operate SATNET. Marty Schoffstall was working on > other pieces - e.g., what later became SNMP. Lots of other people who I > have probably missed. > > We pushed very hard on getting mechanisms into place in the IP/gateway > world that reflected the tools that had proven useful in the ARPANET - > things like Traps, Software Download (see XNET), traffic statistics, > controls, patching, etc. Lots of that stuff eventually made its way > into RFCs et al, and also made the Internet into a 24x7 service. > > Hope this helps, > > /Jack Haverty > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 13:30:30 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:30:30 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> On 11/7/19 12:05 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > jack, that was Really Excellent... say, in The Interest in further > documenting Internet History, could you please elucidate for us on > *The Internet "Control Panel"* and its functionality/workings (as > excerpted from your website --?http://3kitty.org/): > > ?... /(At one point back around 1980, the "control panel" for The > Internet was on his desk!)/... > Thanks, Geoff.? Yes, there's lots of the history, perhaps most, that was never captured in RFCs.? Some of that was captured in various contract deliverables, e.g., the Quarterly Technical Reports that we all had to do. That comment about the "control panel on my desk" came from an offhand comment I made to someone who had asked about what I did back in the early Internet days.?? The phrase was apparently a good sound bite. Here's what happened, as far as I can remember it.? There's a lot of detailed information about the early history in the QTRs we did at BBN (and e.g., SRI), much of which is available online from DTIC. From the November 1981 BBN QTR (DTIC ADA108783): "During this quarter, responsibility for? gateway maintenance and development was transferred from the Information Sciences Division to the Computer Systems Division (now Communications Systems Division).? The motivation for this transfer was the need to emphasize the treatment of the gateways as an operational communications system, rather than a research tool to support the growing user community.? In this approach, we plan increasingly to treat the gateway system much as we do the ARPANET and SATNET systems in terms of monitoring and maintenance.? This will require increased emphasis on the development and enhancement of tools for the remote operation of the gateways." I remember writing that.? Vint had talked to me earlier that year to see if I was willing to take over the gateway work and fold it in to the "operations and maintenance" we had already been doing on the ARPANET for the previous 10 years as well as more recently SATNET.?? I think Vint saw the need for the Internet to be up all the time, not just for experiments and demos, and for someone to be called to report problems. To me now, this was an inflection point in the history of the Internet -- when it went from being a research tool to being an operational 7x24 service.? To accomplish that, we plagiarized eagerly from the ARPANET, introducing the same kinds of tools and processes that had evolved and been proven over the previous decade. ? It also involved rewriting the gateways into assembly language from the earlier research implementation in BCPL.??? Our Division had been running the ARPANET for a decade, and the NOC was just down the hall from the "Gateway Guys" offices, so technology transfer was straightforward. At some point in that process, the gateways were added to the repertoire of things that the ARPANET NOC operated on a 24x7 basis, and a gateway control terminal appeared inside the ARPANET/SATNET operations room, and the operator(s) on duty were responsible for also keeping the gateways running, just as they had been doing for the ARPANET and SATNET IMPs. Prior to that, of course we had to build and debug the appropriate software.? The "control console" was simply a terminal connected to the BBN PDP-10 where the management software ran.?? Sorry, I can't remember the name of the software, or which BBN-xxx machine it was on.? You could "control the Internet" simply by connecting a terminal to that software, and your terminal became the "control console". So, as that quote says, at some point before it went to the NOC I'm sure I tried it out by connecting from the terminal on my desk.? I had a reputation for being able to find bugs within minutes after somebody declared something ready. However, it was much more likely that the control console was in use by somebody else, either working in my group or one of the ARPANET-related ones.? At the time, Bob Hinden, Mike Brescia, and Alan Sheltzer were working on gateway development, and writing the code.? David Floodpage had been developing the CMCC - Catenet Monitoring and Control Center, which was used to operate SATNET.? Marty Schoffstall was working on other pieces - e.g., what later became SNMP.? Lots of other people who I have probably missed. We pushed very hard on getting mechanisms into place in the IP/gateway world that reflected the tools that had proven useful in the ARPANET - things like Traps, Software Download (see XNET), traffic statistics, controls, patching, etc.? Lots of that stuff eventually made its way into RFCs et al, and also made the Internet into a 24x7 service. Hope this helps, /Jack Haverty -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Nov 7 13:30:30 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:30:30 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <8d4c3ded-ce6f-acd4-fb4d-4967d0fc7090@3kitty.org> On 11/7/19 12:05 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > jack, that was Really Excellent... say, in The Interest in further > documenting Internet History, could you please elucidate for us on > *The Internet "Control Panel"* and its functionality/workings (as > excerpted from your website --?http://3kitty.org/): > > ?... /(At one point back around 1980, the "control panel" for The > Internet was on his desk!)/... > Thanks, Geoff.? Yes, there's lots of the history, perhaps most, that was never captured in RFCs.? Some of that was captured in various contract deliverables, e.g., the Quarterly Technical Reports that we all had to do. That comment about the "control panel on my desk" came from an offhand comment I made to someone who had asked about what I did back in the early Internet days.?? The phrase was apparently a good sound bite. Here's what happened, as far as I can remember it.? There's a lot of detailed information about the early history in the QTRs we did at BBN (and e.g., SRI), much of which is available online from DTIC. >From the November 1981 BBN QTR (DTIC ADA108783): "During this quarter, responsibility for? gateway maintenance and development was transferred from the Information Sciences Division to the Computer Systems Division (now Communications Systems Division).? The motivation for this transfer was the need to emphasize the treatment of the gateways as an operational communications system, rather than a research tool to support the growing user community.? In this approach, we plan increasingly to treat the gateway system much as we do the ARPANET and SATNET systems in terms of monitoring and maintenance.? This will require increased emphasis on the development and enhancement of tools for the remote operation of the gateways." I remember writing that.? Vint had talked to me earlier that year to see if I was willing to take over the gateway work and fold it in to the "operations and maintenance" we had already been doing on the ARPANET for the previous 10 years as well as more recently SATNET.?? I think Vint saw the need for the Internet to be up all the time, not just for experiments and demos, and for someone to be called to report problems. To me now, this was an inflection point in the history of the Internet -- when it went from being a research tool to being an operational 7x24 service.? To accomplish that, we plagiarized eagerly from the ARPANET, introducing the same kinds of tools and processes that had evolved and been proven over the previous decade. ? It also involved rewriting the gateways into assembly language from the earlier research implementation in BCPL.??? Our Division had been running the ARPANET for a decade, and the NOC was just down the hall from the "Gateway Guys" offices, so technology transfer was straightforward. At some point in that process, the gateways were added to the repertoire of things that the ARPANET NOC operated on a 24x7 basis, and a gateway control terminal appeared inside the ARPANET/SATNET operations room, and the operator(s) on duty were responsible for also keeping the gateways running, just as they had been doing for the ARPANET and SATNET IMPs. Prior to that, of course we had to build and debug the appropriate software.? The "control console" was simply a terminal connected to the BBN PDP-10 where the management software ran.?? Sorry, I can't remember the name of the software, or which BBN-xxx machine it was on.? You could "control the Internet" simply by connecting a terminal to that software, and your terminal became the "control console". So, as that quote says, at some point before it went to the NOC I'm sure I tried it out by connecting from the terminal on my desk.? I had a reputation for being able to find bugs within minutes after somebody declared something ready. However, it was much more likely that the control console was in use by somebody else, either working in my group or one of the ARPANET-related ones.? At the time, Bob Hinden, Mike Brescia, and Alan Sheltzer were working on gateway development, and writing the code.? David Floodpage had been developing the CMCC - Catenet Monitoring and Control Center, which was used to operate SATNET.? Marty Schoffstall was working on other pieces - e.g., what later became SNMP.? Lots of other people who I have probably missed. We pushed very hard on getting mechanisms into place in the IP/gateway world that reflected the tools that had proven useful in the ARPANET - things like Traps, Software Download (see XNET), traffic statistics, controls, patching, etc.? Lots of that stuff eventually made its way into RFCs et al, and also made the Internet into a 24x7 service. Hope this helps, /Jack Haverty -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 12:14:09 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dr Eberhard W Lisse via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:14:09 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <2098820763.1026656.1573156283266@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2098820763.1026656.1573156283266@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I did not care much for that packet radio stuff, which had .NA for North America as extension and so of stuff travelled on my dialup connection to and from .NA for Namibia :-)-O el ? Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 On 7 Nov 2019, 14:51 -0500, Barbara Denny via Internet-history , wrote: > There is also a chance this was documented in the Packet Radio progress reports.? The Defense Technical Information Center website did seem to have some Packet Radio reports when I tried to find more information on the August test date.? The listing wasn't well organized so I couldn't quickly check for the existence of a specific report. I also am not sure how much is visible to me.? Some academic institutions seem to have full access. > barbara > [?] -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From geoff at iconia.com Thu Nov 7 12:05:34 2019 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:05:34 -1000 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: jack, that was Really Excellent... say, in The Interest in further documenting Internet History, could you please elucidate for us on *The Internet "Control Panel"* and its functionality/workings (as excerpted from your website -- http://3kitty.org/): ... *(At one point back around 1980, the "control panel" for The Internet was on his desk!)*... geoff On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:23 AM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jack Haverty > To: dcrocker at bbiw.net > Cc: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Bcc: > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:22:39 -0800 > Subject: Re: [ih] inter-network communication history > Dan Lynch's recollection of the sacred "end-to-end" nature of TCP is > right on target. (Hi Dan!) The Internet was architected to place TCP > at the ends of any interaction, as close to the "user" (human or > program) as possible. > > The IP transport service along the paths between the ends was always to > be under suspicion, and it might drop, delay, replicate, misdeliver, > mangle, or even inject IP datagrams that might look like they came from > the endpoint source. But TCP, and other technical and procedural > mechanisms at the endpoints, would detect such behavior and compensate > for it. > > The scenarios driving such thinking were simple in military arenas - you > had to assume that some of the stuff between the endpoints might have > been compromised and under enemy control, possibly without your > knowledge. In that scenario, tanks, troops, special ops and such are > involved. In today's Internet it's more likely to be bugs, hackers, > viruses, and trojan horses. In any event, the TCP and related stuff at > the endpoints would counteract such problems in the intermediate IP > environment. > > That was the architecture - TCP to provide end-to-end "sacred" > mechanisms, IP to provide untrustworthy along-the-path best efforts. > > I think of myself as more of an architectural pragmatist than purist. > For a while in the 80s, I was responsible for BBN's work with DCA in > "DDN System Engineering", i.e., taking this Internet stuff and getting > it to work in the operational world. It didn't quite work "out of the > box"... > > That involved dealing with a lot of "administrative boundaries", and > adding some architectural components to make them possible. Two > examples come to mind. > > First, in early 1982, after Bob Kahn convinced me of the importance of > such boundaries, Eric Rosen and I brainstormed and created the notion of > "autonomous systems" and the EGP protocol. If you look at RFC827, it > says "It is proposed to establish a standard for Gateway to Gateway > procedures that allow the Gateways to be mutually suspicious." That > was the key addition to the Architecture that would make it possible to > isolate "bad" pieces of the IP infrastructure and keep the rest of the > IP transport system functioning. EGP was just a first step, to enable > further experimentation and development (which I don't know ever > happened). EGP didn't say how to be suspicious; it just established a > boundary so you could be suspicious if you figured out how to do so. > > Second, around the same time, we defined a "DDN Standard Node". This > was simply two gateways, interconnected by a wire. It built on the > previous idea that a wire was just a very simple network which had only > two "hosts", "this end" and "that end". > > In the DDN, such a node would go into every site. Instead of a single > gateway at a site, there would be two connected in series. One gateway > would connect to that site's internal network of LANs and such. The > other would connect to another site by some long-haul communications > medium, e.g., a PRNet, SATNET or ARPANET clone, etc. The "inside" > gateway would be "owned" by the base or ship commander and his/her IT > staff. The "outside" gateway would be owned by DCA and the DDN staff. > > in addition to these two, there were other mechanisms for operational > needs, e.g., TACACS to provide a mechanism to identify, and control, who > was using the Internet and what they were doing (connecting to hosts). > > Such an architecture was trying to establish the needed administrative > boundaries. E.g., he "DDN Standard Node" provided a mechanism to create > such a boundary wherever appropriate, at the IP level. Different pieces > of the government want to control their own stuff.... > > Circa 1984, I remember giving lots of presentations where one theme was > that we had spent the first 10 years of the Internet (taking the 1974 > TCP paper as the start) making it possible for every computer to talk > with every other computer. We would spend the next 10 years making it > not possible to do such things, so that only communications that were > permitted would be possible. > > Sadly, I'm not sure that ever happened. The commercial world started > adopting TCP big time. The government decided to focus on using COTS - > Commercial Off-The-Shelf hardware and software. The Research world > focused on things like faster and bigger networks. At BBN, the focus > shifted to X.25, SNA, and such stuff that promised a big marketplace. > TCP had gone through 5 releases from TCP2 through TCP4 in just a few > years, so remaining items on the To-Do list, like address space, were > expected to be addressed shortly. > > I'm not sure if anyone ever conveyed this architecture to the IETF or > all the vendors that were popping up with products to build > Internet(s). I think changes like NAT came about to solve pragmatic > problems. But that of course broke the "end-to-end" architecture, which > would view NAT actions as those of an intruder or equipment failure. > So TCP became no longer end-to-end. > > The Internet is typically viewed as a way to interconnect networks. But > I think it's evolved operationally to become the way to interconnect > across administrative boundaries, where Autonomous Systems have become > associated with different ISPs, other mechanisms are used by vendors to > create their own walled gardens of services (e.g., "clouds" or > "messaging"), and NAT is used at the edges to connect to users' > internets. The end-to-end nature is gone. > > But that's just based on my observations from the outside. I don't have > a clue as to what today's actual Internet Architecture is, other than a > collection of RFCs and product manuals that may or may not reflect > reality, or if there is anyone actually able to manage the > architecture. From my user's perspective, it's a Wild West out there..... > > And the definition of The Internet is still elusive. I agree that the > users' definition is the best working one -- The Internet is the thing > I'm connected to to do what I do when I get "on the Net." > > Fascinating to watch this over 50 years...who would have thought it > would last this long? > > /Jack Haverty > > > On 11/7/19 7:29 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 11/6/2019 4:08 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > >> The flaw in my definition of computers talking to computers comes from > >> the tweaks added to the technology well after TCP/IP itself -- things > >> like firewalls, port forwarding, NAT, et al. When I worked at Oracle, > >> we ran our own internet, which had thousands of computers attached that > >> could all talk to each other. But only one of them could talk out to > >> the rest of the world. > > > > > > Here I'll disagree. Nothing about those additional components gets in > > the way of your definition. (That's written as an small, implicit pun.) > > > > In spite of the changes those components effect, the computers at the > > end points still interoperate, which is what your language specifies. > > > > As for the Oracle example, I'll suggest that it merely demonstrates > > that 'the' Internet includes other internets, and that while true, I > > don't offer it as much of an insight. > > > > As for the strong reactions Internet architecture purists have about > > these additional components, mostly it seems to stem from a failure to > > appreciate the operational importance of administrative boundaries. > > For some reason, we think it fine to have those when doing global > > routing, but not for other aspects of transit data processing, in > > spite of the continuing and pervasive demonstration of their need. > > > > I'm never any good at attributing quotations or getting their wording > > right, but there was long ago an observation that a law, which is > > violated by a large percentage of the population, is not a very good > > law. The same logic applies to architectural purity criticisms of > > NATs, etc. > > > > d/ > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jack Haverty via Internet-history > To: dcrocker at bbiw.net > Cc: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Bcc: > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:22:39 -0800 > Subject: Re: [ih] inter-network communication history > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 11:51:23 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Barbara Denny via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:51:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2098820763.1026656.1573156283266@mail.yahoo.com> There is also a chance this was documented in the Packet Radio progress reports.? The Defense Technical Information Center website did seem to have some Packet Radio reports when I tried to find more information on the August test date.? The listing wasn't well organized so I couldn't quickly check for the existence of a specific report. I also am not sure how much is visible to me.? Some academic institutions seem to have full access. barbara On Thursday, November 7, 2019, 10:48:14 AM PST, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: Geoff, thanks - this is excellent background - and I agree testing would have preceded the Rosatti event. v On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:11 AM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > vint, the path for yours truly's Packet radio connection would be the > Datamedia CRT terminal connected to an LSI-11 (host Fernwood) connected to > the Collins Packet Radio in your truly's office in the SRI Building K2079 > machine room to the SRI-C3P0 (or SRI-R2D2) PDP-11 gateway resident in the > building 'cross the parking lot which was plugged (via 1822) into one of > the SRI IMPs to which the SRI-KA PDP-10 Tenex was plugged into, viz.: > > excerpted from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc752/?include_text=1: > > HOST SRI-C3PO,? ? ? ? ? 3/51,USER,ELF,PDP11,[PKT40,C3PO] ; What about > Darth Vader? > HOST SRI-KA,? ? ? ? ? ? 0/51,SERVER,TENEX,PDP10,[SRI-TENEX,KA] > HOST SRI-KL, >? 1/2,SERVER,TOPS-20,PDP10,[SRI,NIC,KL,AIC,SRI-AI,SRI-TWENEX] > HOST SRI-NSC11,? ? ? ? 3/2,USER,ELF,PDP11,[NSC11] > HOST SRI-R2D2,? ? ? ? ? 1/51,USER,ELF,PDP11,[PKT34,R2D2] ; or the princess? > HOST SRI-TSC,? ? ? ? ? 0/2,USER,ELF,PDP11,[ARC,ARC-RD] > HOST SRI-UNIX,? ? ? ? ? 2/51,SERVER,UNIX,PDP11,[THX-1145] > HOST SRI-VIS11,? ? ? ? 2/2,USER,ELF,PDP11,[VIS11,SRI-CBC11,CBC11] > > > to get the dates for when these tests were done, generally it was done > when *Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman * > was airing in its 1976-177 run (sorry, can't remember The Exact Episodes -- > as mentioned Bill Plummer and yours truly stopped the debugging sessions to > watch each night :D) > > perhaps you could rope Jim Mathis (author of the LSI-11 terminal client sw > in) or Ron Kunzelman or Keith Klemba in here (since The AWESOME Don Cone is > no longer with us on this plane)? > > yours truly believes these tests were first done with the BCPL TCP/IP > server logged in sw with the Tenex ICP and PTY's code that Bill Plummer > wrote (and brought up for us) prior to the Macro-10 (PDP-10 Assembly > Language) TCP/IP in the Tenex monitor (kernal) that was then fully > distributed to all. > > believe the BCPL TCP/UP server logged in sw was first written/installed by > Bill Plummer on BBNB (BBN-TenexB) and then brought up on SRI (which is why > yours truly had one of those Collins Packet Radio's and an LSI-11 in yours > truly's office at SRI :D). > > wouldn't it be logical to assume this Internet testing from PRNET to > ARPANET would have been tried/accomplished before the Rosotti's foray? > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:43 PM Vint Cerf wrote: > >> geoff, >> thanks -by the way it's Plummer not Plumber. >> >> The first two network test that I knew about was the famous PRNET to >> ARPANET transfer from Rosotti's in 1976 - when were your tests done and >> what exactly was the path. There would have to have been a TCP (or >> IP)-aware gateway from PRNET into ARPANET to qualify as an Internet test. >> >> v >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:47 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < >> geoff at iconia.com> wrote: >> >>> vint, as best yours truly can recall, prior to TCP being integrated into >>> the Tenex monitor, there were several BCPL user level programs written by >>> Bill Plumber at BBN that used a (new at the time) ICP mechanism to >>> communicate between them. >>> >>> there were four programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that >>> used PTY's -- rather than NVT's) to support remote user logins.? There was >>> also a TCP User Telnet program that allows outward TCP telneting ICP'ng to >>> the user TCP program. >>> >>> each of these programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used >>> PTY's) were auto started at system boot time by using SYSJOB's "CRJOB" >>> mechanism to log each of them in "DETACHED" under WHEEL'd user TCP. >>> >>> Bill Plumber then later came out to SRI to install either this user TCP >>> stuff (and the ICP and PTY monitor code) or later when TCP was integrated >>> into the monitor (in PDP-10 Macro Assembly Language) on what was originally >>> SRI-AI, then SRI-KA, then DARCOM-KA (where the NSW [National Software >>> Works] also ran). >>> >>> as part of this installation and debugging process we would summarily >>> stop this work each night to watch the latest episode of *Mary Hartman, >>> Mary Hartman* on a portable TV yours truly brought in... >>> >>> as you may recall, yours truly had one of the Collins Packet Radio's >>> with the LSI-11 (hostname Fernwood) attached to it in yours truly's office >>> at the time which would look out at the PRNet antenna mast across the SRI >>> parking lot to the building where the SRI-C3P0 and SRI-R2D2 Gateway PDP-11 >>> resided. >>> >>> yours truly believes that the SRI Bay Area PRNet LSI-11 to Tenex Host >>> communications first occurred using Bill Plumbers Tenex User level BCPL TCP >>> stuff before any USC-ISI (Tenex Monitor integrated TCP) was done. >>> >>> unfortunately, neither Bill Plumber or Ray Tomlinson are around >>> to corroborate/chime in on this, so maybe Dan Lynch, Jim Mathis (or even >>> Ron Kunzelman, Keith Klemba, Don Cone could), but don't know if they are on >>> the Internet-History list or not (but clearly should be)... >>> >>> ah, those were The Fun Days... :-) >>> >>> From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow >>> GEOFF at SRI-AI >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:54 PM Vint Cerf wrote: >>> >>>> July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile >>>> host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 >>>> was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network >>>> >>>> vint >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: >>>> >>>>> Party pooper! >>>>> >>>>> When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >>>>> technology? >>>>> >>>>> Joly MacFie >>>>> 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The >>>>>> ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It >>>>>> was a single network not an internetwork. >>>>>> >>>>>> Take care. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jay >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM < >>>>>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to >>>>>>>? ? ? ? internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>>>>? ? ? ? https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>>>>? ? ? ? internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>>>>? ? ? ? internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>>>> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>? ? 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s >>>>>>>? ? ? Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Message: 1 >>>>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 >>>>>>> From: Joly MacFie >>>>>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>>> Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>>>>>? ? ? ? Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet >>>>>>> Message-ID: >>>>>>>? ? ? ? >>>>>> xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> >>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A brief follow up to last week's major do >>>>>>> in LA, with a >>>>>>> latin >>>>>>> flavor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) >>>>>>> LACNIC >>>>>>> will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>>>>> Internet's >>>>>>> Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will >>>>>>> commemorate >>>>>>> the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. >>>>>>> LACNIC's >>>>>>> special guests will be three of the engineers behind that >>>>>>> achievement: *Leonard >>>>>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be >>>>>>> simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society >>>>>>> Livestream >>>>>>> Channels *. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>>>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic >>>>>>> (ENGLISH) >>>>>>> VIEW ON >>>>>>> USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe >>>>>>> (ENGLISH)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC >>>>>>> conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por >>>>>>> Internet con >>>>>>> un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados >>>>>>> especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese >>>>>>> logro: *Leonard >>>>>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se >>>>>>> transmitir? >>>>>>> simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet >>>>>>> Society >>>>>>> Livestream *. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>>>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic >>>>>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>>>>> *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X >>>>>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 < >>>>>>> http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Permalink* >>>>>>> https://isoc.live/11483/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> Joly MacFie? 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> Skype:punkcast >>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>>>> URL: < >>>>>>> http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 >>>>>>> *********************************************** >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> New postal address: >>>> Google >>>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >>> living as The Truth is True >>> http://geoff.livejournal.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > > > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 11:46:13 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joe Touch via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:46:13 -0800 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7DDAECB4-A753-491C-B0DA-5828FDA7B6C4@strayalpha.com> I?m trying another setting. Stay tuned. Joe > On Nov 7, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > ? > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 11:31:35 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:31:35 +1300 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: <59B5A652-43F7-4DF7-99F8-AAB48AA87013@strayalpha.com> References: <59B5A652-43F7-4DF7-99F8-AAB48AA87013@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:31:35 +1300 Size: 6121 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 11:22:39 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Jack Haverty via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:22:39 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Jack Haverty Subject: Re: [ih] inter-network communication history Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:22:39 -0800 Size: 10915 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Nov 7 11:22:39 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:22:39 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <89424ee5-f7b9-2c5f-5d21-c18b74e1ee36@3kitty.org> Dan Lynch's recollection of the sacred "end-to-end" nature of? TCP is right on target.? (Hi Dan!)?? The Internet was architected to place TCP at the ends of any interaction, as close to the "user" (human or program) as possible.?? The IP transport service along the paths between the ends was always to be under suspicion, and it might drop, delay, replicate, misdeliver, mangle, or even inject IP datagrams that might look like they came from the endpoint source.?? But TCP, and other technical and procedural mechanisms at the endpoints, would detect such behavior and compensate for it. The scenarios driving such thinking were simple in military arenas - you had to assume that some of the stuff between the endpoints might have been compromised and under enemy control, possibly without your knowledge.? In that scenario, tanks, troops, special ops and such are involved.? In today's Internet it's more likely to be bugs, hackers, viruses, and trojan horses.? In any event, the TCP and related stuff at the endpoints would counteract such problems in the intermediate IP environment.? That was the architecture - TCP to provide end-to-end "sacred" mechanisms, IP to provide untrustworthy along-the-path best efforts.?? I think of myself as more of an architectural pragmatist than purist.? For a while in the 80s, I was responsible for BBN's work with DCA in "DDN System Engineering", i.e., taking this Internet stuff and getting it to work in the operational world.? It didn't quite work "out of the box"... That involved dealing with a lot of "administrative boundaries", and adding some architectural components to make them possible.? Two examples come to mind. First, in early 1982, after Bob Kahn convinced me of the importance of such boundaries, Eric Rosen and I brainstormed and created the notion of "autonomous systems" and the EGP protocol.? If you look at RFC827, it says "It is proposed to establish a standard for Gateway to Gateway procedures that allow the Gateways to be mutually suspicious."?? That was the key addition to the Architecture that would make it possible to isolate "bad" pieces of the IP infrastructure and keep the rest of the IP transport system functioning.? EGP was just a first step, to enable further experimentation and development (which I don't know ever happened).? EGP didn't say how to be suspicious; it just established a boundary so you could be suspicious if you figured out how to do so. Second, around the same time, we defined a "DDN Standard Node".? This was simply two gateways, interconnected by a wire.? It built on the previous idea that a wire was just a very simple network which had only two "hosts", "this end" and "that end". ? In the DDN, such a node would go into every site.? Instead of a single gateway at a site, there would be two connected in series.? One gateway would connect to that site's internal network of LANs and such.? The other would connect to another site by some long-haul communications medium, e.g., a PRNet, SATNET or ARPANET clone, etc.? The "inside" gateway would be "owned" by the base or ship commander and his/her IT staff.? The "outside" gateway would be owned by DCA and the DDN staff. in addition to these two, there were other mechanisms for operational needs, e.g., TACACS to provide a mechanism to identify, and control, who was using the Internet and what they were doing (connecting to hosts).? Such an architecture was trying to establish the needed administrative boundaries.? E.g., he "DDN Standard Node" provided a mechanism to create such a boundary wherever appropriate, at the IP level.? Different pieces of the government want to control their own stuff.... Circa 1984, I remember giving lots of presentations where one theme was that we had spent the first 10 years of the Internet (taking the 1974 TCP paper as the start) making it possible for every computer to talk with every other computer.? We would spend the next 10 years making it not possible to do such things, so that only communications that were permitted would be possible. Sadly, I'm not sure that ever happened.? The commercial world started adopting TCP big time.?? The government decided to focus on using COTS - Commercial Off-The-Shelf hardware and software.? The Research world focused on things like faster and bigger networks.?? At BBN, the focus shifted to X.25, SNA, and such stuff that promised a big marketplace.?? TCP had gone through 5 releases from TCP2 through TCP4 in just a few years, so remaining items on the To-Do list, like address space, were expected to be addressed shortly. I'm not sure if anyone ever conveyed this architecture to the IETF or all the vendors that were popping up with products to build Internet(s).? I think changes like NAT came about to solve pragmatic problems.? But that of course broke the "end-to-end" architecture, which would view NAT actions as those of an intruder or equipment failure.?? So TCP became no longer end-to-end.?? The Internet is typically viewed as a way to interconnect networks.? But I think it's evolved operationally to become the way to interconnect across administrative boundaries, where Autonomous Systems have become associated with different ISPs, other mechanisms are used by vendors to create their own walled gardens of services (e.g., "clouds" or "messaging"), and NAT is used at the edges to connect to users' internets.? The end-to-end nature is gone.? But that's just based on my observations from the outside.? I don't have a clue as to what today's actual Internet Architecture is, other than a collection of RFCs and product manuals that may or may not reflect reality, or if there is anyone actually able to manage the architecture.? From my user's perspective, it's a Wild West out there..... And the definition of The Internet is still elusive.? I agree that the users' definition is the best working one -- The Internet is the thing I'm connected to to do what I do when I get "on the Net." Fascinating to watch this over 50 years...who would have thought it would last this long? /Jack Haverty On 11/7/19 7:29 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/6/2019 4:08 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> The flaw in my definition of computers talking to computers comes from >> the tweaks added to the technology well after TCP/IP itself -- things >> like firewalls, port forwarding, NAT, et al.? When I worked at Oracle, >> we ran our own internet, which had thousands of computers attached that >> could all talk to each other.? But only one of them could talk out to >> the rest of the world. > > > Here I'll disagree.? Nothing about those additional components gets in > the way of your definition.? (That's written as an small, implicit pun.) > > In spite of the changes those components effect, the computers at the > end points still interoperate, which is what your language specifies. > > As for the Oracle example, I'll suggest that it merely demonstrates > that 'the' Internet includes other internets, and that while true, I > don't offer it as much of an insight. > > As for the strong reactions Internet architecture purists have about > these additional components, mostly it seems to stem from a failure to > appreciate the operational importance of administrative boundaries.? > For some reason, we think it fine to have those when doing global > routing, but not for other aspects of transit data processing, in > spite of the continuing and pervasive demonstration of their need. > > I'm never any good at attributing quotations or getting their wording > right, but there was long ago an observation that a law, which is > violated by a large percentage of the population, is not a very good > law.? The same logic applies to architectural purity criticisms of > NATs, etc. > > d/ > From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 10:47:36 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Vint Cerf via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:47:36 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Vint Cerf Subject: Re: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:47:36 -0500 Size: 16753 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 09:17:44 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Dave Crocker via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:17:44 -0800 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: References: <59B5A652-43F7-4DF7-99F8-AAB48AA87013@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:17:44 -0800 Size: 7347 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 09:02:02 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Clem Cole via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:02:02 -0500 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: References: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Clem Cole Subject: Re: [ih] what's a level Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:02:02 -0500 Size: 12316 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 08:32:43 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:32:43 +0100 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: <59B5A652-43F7-4DF7-99F8-AAB48AA87013@strayalpha.com> References: <59B5A652-43F7-4DF7-99F8-AAB48AA87013@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Steffen Nurpmeso Subject: Re: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:32:43 +0100 Size: 6332 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 08:20:52 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Vint Cerf via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:20:52 -0500 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: References: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Vint Cerf Subject: Re: [ih] what's a level Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:20:52 -0500 Size: 8822 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 07:56:41 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Vint Cerf via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:56:41 -0500 Subject: [ih] test In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Vint Cerf Subject: Re: [ih] test Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:56:41 -0500 Size: 4693 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 07:50:10 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Clem Cole via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:50:10 -0500 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: References: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Clem Cole Subject: Re: [ih] what's a level Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:50:10 -0500 Size: 7428 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Nov 7 07:29:53 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:29:53 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <462c0907-dc86-b22c-5e28-4bef702bca79@dcrocker.net> On 11/6/2019 4:08 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > The flaw in my definition of computers talking to computers comes from > the tweaks added to the technology well after TCP/IP itself -- things > like firewalls, port forwarding, NAT, et al.? When I worked at Oracle, > we ran our own internet, which had thousands of computers attached that > could all talk to each other.? But only one of them could talk out to > the rest of the world. Here I'll disagree. Nothing about those additional components gets in the way of your definition. (That's written as an small, implicit pun.) In spite of the changes those components effect, the computers at the end points still interoperate, which is what your language specifies. As for the Oracle example, I'll suggest that it merely demonstrates that 'the' Internet includes other internets, and that while true, I don't offer it as much of an insight. As for the strong reactions Internet architecture purists have about these additional components, mostly it seems to stem from a failure to appreciate the operational importance of administrative boundaries. For some reason, we think it fine to have those when doing global routing, but not for other aspects of transit data processing, in spite of the continuing and pervasive demonstration of their need. I'm never any good at attributing quotations or getting their wording right, but there was long ago an observation that a law, which is violated by a large percentage of the population, is not a very good law. The same logic applies to architectural purity criticisms of NATs, etc. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 07:24:42 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joe Touch via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:24:42 -0800 Subject: [ih] test Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Joe Touch Subject: test Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:24:42 -0800 Size: 3769 URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From internet-history at elists.isoc.org Thu Nov 7 07:18:09 2019 From: internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Joe Touch via Internet-history) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:18:09 -0800 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59B5A652-43F7-4DF7-99F8-AAB48AA87013@strayalpha.com> Hi, all, I think the problem MAY be identified. We had been using the Mailman defaults, which forward messages FROM the original recipient. This has two effects: - it CAN cause people?s emails to bounce, unsubscribing them (thus the notes) - it causes list traffic to show up as spam because it fails DMARC checks I changed the setting and will reset all the bounce-disable accounts. Let?s see if that?s better. Thanks, BTW, to Clem Cole for noting this and providing the info needed to debug. Joe (as list admin) > On Nov 6, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, all, > > Some of you have reported getting bounce notifications today that claim your email is blocked. So far, I see no evidence of that in the list configs for those emails. > > You may also have received a monthly password notice; that feature was enabled for Nov 1 but has been disabled moving forward. I wanted everyone to at least get an initial message. > > Note that the archive appears to be ?stuck? and not updating correctly; I?ll try to get that fixed ASAP. > > Please let me know if there are any other issues; I?ll keep you posted on the items above. > > Joe (list admin) -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From el at lisse.na Thu Nov 7 06:54:26 2019 From: el at lisse.na (Dr Eberhard W Lisse) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:54:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> References: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> Message-ID: Jorge, while the name is correct UUCP was not only a file copy mechanism, it also allowed execution of programs on the remote side (uux if I am not mistaken). ?That made pushing mails around possible. It also allowed for batching and compressing and feeding mail into a rudimentary smail, or even into sendmail (brrrr!!!). And when Taylor UUCP came along, sliding windows, longer packages and some other stuff made this darn efficient. It can also run over TCP but that?s rather counterproductive unless you use dialup. I am still very fond of UUCP and even though Imam not using it any more I keep it on my computers (like kermit). Btw, there was a thread about UUCP last year with Subject:?[ih] Early Internet history el ? Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPad Mini 5 On 7 Nov 2019, 07:53 -0500, Jorge Amodio , wrote: > > Actually UUCP was a file copy-transfer utility. > > UUCP = Unix to Unix CoPy > > In Argentina we started a major academic network using UUCP taking advantage of a MSDOS implementation called at the time UUPC. > > Our first gateway to the ?Internet? was ?seismo? managed by Rick Adams, which later became ?uunet? > > I was for some time uunet!atina!pete :-) > > -Jorge > > > On Nov 6, 2019, at 2:01 PM, John Levine wrote: > > > > In article you write: > > > i think a lot of the interconnections were application layer gateways - > > > such as email relays. > > > Early USENET wasn't Internet if by this we mean TCP/IP based. UUCP was't > > > using TCP/IP ... > > > > UUCP was a message forwarding transport protocol, USENET was (and is) > > a distributed bulletin board system. UUCP was mostly over dialup > > phone modems but I have heard claims that there is still the > > occasional UUCP over TCP. > > > > From the beginning, we used UUCP for other applications, notably e-mail, > > and USENET used other transports, ranging from LANs to mag tapes sent > > by mail (and I don't mean e-mail.) > > > > R's > > John L, cca!ima!johnl > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jmamodio at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 04:53:26 2019 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 06:53:26 -0600 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> References: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> Message-ID: <68215D14-899A-4CAD-BBA5-CA1EE7DE6F52@gmail.com> Actually UUCP was a file copy-transfer utility. UUCP = Unix to Unix CoPy In Argentina we started a major academic network using UUCP taking advantage of a MSDOS implementation called at the time UUPC. Our first gateway to the ?Internet? was ?seismo? managed by Rick Adams, which later became ?uunet? I was for some time uunet!atina!pete :-) -Jorge > On Nov 6, 2019, at 2:01 PM, John Levine wrote: > > ?In article you write: >> i think a lot of the interconnections were application layer gateways - >> such as email relays. >> Early USENET wasn't Internet if by this we mean TCP/IP based. UUCP was't >> using TCP/IP ... > > UUCP was a message forwarding transport protocol, USENET was (and is) > a distributed bulletin board system. UUCP was mostly over dialup > phone modems but I have heard claims that there is still the > occasional UUCP over TCP. > > From the beginning, we used UUCP for other applications, notably e-mail, > and USENET used other transports, ranging from LANs to mag tapes sent > by mail (and I don't mean e-mail.) > > R's > John L, cca!ima!johnl > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Wed Nov 6 23:01:51 2019 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <375625165.737726.1573110111582@mail.yahoo.com> FYI, I just looked online and the plaque is still at Rossotti's. There is an article from October about the reopening of Zott's after extensive work on the property.? New owners bought it after the death of the previous owner, and the article specifically mentions keeping the plaque.? I guess I need to go and find it again as the article only mentions the year of the test. barbara On Wednesday, November 6, 2019, 09:11:32 PM PST, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: vint, the path for yours truly's Packet radio connection would be the Datamedia CRT terminal connected to an LSI-11 (host Fernwood) connected to the Collins Packet Radio in your truly's office in the SRI Building K2079 machine room to the SRI-C3P0 (or SRI-R2D2) PDP-11 gateway resident in the building 'cross the parking lot which was plugged (via 1822) into one of the SRI IMPs to which the SRI-KA PDP-10 Tenex was plugged into, viz.: excerpted from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc752/?include_text=1: HOST SRI-C3PO,? ? ? ? ? 3/51,USER,ELF,PDP11,[PKT40,C3PO] ; What about Darth Vader? HOST SRI-KA,? ? ? ? ? ? 0/51,SERVER,TENEX,PDP10,[SRI-TENEX,KA] HOST SRI-KL, 1/2,SERVER,TOPS-20,PDP10,[SRI,NIC,KL,AIC,SRI-AI,SRI-TWENEX] HOST SRI-NSC11,? ? ? ? 3/2,USER,ELF,PDP11,[NSC11] HOST SRI-R2D2,? ? ? ? ? 1/51,USER,ELF,PDP11,[PKT34,R2D2] ; or the princess? HOST SRI-TSC,? ? ? ? ? 0/2,USER,ELF,PDP11,[ARC,ARC-RD] HOST SRI-UNIX,? ? ? ? ? 2/51,SERVER,UNIX,PDP11,[THX-1145] HOST SRI-VIS11,? ? ? ? 2/2,USER,ELF,PDP11,[VIS11,SRI-CBC11,CBC11] to get the dates for when these tests were done, generally it was done when *Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman * was airing in its 1976-177 run (sorry, can't remember The Exact Episodes -- as mentioned Bill Plummer and yours truly stopped the debugging sessions to watch each night :D) perhaps you could rope Jim Mathis (author of the LSI-11 terminal client sw in) or Ron Kunzelman or Keith Klemba in here (since The AWESOME Don Cone is no longer with us on this plane)? yours truly believes these tests were first done with the BCPL TCP/IP server logged in sw with the Tenex ICP and PTY's code that Bill Plummer wrote (and brought up for us) prior to the Macro-10 (PDP-10 Assembly Language) TCP/IP in the Tenex monitor (kernal) that was then fully distributed to all. believe the BCPL TCP/UP server logged in sw was first written/installed by Bill Plummer on BBNB (BBN-TenexB) and then brought up on SRI (which is why yours truly had one of those Collins Packet Radio's and an LSI-11 in yours truly's office at SRI :D). wouldn't it be logical to assume this Internet testing from PRNET to ARPANET would have been tried/accomplished before the Rosotti's foray? On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:43 PM Vint Cerf wrote: > geoff, > thanks -by the way it's Plummer not Plumber. > > The first two network test that I knew about was the famous PRNET to > ARPANET transfer from Rosotti's in 1976 - when were your tests done and > what exactly was the path. There would have to have been a TCP (or > IP)-aware gateway from PRNET into ARPANET to qualify as an Internet test. > > v > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:47 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < > geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > >> vint, as best yours truly can recall, prior to TCP being integrated into >> the Tenex monitor, there were several BCPL user level programs written by >> Bill Plumber at BBN that used a (new at the time) ICP mechanism to >> communicate between them. >> >> there were four programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that >> used PTY's -- rather than NVT's) to support remote user logins.? There was >> also a TCP User Telnet program that allows outward TCP telneting ICP'ng to >> the user TCP program. >> >> each of these programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used >> PTY's) were auto started at system boot time by using SYSJOB's "CRJOB" >> mechanism to log each of them in "DETACHED" under WHEEL'd user TCP. >> >> Bill Plumber then later came out to SRI to install either this user TCP >> stuff (and the ICP and PTY monitor code) or later when TCP was integrated >> into the monitor (in PDP-10 Macro Assembly Language) on what was originally >> SRI-AI, then SRI-KA, then DARCOM-KA (where the NSW [National Software >> Works] also ran). >> >> as part of this installation and debugging process we would summarily >> stop this work each night to watch the latest episode of *Mary Hartman, >> Mary Hartman* on a portable TV yours truly brought in... >> >> as you may recall, yours truly had one of the Collins Packet Radio's with >> the LSI-11 (hostname Fernwood) attached to it in yours truly's office at >> the time which would look out at the PRNet antenna mast across the SRI >> parking lot to the building where the SRI-C3P0 and SRI-R2D2 Gateway PDP-11 >> resided. >> >> yours truly believes that the SRI Bay Area PRNet LSI-11 to Tenex Host >> communications first occurred using Bill Plumbers Tenex User level BCPL TCP >> stuff before any USC-ISI (Tenex Monitor integrated TCP) was done. >> >> unfortunately, neither Bill Plumber or Ray Tomlinson are around >> to corroborate/chime in on this, so maybe Dan Lynch, Jim Mathis (or even >> Ron Kunzelman, Keith Klemba, Don Cone could), but don't know if they are on >> the Internet-History list or not (but clearly should be)... >> >> ah, those were The Fun Days... :-) >> >> From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow >> GEOFF at SRI-AI >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:54 PM Vint Cerf wrote: >> >>> July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile >>> host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 >>> was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network >>> >>> vint >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: >>> >>>> Party pooper! >>>> >>>> When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >>>> technology? >>>> >>>> Joly MacFie >>>> 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The >>>>> ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It >>>>> was a single network not an internetwork. >>>>> >>>>> Take care. >>>>> >>>>> Jay >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM < >>>>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to >>>>>>? ? ? ? internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> >>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>>>? ? ? ? https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>>>? ? ? ? internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> >>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>>>? ? ? ? internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> >>>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>>> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>>> >>>>>>? ? 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s >>>>>>? ? ? Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Message: 1 >>>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 >>>>>> From: Joly MacFie >>>>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>>>>? ? ? ? Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet >>>>>> Message-ID: >>>>>>? ? ? ? >>>>> xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> >>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>>> >>>>>> A brief follow up to last week's major do >>>>>> in LA, with a >>>>>> latin >>>>>> flavor. >>>>>> >>>>>> ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) >>>>>> LACNIC >>>>>> will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over >>>>>> the >>>>>> Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>>>> Internet's >>>>>> Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will >>>>>> commemorate >>>>>> the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a >>>>>> webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. >>>>>> LACNIC's >>>>>> special guests will be three of the engineers behind that >>>>>> achievement: *Leonard >>>>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be >>>>>> simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society >>>>>> Livestream >>>>>> Channels *. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic >>>>>> (ENGLISH) >>>>>> VIEW ON >>>>>> USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe >>>>>> (ENGLISH)* >>>>>> >>>>>> El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC >>>>>> conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet >>>>>> con >>>>>> un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados >>>>>> especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese >>>>>> logro: *Leonard >>>>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se >>>>>> transmitir? >>>>>> simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet >>>>>> Society >>>>>> Livestream *. >>>>>> >>>>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic >>>>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>>>> *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X >>>>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>>>> >>>>>> *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 < >>>>>> http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50>* >>>>>> >>>>>> *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * >>>>>> >>>>>> *Permalink* >>>>>> https://isoc.live/11483/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Joly MacFie? 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> Skype:punkcast >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - >>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>>> URL: < >>>>>> http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 >>>>>> *********************************************** >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >> >> -- >> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> living as The Truth is True >> http://geoff.livejournal.com >> >> >> > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From geoff at iconia.com Wed Nov 6 21:10:29 2019 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 19:10:29 -1000 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: vint, the path for yours truly's Packet radio connection would be the Datamedia CRT terminal connected to an LSI-11 (host Fernwood) connected to the Collins Packet Radio in your truly's office in the SRI Building K2079 machine room to the SRI-C3P0 (or SRI-R2D2) PDP-11 gateway resident in the building 'cross the parking lot which was plugged (via 1822) into one of the SRI IMPs to which the SRI-KA PDP-10 Tenex was plugged into, viz.: excerpted from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc752/?include_text=1: HOST SRI-C3PO, 3/51,USER,ELF,PDP11,[PKT40,C3PO] ; What about Darth Vader? HOST SRI-KA, 0/51,SERVER,TENEX,PDP10,[SRI-TENEX,KA] HOST SRI-KL, 1/2,SERVER,TOPS-20,PDP10,[SRI,NIC,KL,AIC,SRI-AI,SRI-TWENEX] HOST SRI-NSC11, 3/2,USER,ELF,PDP11,[NSC11] HOST SRI-R2D2, 1/51,USER,ELF,PDP11,[PKT34,R2D2] ; or the princess? HOST SRI-TSC, 0/2,USER,ELF,PDP11,[ARC,ARC-RD] HOST SRI-UNIX, 2/51,SERVER,UNIX,PDP11,[THX-1145] HOST SRI-VIS11, 2/2,USER,ELF,PDP11,[VIS11,SRI-CBC11,CBC11] to get the dates for when these tests were done, generally it was done when *Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman * was airing in its 1976-177 run (sorry, can't remember The Exact Episodes -- as mentioned Bill Plummer and yours truly stopped the debugging sessions to watch each night :D) perhaps you could rope Jim Mathis (author of the LSI-11 terminal client sw in) or Ron Kunzelman or Keith Klemba in here (since The AWESOME Don Cone is no longer with us on this plane)? yours truly believes these tests were first done with the BCPL TCP/IP server logged in sw with the Tenex ICP and PTY's code that Bill Plummer wrote (and brought up for us) prior to the Macro-10 (PDP-10 Assembly Language) TCP/IP in the Tenex monitor (kernal) that was then fully distributed to all. believe the BCPL TCP/UP server logged in sw was first written/installed by Bill Plummer on BBNB (BBN-TenexB) and then brought up on SRI (which is why yours truly had one of those Collins Packet Radio's and an LSI-11 in yours truly's office at SRI :D). wouldn't it be logical to assume this Internet testing from PRNET to ARPANET would have been tried/accomplished before the Rosotti's foray? On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:43 PM Vint Cerf wrote: > geoff, > thanks -by the way it's Plummer not Plumber. > > The first two network test that I knew about was the famous PRNET to > ARPANET transfer from Rosotti's in 1976 - when were your tests done and > what exactly was the path. There would have to have been a TCP (or > IP)-aware gateway from PRNET into ARPANET to qualify as an Internet test. > > v > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:47 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < > geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > >> vint, as best yours truly can recall, prior to TCP being integrated into >> the Tenex monitor, there were several BCPL user level programs written by >> Bill Plumber at BBN that used a (new at the time) ICP mechanism to >> communicate between them. >> >> there were four programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that >> used PTY's -- rather than NVT's) to support remote user logins. There was >> also a TCP User Telnet program that allows outward TCP telneting ICP'ng to >> the user TCP program. >> >> each of these programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used >> PTY's) were auto started at system boot time by using SYSJOB's "CRJOB" >> mechanism to log each of them in "DETACHED" under WHEEL'd user TCP. >> >> Bill Plumber then later came out to SRI to install either this user TCP >> stuff (and the ICP and PTY monitor code) or later when TCP was integrated >> into the monitor (in PDP-10 Macro Assembly Language) on what was originally >> SRI-AI, then SRI-KA, then DARCOM-KA (where the NSW [National Software >> Works] also ran). >> >> as part of this installation and debugging process we would summarily >> stop this work each night to watch the latest episode of *Mary Hartman, >> Mary Hartman* on a portable TV yours truly brought in... >> >> as you may recall, yours truly had one of the Collins Packet Radio's with >> the LSI-11 (hostname Fernwood) attached to it in yours truly's office at >> the time which would look out at the PRNet antenna mast across the SRI >> parking lot to the building where the SRI-C3P0 and SRI-R2D2 Gateway PDP-11 >> resided. >> >> yours truly believes that the SRI Bay Area PRNet LSI-11 to Tenex Host >> communications first occurred using Bill Plumbers Tenex User level BCPL TCP >> stuff before any USC-ISI (Tenex Monitor integrated TCP) was done. >> >> unfortunately, neither Bill Plumber or Ray Tomlinson are around >> to corroborate/chime in on this, so maybe Dan Lynch, Jim Mathis (or even >> Ron Kunzelman, Keith Klemba, Don Cone could), but don't know if they are on >> the Internet-History list or not (but clearly should be)... >> >> ah, those were The Fun Days... :-) >> >> From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow >> GEOFF at SRI-AI >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:54 PM Vint Cerf wrote: >> >>> July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile >>> host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 >>> was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network >>> >>> vint >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: >>> >>>> Party pooper! >>>> >>>> When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >>>> technology? >>>> >>>> Joly MacFie >>>> 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The >>>>> ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It >>>>> was a single network not an internetwork. >>>>> >>>>> Take care. >>>>> >>>>> Jay >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM < >>>>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to >>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> >>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> >>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>>> internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> >>>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>>> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s >>>>>> Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Message: 1 >>>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 >>>>>> From: Joly MacFie >>>>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>>>> Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet >>>>>> Message-ID: >>>>>> >>>>> xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> >>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>>> >>>>>> A brief follow up to last week's major do >>>>>> in LA, with a >>>>>> latin >>>>>> flavor. >>>>>> >>>>>> ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) >>>>>> LACNIC >>>>>> will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over >>>>>> the >>>>>> Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>>>> Internet's >>>>>> Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will >>>>>> commemorate >>>>>> the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a >>>>>> webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. >>>>>> LACNIC's >>>>>> special guests will be three of the engineers behind that >>>>>> achievement: *Leonard >>>>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be >>>>>> simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society >>>>>> Livestream >>>>>> Channels *. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic >>>>>> (ENGLISH) >>>>>> VIEW ON >>>>>> USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe >>>>>> (ENGLISH)* >>>>>> >>>>>> El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC >>>>>> conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet >>>>>> con >>>>>> un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados >>>>>> especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese >>>>>> logro: *Leonard >>>>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se >>>>>> transmitir? >>>>>> simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet >>>>>> Society >>>>>> Livestream *. >>>>>> >>>>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic >>>>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>>>> *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X >>>>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>>>> >>>>>> *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 < >>>>>> http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50>* >>>>>> >>>>>> *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * >>>>>> >>>>>> *Permalink* >>>>>> https://isoc.live/11483/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> Skype:punkcast >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - >>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>>> URL: < >>>>>> http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 >>>>>> *********************************************** >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> New postal address: >>> Google >>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >> >> -- >> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> living as The Truth is True >> http://geoff.livejournal.com >> >> >> > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dan at lynch.com Wed Nov 6 20:44:49 2019 From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:44:49 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44706704-CD84-4E15-A0A8-6660D7379EF2@lynch.com> Folks, my memory recalls the sacred attribute of end to end. That is that any device on the Internet could communicate with any other device directly with the aid of intermediate devices that forwarded the packet ?unharmed?. Then NAT came along as a hack for running out of IP addresses in V4... And other perversions followed... That is a nerds eye view. Most of the billions of users only see the applications they use and the communities they want to reach. Dan Cell 650-776-7313 > On Nov 6, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > ?Thanks, Dave. I agree that users have very different views of "The > Internet" than us techies. In talking to non-tech people about The > Internet, i've found that it means different things to different people, > based on what they do when "on the net" (i.e., their applications). > Some people think the Internet is the Web. Or Email -- but that may be > Facebook Messenger to them, not "our" email. Or Linked-In, etc. It all > depends on how they use "The Net". > > The flaw in my definition of computers talking to computers comes from > the tweaks added to the technology well after TCP/IP itself -- things > like firewalls, port forwarding, NAT, et al. When I worked at Oracle, > we ran our own internet, which had thousands of computers attached that > could all talk to each other. But only one of them could talk out to > the rest of the world. > > Lots of companies and government entities had a similar setup, with > application-level gateways (another term to be defined) that provide > only specific functions, like web access and email (or database access, > which we created). I think it all started in the TCP/IP world with the > "mail gateways" between ARPANET and MILNET. > > So, are those computers and users still all considered part of The > Internet...even though their computers can't interact with TCP? > > I think The Internet is really really hard to define. > > /Jack > > >> On 11/6/19 1:59 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> On 11/6/2019 1:48 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> So the definition of "Internet" would be in terms of computers talking >>> to other computers, and being able to talk to all other computers, once >>> the appropriate interconnections (gateways/routers) and software were >>> put in place >> >> >> I think this is quite a good, concise and comprehensive statement of >> the underlying technical work that created both the current, >> packet-level capability and the term. >> >> My earlier point was that there is also a user-level use of the term >> that pertains to application level interoperability. It re-purposes >> the term Internet to refer to that level (and that history). >> >> And there's a lot more of folk using the latter perspective than the >> former... >> >> d/ >> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Nov 6 16:08:05 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:08:05 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Thanks, Dave.? I agree that users have very different views of "The Internet" than us techies.?? In talking to non-tech people about The Internet, i've found that it means different things to different people, based on what they do when "on the net" (i.e., their applications).? Some people think the Internet is the Web.? Or Email -- but that may be Facebook Messenger to them, not "our" email.? Or Linked-In, etc.? It all depends on how they use "The Net". The flaw in my definition of computers talking to computers comes from the tweaks added to the technology well after TCP/IP itself -- things like firewalls, port forwarding, NAT, et al.? When I worked at Oracle, we ran our own internet, which had thousands of computers attached that could all talk to each other.? But only one of them could talk out to the rest of the world.? Lots of companies and government entities had a similar setup, with application-level gateways (another term to be defined) that provide only specific functions, like web access and email (or database access, which we created).?? I think it all started in the TCP/IP world with the "mail gateways" between ARPANET and MILNET. So, are those computers and users still all considered part of The Internet...even though their computers can't interact with TCP??? I think The Internet is really really hard to define. /Jack On 11/6/19 1:59 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/6/2019 1:48 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> So the definition of "Internet" would be in terms of computers talking >> to other computers, and being able to talk to all other computers, once >> the appropriate interconnections (gateways/routers) and software were >> put in place > > > I think this is quite a good, concise and comprehensive statement of > the underlying technical work that created both the current, > packet-level capability and the term. > > My earlier point was that there is also a user-level use of the term > that pertains to application level interoperability.? It re-purposes > the term Internet to refer to that level (and that history). > > And there's a lot more of folk using the latter perspective than the > former... > > d/ > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Nov 6 16:08:05 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:08:05 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Thanks, Dave.? I agree that users have very different views of "The Internet" than us techies.?? In talking to non-tech people about The Internet, i've found that it means different things to different people, based on what they do when "on the net" (i.e., their applications).? Some people think the Internet is the Web.? Or Email -- but that may be Facebook Messenger to them, not "our" email.? Or Linked-In, etc.? It all depends on how they use "The Net". The flaw in my definition of computers talking to computers comes from the tweaks added to the technology well after TCP/IP itself -- things like firewalls, port forwarding, NAT, et al.? When I worked at Oracle, we ran our own internet, which had thousands of computers attached that could all talk to each other.? But only one of them could talk out to the rest of the world.? Lots of companies and government entities had a similar setup, with application-level gateways (another term to be defined) that provide only specific functions, like web access and email (or database access, which we created).?? I think it all started in the TCP/IP world with the "mail gateways" between ARPANET and MILNET. So, are those computers and users still all considered part of The Internet...even though their computers can't interact with TCP??? I think The Internet is really really hard to define. /Jack On 11/6/19 1:59 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/6/2019 1:48 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> So the definition of "Internet" would be in terms of computers talking >> to other computers, and being able to talk to all other computers, once >> the appropriate interconnections (gateways/routers) and software were >> put in place > > > I think this is quite a good, concise and comprehensive statement of > the underlying technical work that created both the current, > packet-level capability and the term. > > My earlier point was that there is also a user-level use of the term > that pertains to application level interoperability.? It re-purposes > the term Internet to refer to that level (and that history). > > And there's a lot more of folk using the latter perspective than the > former... > > d/ > From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Nov 6 13:59:58 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:59:58 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <3ec51744-1326-58b1-ed83-d38dc1d5c4ed@dcrocker.net> On 11/6/2019 1:48 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > So the definition of "Internet" would be in terms of computers talking > to other computers, and being able to talk to all other computers, once > the appropriate interconnections (gateways/routers) and software were > put in place I think this is quite a good, concise and comprehensive statement of the underlying technical work that created both the current, packet-level capability and the term. My earlier point was that there is also a user-level use of the term that pertains to application level interoperability. It re-purposes the term Internet to refer to that level (and that history). And there's a lot more of folk using the latter perspective than the former... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Nov 6 13:48:46 2019 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:48:46 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5883bdf7-1117-fe46-76c9-7ce2dc54d700@3kitty.org> My recollection, circa 1979, is that the goal of the Internet project was to develop and demonstrate the technology that would allow any kind of computer, attached to any kind of communications system (aka "network"), to communicate with any other such computer. So the definition of "Internet" would be in terms of computers talking to other computers, and being able to talk to all other computers, once the appropriate interconnections (gateways/routers) and software were put in place. Networks such as ARPANET, Packet-Radio Net, SATNET, XNS, etc., were not themselves early stages of the Internet, since there was no well-defined way to get computers on those different systems to communicate -- until TCP was defined.? TCP started the Internet going.? I wasn't there, but I remember hearing that the first interacting computers involving 2 networks happened on the Packet Radio Network and the ARPANET - neither of which was itself the beginning of The Internet.? It happened somewhere around 1976.?? IP was added (more accurately, split off from TCP) a few years later. It takes two to Internet.... /Jack Haverty -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From craig at tereschau.net Wed Nov 6 13:47:42 2019 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:47:42 -0700 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:42 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > > This was where I had my first direct experience with mismatching packet > sizes at different layers. It's a classic CS training point, about > buffer sizes, and the like. > > The email transfer mechanism (MMDF) had its own reliable packet layer, > on top of the "phone" connection and below its email transfer mechanism. > > When I initially set such connections up, I discovered they were > massively inefficient and massively slow. And massively expensive. All > because the MMDF packet size was about 120% of a Telenet packet size. > As soon as aligned mine with theirs, things went swimmingly. And a lot > cheaper. > > I maintained later versions of that software. I don't know if it was in your version, but by the time I encountered it, the software had a sorcerer's apprentice bug, where some state glitch would cause it to send two copies of each packet instead of one. As I recall, the bug was so subtle that we never tracked it down -- just periodically restarted a channel if it fell into the mode. (I find I want to castigate my younger self for not investigating further). Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Nov 6 13:42:34 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:42:34 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: On 11/6/2019 12:38 PM, John Gilmore wrote: > Telenet began service in August 1975. This was a public > packet-switching network built by BBN. Although Telenet used packet switching, its business model was for dial-up service, like the earlier Tymnet. It did X.29 over X.25 to make remote dial-up access (a lot) cheaper. (Perhaps oddly this constraint matched the business approach that my first Silicon Valley employer, Ungermann-Bass used, mostly at the LAN level, for replacing lots of terminal wires with many fewer 'LAN' wires.) Among the examples of Telenet's use, another one that is relevant to Internet history is with CSNet, which can be classed as a pre-cursor to NSFNet -- I usually refer to it as market research for the later effort.(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSNET While the project had lofty goals, its original service was more mundane, simply providing email relaying between sites not (otherwise) on the Arpanet (and then Internet) and those that were on the net. It did this with email relaying over dial-up lines and sometimes that was made cheaper by using Telenet. This was where I had my first direct experience with mismatching packet sizes at different layers. It's a classic CS training point, about buffer sizes, and the like. The email transfer mechanism (MMDF) had its own reliable packet layer, on top of the "phone" connection and below its email transfer mechanism. When I initially set such connections up, I discovered they were massively inefficient and massively slow. And massively expensive. All because the MMDF packet size was about 120% of a Telenet packet size. As soon as aligned mine with theirs, things went swimmingly. And a lot cheaper. d/ (*) At the NSFNet meeting that created the CSNet effort, the start of discussion was among people who thought that Telenet really was a replication of Arpanet functionality, with full and easy host-to-host services. They were quite dismayed to discover that its service model was far more limited... CSNet established a funding model that was repeated for NSFnet, starting with NSF money but requiring self-sufficiency with some years. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Nov 6 12:45:46 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:45:46 -0500 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> References: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <844DEB16-C8A9-44BE-AF4C-60601E8E9DEA@comcast.net> Actually, along those lines: In June of 1976, we moved to Houston so my wife could post-doc at Bailor College of Medicine. I was working for the University of Illinois and telecommuting by dialing into Telenet connecting to Multics and then connecting over the ARPANET back to Illinois. (I have a T-shirt that says University of Illinois at Houston) I did that for about 2 years. I had scripts at Multics to manage my email at Illinois. And I agree this isn?t really inter networking. Take care, John > On Nov 6, 2019, at 15:38, John Gilmore wrote: > >>> When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >>> technology? > > Telenet began service in August 1975. This was a public > packet-switching network built by BBN. See: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenet > > My employer, Scientific Time Sharing Corporation, was one of the first > users. > > There was an undocumented connection between Telenet and the ARPANet > that a Telenet contractor showed me. (He used it to get to his ARPANet > email, while he worked for months at our site getting our IBM mainframe > properly interfaced to Telenet). It was apparently just a few > asynchronous ports on a Telenet TAC that were cabled via RS-232 to a few > ports on an ARPANet TIP. You'd dial in to Telenet, enter a command to > connect to those TAC ports, then you'd be typing to the TIP (@n and @o > 34 and etc). I started using this connection in about 1976 to explore > the ARPANet as an unauthorized guest. Eventually this led to me getting > an official Tourist account at MIT-AI. Which ultimately led to me > reading the RFCs and understanding the Internet protocols, which led to > me joining Sun Microsystems in 1981 and eventually co-designing BOOTP > with Bill Croft. > > When at some point the Telenet/ARPANet connection wasn't working, and > teenage me reported the problem to the ARPANet NIC, this reportedly led > to a disturbing phone call between somebody at ARPA and the president of > Telenet. Oops! > > I don't think this Telenet/ARPANet connection qualifies as a historic > inter-network link, since it just used ordinary asynchronous serial > ports, not "packet technology". Anybody know more about it? > > John > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From gnu at toad.com Wed Nov 6 12:38:56 2019 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 12:38:56 -0800 Subject: [ih] inter-network communication history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13707.1573072736@hop.toad.com> > > When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet > > technology? Telenet began service in August 1975. This was a public packet-switching network built by BBN. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenet My employer, Scientific Time Sharing Corporation, was one of the first users. There was an undocumented connection between Telenet and the ARPANet that a Telenet contractor showed me. (He used it to get to his ARPANet email, while he worked for months at our site getting our IBM mainframe properly interfaced to Telenet). It was apparently just a few asynchronous ports on a Telenet TAC that were cabled via RS-232 to a few ports on an ARPANet TIP. You'd dial in to Telenet, enter a command to connect to those TAC ports, then you'd be typing to the TIP (@n and @o 34 and etc). I started using this connection in about 1976 to explore the ARPANet as an unauthorized guest. Eventually this led to me getting an official Tourist account at MIT-AI. Which ultimately led to me reading the RFCs and understanding the Internet protocols, which led to me joining Sun Microsystems in 1981 and eventually co-designing BOOTP with Bill Croft. When at some point the Telenet/ARPANet connection wasn't working, and teenage me reported the problem to the ARPANet NIC, this reportedly led to a disturbing phone call between somebody at ARPA and the president of Telenet. Oops! I don't think this Telenet/ARPANet connection qualifies as a historic inter-network link, since it just used ordinary asynchronous serial ports, not "packet technology". Anybody know more about it? John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From johnl at iecc.com Wed Nov 6 12:01:12 2019 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 6 Nov 2019 15:01:12 -0500 Subject: [ih] what's a level In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191106200112.BDC1EE74B3E@ary.local> In article you write: >i think a lot of the interconnections were application layer gateways - >such as email relays. >Early USENET wasn't Internet if by this we mean TCP/IP based. UUCP was't >using TCP/IP ... UUCP was a message forwarding transport protocol, USENET was (and is) a distributed bulletin board system. UUCP was mostly over dialup phone modems but I have heard claims that there is still the occasional UUCP over TCP. >From the beginning, we used UUCP for other applications, notably e-mail, and USENET used other transports, ranging from LANs to mag tapes sent by mail (and I don't mean e-mail.) R's John L, cca!ima!johnl -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From joly at punkcast.com Wed Nov 6 08:50:47 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 11:50:47 -0500 Subject: [ih] UCLA Internet50 event video Message-ID: I have now segmented the ISOC simulcast of the UCLA Internet 50 event on Oct 29. https://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50 The audio, sorry to say, is a touch distorted. SInce this clashed with another event I used a secondary workstation to simulcast, which may be the cause. I imagine UCLA have a pristine recording. Also, please excuse AI caption flubs. The segment that will most interest ih'ers will be the first panel - "Before the Beginning" Vint Cerf, Steve Crocker, Bill Duvall, Len Kleinrock, Charley Kline, John Markoff, moderator. https://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50/videos/198652123 There are also a series of interstitial videos which comprise some kind of narrative. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Nov 6 08:15:57 2019 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:15:57 -0800 Subject: [ih] bounce notifications and archive status Message-ID: Hi, all, Some of you have reported getting bounce notifications today that claim your email is blocked. So far, I see no evidence of that in the list configs for those emails. You may also have received a monthly password notice; that feature was enabled for Nov 1 but has been disabled moving forward. I wanted everyone to at least get an initial message. Note that the archive appears to be ?stuck? and not updating correctly; I?ll try to get that fixed ASAP. Please let me know if there are any other issues; I?ll keep you posted on the items above. Joe (list admin) -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Nov 6 07:59:51 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:59:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 Message-ID: <20191106155951.7F2B118C0B8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Clem Cole > But an open question in my mind crops up when you switch protocols at > the splice point ... By the previous definition these still meets the > second point of packets following through a networking splice point. > ... at one point have the two networks really become a single > interconnected network? I think it really depends on at what layer the conversion from one to another happens, and the resulting semantics. An application-layer gateway might 'unify' two networks for that application, but I don't think they they are "a single interconnected network". E.g. we pretty quickly unified the email networks, to present to the email users what appeared to be a single unified network, but it wasn't really, it was just unified email. Trying to do unification at lower layers can run into all sorts of havoc. E.g. at one point the AI Lab guys tried to connect the PUP network at MIT to the one at PARC; I no longer remember the details, but it didn't utilize a single internetwork namespace, but translated addresses in packet headers at the external boundary; so the inclusion of addresses _inside_ packets caused it to fail (horribly and spectacularly). Hence my focus on the unified namespace for naming communicating entities. IPv4 and IPv6 are closer, but for an IPv4 host to exchange packets with an IPv6 host, one with an address which isn't expressible as an IPv4 address, requires going through a NAT box - and the issues of addresses in the data remain. While leads me to perhaps another useful (necessary, but not sufficient) measure of an 'internet' - the ability to deploy a new application between any two arbitrary hosts with no changes needed except in them. Which does go back to my original definition, though - the ability to get data from one to another, through a single naming space. So perhaps this is more a corollary of having an internet. Noel -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From clemc at ccc.com Wed Nov 6 07:32:21 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:32:21 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Vint, Let me see if I can rephrase a little bit to help add clarity to the question. In my mind: - To be '*The Internet*' it must be using a protocol based on the IETF's IP family for interconnection between the hosts. - To be '*an internet*' packets need to flow (in both directions) between different hosts via some sort of connecting point/network splice. Thus to you use your examples, Xerox's PUP style network and the original UUCP based network really were internets***. But an open question in my mind crops up when you switch protocols at the splice point (*e.g.* the role ucbvax played between UUCP and the Internet's IP based hosts). At the splice point, history shows that there was some amount of each network 'leaking' into the naming/specifications/notations of the other side (for instance, all the cruft sendmail had it for header transformation and host naming). By the previous definition these still meets the second point of packets following through a networking splice point. The question is since notions of each style of network bleed into the other side, at one point have the two networks really become a single interconnected network? I think that really becomes the crux of the argument and sadly the difficulties presented by the bleeding of the notion of one into another, is likely to have a bit of personal taint to it. Clem *** FWIW: Not to put too fine a point on it, Just I hate seeing people miss punctuating 'Internet', I also find it distasteful seeing people calling it 'USENET' -- as the UUCP network predated net.news as the BTL internal network - 'USENET' does not come about until BNEWS and CNEWS started their rien as applications on top of it, but that's a different story. PS I mei cuplea -- dylexia-is-me. I said Noah in my earlier message and meant Noel. On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 9:59 AM Vint Cerf wrote: > i think a lot of the interconnections were application layer gateways - > such as email relays. > Early USENET wasn't Internet if by this we mean TCP/IP based. UUCP was't > using TCP/IP > either. Xerox argues that it had multiple LANs running PUP and that is a > kind of internet, > but not using TCP/IP. > > I think I am still inclined to argue for the PRNET/ARPANET connection as > the earlier of the TCP/IP style internets but even then the initial > implementation was TCP only (with gateways re-routing based on the Internet > addresses embedded in the TCP packet format) > > > v > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 9:52 AM Clem Cole wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:00 PM Dave Crocker wrote: >> >>> On 11/5/2019 2:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>> > When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >>> > technology? >>> >>> >>> Might be interesting to seek some agreement about the biggest milestones >>> for creating what we experience as the Internet. >>> >>> >>> First, what are the criteria for a milestone? Conceptualization? >>> Demonstration? A degree of production operation? Mass market adoption? >>> >>> Second, what are the easy milestones: packet switching and TCP/IP are >>> obvious. What others? (I'm entirely biases towards wanting major >>> applications to be added but, well, I'm biased.) >>> >>> Third, what are some less obvious but still essential milestones? I'll >>> suggest NSFNet because it enabled both a standard for multiple >>> backbonbes and an operational approach to infrastructure that became the >>> foundation for the commercial Internet. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> d/ >>> >> Dave, >> >> A very good question, i.e. I think you nailed it. You need to agree on >> what an '*internet*' is before you can start to define when '*The >> Internet*' was birthed. >> >> Frankly, I'm not sure what the right answer is here as it was an >> evolution and I'm not sure if there was any one particular event (like a >> dinosaur kill off from an asteroid strike) that we can enumerate. But I >> think I can postulate some other things that might be defined as an >> 'internet' and I suspect other on this list can offer other examples, too. >> >> e.g. As a minimum using TELNET, SUPDUP or the like, I know that CMU and >> MIT built something internally to connect local hosts and allow them to >> connect to the directly connected ARPANet hosts that had IMP connections. >> CMU called this work the "distributed front-end", which replaced the >> original "front-end" that was the directly connected glass tty's attached >> to ASYLs on a PDP-11 which was also connected to each local ARPA host with >> a DR-11B (the problem with the original FE implementation was each PDP-11 >> was connected to specific set of hosts so if you wanted to talk to host, >> you needed a line to that specific FE). IIRC MIT used ChaosNet protocols. >> For the DFE we used LSI-11 and original built something that was >> ethernet-like (which we called ethernet at time but was a local hack) but >> eventually morphed to 3M Xerox when we got access to the Xerox board and >> transceivers (but started out as a local hack). FWIW: The CMU >> distributed front end was originally implemented on LSI-11, but around >> 1976 switched to Multibus 8085's and later after I left Stanford SUN >> boards ??I'm guessing 1980/81??. >> >> Someone from MIT like Noah can explain more, but IIRC: the Chaos stuff >> ran on UNIX, LISP machines and much wider set of HW. >> >> FTP and email was not allowed in the first versions, just remote >> terminal, so we can argue that it will not complete inter-networking >> solution. I personally think an important aspect of more formal 'internet' >> is that things like the original DFE was basically unidirectional and the >> hosts on the 'CMU side' were not exposed. So I think that somehow that >> idea of packets flowing both ways needs to be in the definition of a full >> 'internet.' >> >> That said, once an early IP stack started to appear, the distributed >> front-end started to look more like a modern router as more and more >> support for it went into each 'host" - it became a very similar in >> architecture to the original CISCO AGS -- *i.e.* each local LAN became >> its own network. Once that was done, support for things that exposed the >> remote host to the other network became possible and things like email/ftp >> etc. >> >> As I said, MIT did the same sorts of things with Chaos and I think went >> farther than we did early on to be honest. I also I think Stanford had >> something similar, but I never knew the folks involved. >> >> Also for the sake of argument, what about the UUCP network? It did not >> support remote login, but it did support remote file transfer, email and >> remote execution of jobs? It was bi-directional, al biet since routing was >> explicit, was much harder to use than the ARPAnet protocols. My question >> is, when hosts like ucbvax, decvax, or some of the other later CSNet hosts >> 'bridged' - does that count as an internetwork? >> >> Clem >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Nov 6 07:29:51 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:29:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 Message-ID: <20191106152951.5B10218C0B8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Clem Cole > You need to agree on what an '*internet*' is ... I'm not sure what the > right answer is here _An_ internet I would say is a collection of networks which are prepared for forward packets from a host on one to a host on another, based solely on the address in the bottom protocol layer above the 'local' network headers - which means there must be a coherent system-wide namespace for those addresses. One can argue as to whether or not those packets are reliable or unreliable, etc, and similar issues, but the above definition cannot be stretched too far, otherwise things like 'a collection of X.25 networks using X.75 to create connections from one host to another' becomes an 'internet'. Just being able to get data from one network to another doesn't make the resulting confection an 'internet'. So PUP, CHAOS, TCP/IP etc were all 'internet' protocols. So the date of the 'first internet' packet would be different for 'first PUP internet' packet, etc. > I think that somehow that idea of packets flowing both ways needs to be > in the definition of a full 'internet.' Yes, but access controls may limit it. > I know that CMU and MIT built something internally to connect local > hosts and allow them to connect to the directly connected ARPANet hosts > that had IMP connections. ... IIRC MIT used ChaosNet protocols. Yes, see A.I. Memo 628, 'Chaosnet', Section 5.9, "Arpanet Gateway". Basically, the 'ARPA' CHAOS service connected a CHAOS reliable stream to an NCP connection; the destination host and port were specificied in the CHAOS connection open. So on the plus side, it could be used for any NCP application, but on the downside, you had to know the CHAOS address of a machine that provided that service, and the NCP address of the ultimate destination, and generally the application on the 'source' host had to be modified to know about the ARPA service to be able to use it. > Also for the sake of argument, what about the UUCP network? It did not > support remote login, but it did support remote file transfer, email and > remote execution of jobs? ... - does that count as an internetwork? I would say 'no', because it didn't provide the ability to carry an individual packet from one host to another one anywhere. The details of UUCP are now gone from my mind, but ISTR that it provided reliable streams? Noel -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Wed Nov 6 06:59:46 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:59:46 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: i think a lot of the interconnections were application layer gateways - such as email relays. Early USENET wasn't Internet if by this we mean TCP/IP based. UUCP was't using TCP/IP either. Xerox argues that it had multiple LANs running PUP and that is a kind of internet, but not using TCP/IP. I think I am still inclined to argue for the PRNET/ARPANET connection as the earlier of the TCP/IP style internets but even then the initial implementation was TCP only (with gateways re-routing based on the Internet addresses embedded in the TCP packet format) v On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 9:52 AM Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:00 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > >> On 11/5/2019 2:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> > When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >> > technology? >> >> >> Might be interesting to seek some agreement about the biggest milestones >> for creating what we experience as the Internet. >> >> >> First, what are the criteria for a milestone? Conceptualization? >> Demonstration? A degree of production operation? Mass market adoption? >> >> Second, what are the easy milestones: packet switching and TCP/IP are >> obvious. What others? (I'm entirely biases towards wanting major >> applications to be added but, well, I'm biased.) >> >> Third, what are some less obvious but still essential milestones? I'll >> suggest NSFNet because it enabled both a standard for multiple >> backbonbes and an operational approach to infrastructure that became the >> foundation for the commercial Internet. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> d/ >> > Dave, > > A very good question, i.e. I think you nailed it. You need to agree on > what an '*internet*' is before you can start to define when '*The > Internet*' was birthed. > > Frankly, I'm not sure what the right answer is here as it was an evolution > and I'm not sure if there was any one particular event (like a dinosaur > kill off from an asteroid strike) that we can enumerate. But I think I can > postulate some other things that might be defined as an 'internet' and I > suspect other on this list can offer other examples, too. > > e.g. As a minimum using TELNET, SUPDUP or the like, I know that CMU and > MIT built something internally to connect local hosts and allow them to > connect to the directly connected ARPANet hosts that had IMP connections. > CMU called this work the "distributed front-end", which replaced the > original "front-end" that was the directly connected glass tty's attached > to ASYLs on a PDP-11 which was also connected to each local ARPA host with > a DR-11B (the problem with the original FE implementation was each PDP-11 > was connected to specific set of hosts so if you wanted to talk to host, > you needed a line to that specific FE). IIRC MIT used ChaosNet protocols. > For the DFE we used LSI-11 and original built something that was > ethernet-like (which we called ethernet at time but was a local hack) but > eventually morphed to 3M Xerox when we got access to the Xerox board and > transceivers (but started out as a local hack). FWIW: The CMU > distributed front end was originally implemented on LSI-11, but around > 1976 switched to Multibus 8085's and later after I left Stanford SUN > boards ??I'm guessing 1980/81??. > > Someone from MIT like Noah can explain more, but IIRC: the Chaos stuff ran > on UNIX, LISP machines and much wider set of HW. > > FTP and email was not allowed in the first versions, just remote > terminal, so we can argue that it will not complete inter-networking > solution. I personally think an important aspect of more formal 'internet' > is that things like the original DFE was basically unidirectional and the > hosts on the 'CMU side' were not exposed. So I think that somehow that > idea of packets flowing both ways needs to be in the definition of a full > 'internet.' > > That said, once an early IP stack started to appear, the distributed > front-end started to look more like a modern router as more and more > support for it went into each 'host" - it became a very similar in > architecture to the original CISCO AGS -- *i.e.* each local LAN became > its own network. Once that was done, support for things that exposed the > remote host to the other network became possible and things like email/ftp > etc. > > As I said, MIT did the same sorts of things with Chaos and I think went > farther than we did early on to be honest. I also I think Stanford had > something similar, but I never knew the folks involved. > > Also for the sake of argument, what about the UUCP network? It did not > support remote login, but it did support remote file transfer, email and > remote execution of jobs? It was bi-directional, al biet since routing was > explicit, was much harder to use than the ARPAnet protocols. My question > is, when hosts like ucbvax, decvax, or some of the other later CSNet hosts > 'bridged' - does that count as an internetwork? > > Clem > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From clemc at ccc.com Wed Nov 6 06:52:05 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:52:05 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:00 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/5/2019 2:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet > > technology? > > > Might be interesting to seek some agreement about the biggest milestones > for creating what we experience as the Internet. > > > First, what are the criteria for a milestone? Conceptualization? > Demonstration? A degree of production operation? Mass market adoption? > > Second, what are the easy milestones: packet switching and TCP/IP are > obvious. What others? (I'm entirely biases towards wanting major > applications to be added but, well, I'm biased.) > > Third, what are some less obvious but still essential milestones? I'll > suggest NSFNet because it enabled both a standard for multiple > backbonbes and an operational approach to infrastructure that became the > foundation for the commercial Internet. > > Thoughts? > > d/ > Dave, A very good question, i.e. I think you nailed it. You need to agree on what an '*internet*' is before you can start to define when '*The Internet*' was birthed. Frankly, I'm not sure what the right answer is here as it was an evolution and I'm not sure if there was any one particular event (like a dinosaur kill off from an asteroid strike) that we can enumerate. But I think I can postulate some other things that might be defined as an 'internet' and I suspect other on this list can offer other examples, too. e.g. As a minimum using TELNET, SUPDUP or the like, I know that CMU and MIT built something internally to connect local hosts and allow them to connect to the directly connected ARPANet hosts that had IMP connections. CMU called this work the "distributed front-end", which replaced the original "front-end" that was the directly connected glass tty's attached to ASYLs on a PDP-11 which was also connected to each local ARPA host with a DR-11B (the problem with the original FE implementation was each PDP-11 was connected to specific set of hosts so if you wanted to talk to host, you needed a line to that specific FE). IIRC MIT used ChaosNet protocols. For the DFE we used LSI-11 and original built something that was ethernet-like (which we called ethernet at time but was a local hack) but eventually morphed to 3M Xerox when we got access to the Xerox board and transceivers (but started out as a local hack). FWIW: The CMU distributed front end was originally implemented on LSI-11, but around 1976 switched to Multibus 8085's and later after I left Stanford SUN boards ??I'm guessing 1980/81??. Someone from MIT like Noah can explain more, but IIRC: the Chaos stuff ran on UNIX, LISP machines and much wider set of HW. FTP and email was not allowed in the first versions, just remote terminal, so we can argue that it will not complete inter-networking solution. I personally think an important aspect of more formal 'internet' is that things like the original DFE was basically unidirectional and the hosts on the 'CMU side' were not exposed. So I think that somehow that idea of packets flowing both ways needs to be in the definition of a full 'internet.' That said, once an early IP stack started to appear, the distributed front-end started to look more like a modern router as more and more support for it went into each 'host" - it became a very similar in architecture to the original CISCO AGS -- *i.e.* each local LAN became its own network. Once that was done, support for things that exposed the remote host to the other network became possible and things like email/ftp etc. As I said, MIT did the same sorts of things with Chaos and I think went farther than we did early on to be honest. I also I think Stanford had something similar, but I never knew the folks involved. Also for the sake of argument, what about the UUCP network? It did not support remote login, but it did support remote file transfer, email and remote execution of jobs? It was bi-directional, al biet since routing was explicit, was much harder to use than the ARPAnet protocols. My question is, when hosts like ucbvax, decvax, or some of the other later CSNet hosts 'bridged' - does that count as an internetwork? Clem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Nov 6 06:45:31 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:45:31 -0500 Subject: [ih] Test Please ignore. Message-ID: Test. John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Wed Nov 6 01:43:31 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 04:43:31 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: geoff, thanks -by the way it's Plummer not Plumber. The first two network test that I knew about was the famous PRNET to ARPANET transfer from Rosotti's in 1976 - when were your tests done and what exactly was the path. There would have to have been a TCP (or IP)-aware gateway from PRNET into ARPANET to qualify as an Internet test. v On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:47 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > vint, as best yours truly can recall, prior to TCP being integrated into > the Tenex monitor, there were several BCPL user level programs written by > Bill Plumber at BBN that used a (new at the time) ICP mechanism to > communicate between them. > > there were four programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used > PTY's -- rather than NVT's) to support remote user logins. There was also > a TCP User Telnet program that allows outward TCP telneting ICP'ng to the > user TCP program. > > each of these programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used > PTY's) were auto started at system boot time by using SYSJOB's "CRJOB" > mechanism to log each of them in "DETACHED" under WHEEL'd user TCP. > > Bill Plumber then later came out to SRI to install either this user TCP > stuff (and the ICP and PTY monitor code) or later when TCP was integrated > into the monitor (in PDP-10 Macro Assembly Language) on what was originally > SRI-AI, then SRI-KA, then DARCOM-KA (where the NSW [National Software > Works] also ran). > > as part of this installation and debugging process we would summarily stop > this work each night to watch the latest episode of *Mary Hartman, Mary > Hartman* on a portable TV yours truly brought in... > > as you may recall, yours truly had one of the Collins Packet Radio's with > the LSI-11 (hostname Fernwood) attached to it in yours truly's office at > the time which would look out at the PRNet antenna mast across the SRI > parking lot to the building where the SRI-C3P0 and SRI-R2D2 Gateway PDP-11 > resided. > > yours truly believes that the SRI Bay Area PRNet LSI-11 to Tenex Host > communications first occurred using Bill Plumbers Tenex User level BCPL TCP > stuff before any USC-ISI (Tenex Monitor integrated TCP) was done. > > unfortunately, neither Bill Plumber or Ray Tomlinson are around > to corroborate/chime in on this, so maybe Dan Lynch, Jim Mathis (or even > Ron Kunzelman, Keith Klemba, Don Cone could), but don't know if they are on > the Internet-History list or not (but clearly should be)... > > ah, those were The Fun Days... :-) > > From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow > GEOFF at SRI-AI > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:54 PM Vint Cerf wrote: > >> July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile >> host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 >> was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network >> >> vint >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: >> >>> Party pooper! >>> >>> When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >>> technology? >>> >>> Joly MacFie >>> 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The >>>> ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It >>>> was a single network not an internetwork. >>>> >>>> Take care. >>>> >>>> Jay >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM < >>>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> >>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org >>>>> >>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>> internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org >>>>> >>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>> 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s >>>>> Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 >>>>> From: Joly MacFie >>>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>>> Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> >>>> xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>> >>>>> A brief follow up to last week's major do >>>>> in LA, with a >>>>> latin >>>>> flavor. >>>>> >>>>> ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) >>>>> LACNIC >>>>> will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the >>>>> Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's >>>>> Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will >>>>> commemorate >>>>> the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a >>>>> webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. >>>>> LACNIC's >>>>> special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: >>>>> *Leonard >>>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be >>>>> simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society >>>>> Livestream >>>>> Channels *. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic >>>>> (ENGLISH) >>>>> VIEW ON >>>>> USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe >>>>> (ENGLISH)* >>>>> >>>>> El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC >>>>> conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet >>>>> con >>>>> un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados >>>>> especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: >>>>> *Leonard >>>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se >>>>> transmitir? >>>>> simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet >>>>> Society >>>>> Livestream *. >>>>> >>>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic >>>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>>> *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X >>>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>>> >>>>> *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 < >>>>> http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50>* >>>>> >>>>> *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * >>>>> >>>>> *Permalink* >>>>> https://isoc.live/11483/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> Skype:punkcast >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>> URL: < >>>>> http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>>> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 >>>>> *********************************************** >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >> >> -- >> New postal address: >> Google >> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > > > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Wed Nov 6 01:37:26 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 04:37:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <2dcd7cb3-c6ab-98e5-3f3b-4c00254423ec@gih.com> References: <2dcd7cb3-c6ab-98e5-3f3b-4c00254423ec@gih.com> Message-ID: aloha net was a terminal access system that terminated on the UH time-shared server through the Menehune alohanet controller. No packet went from the Alohanet devices through an IP gateway. This is an application level gateway at best. vint On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:27 PM Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond wrote: > That late? Wasn't there ALOHAnet back in '71? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALOHAnet > > Also --- > > > Best, > Olivier > > On 05/11/2019 17:52, Vint Cerf wrote: > > July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile > host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 > was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network > > vint > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: > >> Party pooper! >> >> When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >> technology? >> >> Joly MacFie >> 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The >>> ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It >>> was a single network not an internetwork. >>> >>> Take care. >>> >>> Jay >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>> internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s >>>> Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 >>>> From: Joly MacFie >>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>> Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>> xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>> >>>> A brief follow up to last week's major do >>>> in LA, with a latin >>>> flavor. >>>> >>>> ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) LACNIC >>>> will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the >>>> Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's >>>> Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" >>>> >>>> >>>> On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will >>>> commemorate >>>> the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a >>>> webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. >>>> LACNIC's >>>> special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: >>>> *Leonard >>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be >>>> simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society >>>> Livestream >>>> Channels *. >>>> >>>> >>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic >>>> (ENGLISH) >>>> VIEW ON >>>> USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe >>>> (ENGLISH)* >>>> >>>> El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC >>>> conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet >>>> con >>>> un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados >>>> especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: >>>> *Leonard >>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se transmitir? >>>> simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet >>>> Society >>>> Livestream *. >>>> >>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic >>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>> *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X >>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>> >>>> *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 >>> >* >>>> >>>> *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * >>>> >>>> *Permalink* >>>> https://isoc.live/11483/ >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> Skype:punkcast >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>> URL: < >>>> http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html >>>> > >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>> >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 >>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > > > -- > Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: okghljhdnidcnglh.png Type: image/png Size: 197599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Tue Nov 5 23:21:58 2019 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:21:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) In-Reply-To: <1482798601.124273.1573006766746@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1482798601.124273.1573006766746@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1093884093.208169.1573024918102@mail.yahoo.com> I need to correct the name of the file that contains the IEEE article.? It is JubinDARPA.pdf.? ? Hope I caught my mental lapse before anyone spent any time looking for the file.? barbara On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, 06:19:26 PM PST, Barbara Denny wrote: Poking around the net,? I found a brief reference to the 1976 demo/test in a book titled "A Prehistory of the Cloud." The date given is August 27, 1976 and refers to a September 1977 "Progress Report on the Packet Radio Experimental Network" as the source of the information.? I wasn't able to quickly find this report but the date seems correct to me.? By the way, there is a plaque at the Alpine Inn commemerating the event so I assume the date is on the plaque. At least I hope the plaque is still there. I haven't gone to the Alpine Inn for several years. In trying to make sure the date was correct, I came across a copy of an invited IEEE paper by John Jubin and Janet Tornow on Packet Radio for those people who want to learn more.? The paper was in the Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 75, No. 1, January 1987.? You probably can also find the paper by searching for JohnDARPA.pdf. Unfortunately, it does not cover the history so a discussion of the different releases of the protocols is not included and some research is not presented.? For example, in skimming the article I did not see any mention of the Packet Radio Station. Unfortunately, Don Cone is also no longer with us. barbara On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, 04:03:46 PM PST, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: vint, as best yours truly can recall, prior to TCP being integrated into the Tenex monitor, there were several BCPL user level programs written by Bill Plumber at BBN that used a (new at the time) ICP mechanism to communicate between them. there were four programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used PTY's -- rather than NVT's) to support remote user logins.? There was also a TCP User Telnet program that allows outward TCP telneting ICP'ng to the user TCP program. each of these programs?(TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used PTY's) were auto started at system boot time by using SYSJOB's "CRJOB" mechanism to log each of them in "DETACHED" under WHEEL'd user TCP. Bill Plumber then later came out to SRI to install either this user TCP stuff (and the ICP and PTY monitor code) or later when TCP was integrated into the monitor (in PDP-10 Macro Assembly Language) on what was originally SRI-AI, then SRI-KA, then DARCOM-KA (where the NSW [National Software Works] also ran).? as part of this installation and debugging process we would summarily stop this work each night to watch the latest episode of Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman on a portable TV yours truly brought in... as you may recall, yours truly had one of the Collins Packet Radio's with the LSI-11 (hostname Fernwood) attached to it in yours truly's office at the time which would look out at the PRNet antenna mast across the SRI parking lot to the building where the SRI-C3P0 and SRI-R2D2 Gateway PDP-11 resided. yours truly believes that the SRI Bay Area PRNet LSI-11 to Tenex Host communications first occurred using Bill Plumbers Tenex User level BCPL TCP stuff before any USC-ISI (Tenex Monitor integrated TCP) was done. unfortunately, neither Bill Plumber or Ray Tomlinson are around to?corroborate/chime in on this, so maybe Dan Lynch, Jim Mathis (or even Ron Kunzelman, Keith Klemba, Don Cone could), but don't know if they are on the Internet-History list or not (but clearly should be)... ah, those were The Fun Days...?:-) From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow GEOFF at SRI-AI On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:54 PM Vint Cerf wrote: July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network vint On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: Party pooper! When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet technology? Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: Hi, 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It was a single network not an internetwork. Take care. Jay On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM wrote: Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to ? ? ? ? internet-history at elists.isoc.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ? ? ? ? https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ? ? ? ? internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org You can reach the person managing the list at ? ? ? ? internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." Today's Topics: ? ?1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s ? ? ? Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 From: Joly MacFie To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the ? ? ? ? Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet Message-ID: ? ? ? ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" A brief follow up to last week's major do in LA, with a latin flavor. ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) LACNIC will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: *Leonard Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society Livestream Channels *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic (ENGLISH) VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe (ENGLISH)* El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet con un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: *Leonard Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se transmitir? simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet Society Livestream *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic (ESPA?OL)* *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X (ESPA?OL)* *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 * *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11483/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie? 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history ------------------------------ End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 *********************************************** -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- New postal address:Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th FloorReston, VA 20190-- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.comliving as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com?? -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Tue Nov 5 18:19:26 2019 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 02:19:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1482798601.124273.1573006766746@mail.yahoo.com> Poking around the net,? I found a brief reference to the 1976 demo/test in a book titled "A Prehistory of the Cloud." The date given is August 27, 1976 and refers to a September 1977 "Progress Report on the Packet Radio Experimental Network" as the source of the information.? I wasn't able to quickly find this report but the date seems correct to me.? By the way, there is a plaque at the Alpine Inn commemerating the event so I assume the date is on the plaque. At least I hope the plaque is still there. I haven't gone to the Alpine Inn for several years. In trying to make sure the date was correct, I came across a copy of an invited IEEE paper by John Jubin and Janet Tornow on Packet Radio for those people who want to learn more.? The paper was in the Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 75, No. 1, January 1987.? You probably can also find the paper by searching for JohnDARPA.pdf. Unfortunately, it does not cover the history so a discussion of the different releases of the protocols is not included and some research is not presented.? For example, in skimming the article I did not see any mention of the Packet Radio Station. Unfortunately, Don Cone is also no longer with us. barbara On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, 04:03:46 PM PST, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: vint, as best yours truly can recall, prior to TCP being integrated into the Tenex monitor, there were several BCPL user level programs written by Bill Plumber at BBN that used a (new at the time) ICP mechanism to communicate between them. there were four programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used PTY's -- rather than NVT's) to support remote user logins.? There was also a TCP User Telnet program that allows outward TCP telneting ICP'ng to the user TCP program. each of these programs?(TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used PTY's) were auto started at system boot time by using SYSJOB's "CRJOB" mechanism to log each of them in "DETACHED" under WHEEL'd user TCP. Bill Plumber then later came out to SRI to install either this user TCP stuff (and the ICP and PTY monitor code) or later when TCP was integrated into the monitor (in PDP-10 Macro Assembly Language) on what was originally SRI-AI, then SRI-KA, then DARCOM-KA (where the NSW [National Software Works] also ran).? as part of this installation and debugging process we would summarily stop this work each night to watch the latest episode of Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman on a portable TV yours truly brought in... as you may recall, yours truly had one of the Collins Packet Radio's with the LSI-11 (hostname Fernwood) attached to it in yours truly's office at the time which would look out at the PRNet antenna mast across the SRI parking lot to the building where the SRI-C3P0 and SRI-R2D2 Gateway PDP-11 resided. yours truly believes that the SRI Bay Area PRNet LSI-11 to Tenex Host communications first occurred using Bill Plumbers Tenex User level BCPL TCP stuff before any USC-ISI (Tenex Monitor integrated TCP) was done. unfortunately, neither Bill Plumber or Ray Tomlinson are around to?corroborate/chime in on this, so maybe Dan Lynch, Jim Mathis (or even Ron Kunzelman, Keith Klemba, Don Cone could), but don't know if they are on the Internet-History list or not (but clearly should be)... ah, those were The Fun Days...?:-) From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow GEOFF at SRI-AI On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:54 PM Vint Cerf wrote: July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network vint On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: Party pooper! When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet technology? Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: Hi, 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It was a single network not an internetwork. Take care. Jay On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM wrote: Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to ? ? ? ? internet-history at elists.isoc.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ? ? ? ? https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ? ? ? ? internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org You can reach the person managing the list at ? ? ? ? internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." Today's Topics: ? ?1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s ? ? ? Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 From: Joly MacFie To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the ? ? ? ? Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet Message-ID: ? ? ? ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" A brief follow up to last week's major do in LA, with a latin flavor. ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) LACNIC will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: *Leonard Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society Livestream Channels *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic (ENGLISH) VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe (ENGLISH)* El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet con un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: *Leonard Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se transmitir? simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet Society Livestream *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic (ESPA?OL)* *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X (ESPA?OL)* *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 * *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11483/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie? 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history ------------------------------ End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 *********************************************** -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- New postal address:Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th FloorReston, VA 20190-- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.comliving as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com?? -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From geoff at iconia.com Tue Nov 5 16:25:06 2019 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:25:06 -1000 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <2dcd7cb3-c6ab-98e5-3f3b-4c00254423ec@gih.com> References: <2dcd7cb3-c6ab-98e5-3f3b-4c00254423ec@gih.com> Message-ID: the ALOHAnet Menehune -- the HP-Minicomputer gateway (hostname HAWAII-ALOHA) between the ALOHANet user terminals and the ARPANET only supported NCP (to the best of yours truly's recall -- who was Most Kindly lent one of the ICU's during a summer vacation in Hawaii during its hey day :D) On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:16 PM Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond wrote: > That late? Wasn't there ALOHAnet back in '71? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALOHAnet > > Also --- > > > Best, > Olivier > > On 05/11/2019 17:52, Vint Cerf wrote: > > July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile > host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 > was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network > > vint > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: > >> Party pooper! >> >> When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >> technology? >> >> Joly MacFie >> 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The >>> ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It >>> was a single network not an internetwork. >>> >>> Take care. >>> >>> Jay >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>> internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s >>>> Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 >>>> From: Joly MacFie >>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>> Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>> xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>> >>>> A brief follow up to last week's major do >>>> in LA, with a latin >>>> flavor. >>>> >>>> ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) LACNIC >>>> will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the >>>> Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's >>>> Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" >>>> >>>> >>>> On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will >>>> commemorate >>>> the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a >>>> webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. >>>> LACNIC's >>>> special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: >>>> *Leonard >>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be >>>> simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society >>>> Livestream >>>> Channels *. >>>> >>>> >>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic >>>> (ENGLISH) >>>> VIEW ON >>>> USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe >>>> (ENGLISH)* >>>> >>>> El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC >>>> conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet >>>> con >>>> un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados >>>> especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: >>>> *Leonard >>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se transmitir? >>>> simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet >>>> Society >>>> Livestream *. >>>> >>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic >>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>> *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X >>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>> >>>> *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 >>> >* >>>> >>>> *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * >>>> >>>> *Permalink* >>>> https://isoc.live/11483/ >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> Skype:punkcast >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>> URL: < >>>> http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html >>>> > >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>> >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 >>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > > > -- > Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: okghljhdnidcnglh.png Type: image/png Size: 197599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From geoff at iconia.com Tue Nov 5 15:46:50 2019 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:46:50 -1000 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: vint, as best yours truly can recall, prior to TCP being integrated into the Tenex monitor, there were several BCPL user level programs written by Bill Plumber at BBN that used a (new at the time) ICP mechanism to communicate between them. there were four programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used PTY's -- rather than NVT's) to support remote user logins. There was also a TCP User Telnet program that allows outward TCP telneting ICP'ng to the user TCP program. each of these programs (TCP, Sink, ECHO O, and a telnet server that used PTY's) were auto started at system boot time by using SYSJOB's "CRJOB" mechanism to log each of them in "DETACHED" under WHEEL'd user TCP. Bill Plumber then later came out to SRI to install either this user TCP stuff (and the ICP and PTY monitor code) or later when TCP was integrated into the monitor (in PDP-10 Macro Assembly Language) on what was originally SRI-AI, then SRI-KA, then DARCOM-KA (where the NSW [National Software Works] also ran). as part of this installation and debugging process we would summarily stop this work each night to watch the latest episode of *Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman* on a portable TV yours truly brought in... as you may recall, yours truly had one of the Collins Packet Radio's with the LSI-11 (hostname Fernwood) attached to it in yours truly's office at the time which would look out at the PRNet antenna mast across the SRI parking lot to the building where the SRI-C3P0 and SRI-R2D2 Gateway PDP-11 resided. yours truly believes that the SRI Bay Area PRNet LSI-11 to Tenex Host communications first occurred using Bill Plumbers Tenex User level BCPL TCP stuff before any USC-ISI (Tenex Monitor integrated TCP) was done. unfortunately, neither Bill Plumber or Ray Tomlinson are around to corroborate/chime in on this, so maybe Dan Lynch, Jim Mathis (or even Ron Kunzelman, Keith Klemba, Don Cone could), but don't know if they are on the Internet-History list or not (but clearly should be)... ah, those were The Fun Days... :-) From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow GEOFF at SRI-AI On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:54 PM Vint Cerf wrote: > July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile > host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 > was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network > > vint > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: > >> Party pooper! >> >> When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >> technology? >> >> Joly MacFie >> 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The >>> ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It >>> was a single network not an internetwork. >>> >>> Take care. >>> >>> Jay >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>> internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s >>>> Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 >>>> From: Joly MacFie >>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>>> Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>> xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>> >>>> A brief follow up to last week's major do >>>> in LA, with a latin >>>> flavor. >>>> >>>> ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) LACNIC >>>> will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the >>>> Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's >>>> Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" >>>> >>>> >>>> On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will >>>> commemorate >>>> the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a >>>> webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. >>>> LACNIC's >>>> special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: >>>> *Leonard >>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be >>>> simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society >>>> Livestream >>>> Channels *. >>>> >>>> >>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic >>>> (ENGLISH) >>>> VIEW ON >>>> USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe >>>> (ENGLISH)* >>>> >>>> El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC >>>> conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet >>>> con >>>> un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados >>>> especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: >>>> *Leonard >>>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se transmitir? >>>> simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet >>>> Society >>>> Livestream *. >>>> >>>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic >>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>> *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X >>>> (ESPA?OL)* >>>> >>>> *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 >>> >* >>>> >>>> *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * >>>> >>>> *Permalink* >>>> https://isoc.live/11483/ >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> Skype:punkcast >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>> URL: < >>>> http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html >>>> > >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>> >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 >>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From steve at shinkuro.com Tue Nov 5 16:01:42 2019 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 19:01:42 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The biggest milestone might not yet have come. On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:00 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/5/2019 2:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet > > technology? > > > Might be interesting to seek some agreement about the biggest milestones > for creating what we experience as the Internet. > > > First, what are the criteria for a milestone? Conceptualization? > Demonstration? A degree of production operation? Mass market adoption? > > Second, what are the easy milestones: packet switching and TCP/IP are > obvious. What others? (I'm entirely biases towards wanting major > applications to be added but, well, I'm biased.) > > Third, what are some less obvious but still essential milestones? I'll > suggest NSFNet because it enabled both a standard for multiple > backbonbes and an operational approach to infrastructure that became the > foundation for the commercial Internet. > > Thoughts? > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Nov 5 15:59:52 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 15:59:52 -0800 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/5/2019 2:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet > technology? Might be interesting to seek some agreement about the biggest milestones for creating what we experience as the Internet. First, what are the criteria for a milestone? Conceptualization? Demonstration? A degree of production operation? Mass market adoption? Second, what are the easy milestones: packet switching and TCP/IP are obvious. What others? (I'm entirely biases towards wanting major applications to be added but, well, I'm biased.) Third, what are some less obvious but still essential milestones? I'll suggest NSFNet because it enabled both a standard for multiple backbonbes and an operational approach to infrastructure that became the foundation for the commercial Internet. Thoughts? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From ocl at gih.com Tue Nov 5 15:26:57 2019 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:26:57 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2dcd7cb3-c6ab-98e5-3f3b-4c00254423ec@gih.com> That late? Wasn't there ALOHAnet back in '71? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALOHAnet Also --- Best, Olivier On 05/11/2019 17:52, Vint Cerf wrote: > July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network > mobile host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. > Nov 22, 1977 was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite > Network > > vint > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie > wrote: > > Party pooper! > > When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet > technology? > > Joly MacFie > 218 565 9365 > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben > wrote: > > Hi, > > 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. > The ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not > itself an internet. It was a single network not an internetwork. > > Take care. > > Jay > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM > > wrote: > > Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to > ? ? ? ? internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > ? ? ? ? > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ? ? ? ? internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ? ? ? ? internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific > than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > ? ?1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the > Internet?s > ? ? ? Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet > (Joly MacFie) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 > From: Joly MacFie > > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back > at the > ? ? ? ? Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de > Internet > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > A brief follow up to last week's major do > in LA, > with a latin > flavor. > > ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC > (12:00 EST) LACNIC > will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet > sent over the > Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at > the Internet's > Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" > > > On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC > will commemorate > the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the > Internet with a > webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's > Birth*. LACNIC's > special guests will be three of the engineers behind that > achievement: *Leonard > Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The > webinar will be > simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet > Society Livestream > Channels *. > > > *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: > http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic > > (ENGLISH) VIEW ON > USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe > (ENGLISH)* > > El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), > LACNIC > conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado > por Internet con > un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. > Los invitados > especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s > de ese logro: *Leonard > Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar > se transmitir? > simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* > Internet Society > Livestream *. > > *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: > http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic > > (ESPA?OL)* > *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X > (ESPA?OL)* > > *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 > * > > *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * > > *Permalink* > https://isoc.live/11483/ > > > - > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie? 218 565 9365 > Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 > *********************************************** > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > -- Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: okghljhdnidcnglh.png Type: image/png Size: 197599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Tue Nov 5 15:01:00 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:01:00 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <16e3dc891a8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> References: <16e3dc891a8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: that would be 1983 - there are earlier examples v On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:56 PM Bernie Cosell wrote: > On November 5, 2019 17:38:25 Joly MacFie wrote: > >> Party pooper! >> >> When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet >> technology? >> > > when did the milnet split off of the ARPAnet? i forget, but I'd bet > that the gatewayed traffic between the two halves of the formet > ARPAnet would likely count. > > /bernie\ > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Tue Nov 5 14:56:25 2019 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 17:56:25 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16e3dc891a8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> On November 5, 2019 17:38:25 Joly MacFie wrote: > Party pooper! > > > When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet technology? when did the milnet split off of the ARPAnet? i forget, but I'd bet that the gatewayed traffic between the two halves of the formet ARPAnet would likely count. /bernie\ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Tue Nov 5 14:52:44 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:52:44 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: July (or at least summer?) 1976 between the Packet Radio network mobile host (LSI-11) and probably a host at USC-ISI on the ARPANET. Nov 22, 1977 was the first 3 net test, adding the Packet Satellite Network vint On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:38 PM Joly MacFie wrote: > Party pooper! > > When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet > technology? > > Joly MacFie > 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The >> ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It >> was a single network not an internetwork. >> >> Take care. >> >> Jay >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM >> wrote: >> >>> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s >>> Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 >>> From: Joly MacFie >>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >>> Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet >>> Message-ID: >>> >> xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >>> A brief follow up to last week's major do >>> in LA, with a latin >>> flavor. >>> >>> ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) LACNIC >>> will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the >>> Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's >>> Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" >>> >>> >>> On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will >>> commemorate >>> the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a >>> webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. LACNIC's >>> special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: >>> *Leonard >>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be >>> simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society >>> Livestream >>> Channels *. >>> >>> >>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic >>> (ENGLISH) VIEW >>> ON >>> USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe >>> (ENGLISH)* >>> >>> El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC >>> conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet con >>> un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados >>> especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: >>> *Leonard >>> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se transmitir? >>> simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet Society >>> Livestream *. >>> >>> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >>> http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic >>> (ESPA?OL)* >>> *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X >>> (ESPA?OL)* >>> >>> *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 >> >* >>> >>> *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * >>> >>> *Permalink* >>> https://isoc.live/11483/ >>> >>> >>> - >>> >>> -- >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> Skype:punkcast >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: < >>> http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer >>> >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 >>> *********************************************** >>> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 5 14:38:00 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:38:00 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Party pooper! When was the first actual inter-network message sent using packet technology? Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 5:13 PM Jay Hauben wrote: > Hi, > > 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The ARPANET > was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It was a > single network not an internetwork. > > Take care. > > Jay > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM > wrote: > >> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s >> Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 >> From: Joly MacFie >> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the >> Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet >> Message-ID: >> > xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> A brief follow up to last week's major do >> in LA, with a latin >> flavor. >> >> ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) LACNIC >> will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the >> Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's >> Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" >> >> >> On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will commemorate >> the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a >> webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. LACNIC's >> special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: >> *Leonard >> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be >> simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society >> Livestream >> Channels *. >> >> >> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >> http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic >> (ENGLISH) VIEW >> ON >> USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe >> (ENGLISH)* >> >> El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC >> conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet con >> un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados >> especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: >> *Leonard >> Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se transmitir? >> simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet Society >> Livestream *. >> >> *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: >> http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic >> (ESPA?OL)* >> *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X >> (ESPA?OL)* >> >> *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 * >> >> *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * >> >> *Permalink* >> https://isoc.live/11483/ >> >> >> - >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: < >> http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html >> > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 >> *********************************************** >> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From hauben at columbia.edu Tue Nov 5 14:13:48 2019 From: hauben at columbia.edu (Jay Hauben) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:13:48 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, 50 years ago the first data was sent between two ARPANET IMPS. The ARPANET was a forerunner of the Internet but was not itself an internet. It was a single network not an internetwork. Take care. Jay On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM wrote: > Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to > internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet?s > Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet (Joly MacFie) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 > From: Joly MacFie > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the > Internet?s Birth / Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet > Message-ID: > xdhoWcYf2GojKY6kA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > A brief follow up to last week's major do > in LA, with a latin > flavor. > > ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) LACNIC > will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the > Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's > Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" > > > On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will commemorate > the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a > webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. LACNIC's > special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: > *Leonard > Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be > simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society Livestream > Channels *. > > > *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: > http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic > (ENGLISH) VIEW ON > USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe > (ENGLISH)* > > El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC > conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet con > un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados > especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: > *Leonard > Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se transmitir? > simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet Society > Livestream *. > > *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: > http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic > (ESPA?OL)* > *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X > (ESPA?OL)* > > *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 * > > *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * > > *Permalink* > https://isoc.live/11483/ > > > - > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20191105/41b233f4/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 2, Issue 16 > *********************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 5 03:08:33 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:08:33 -0500 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_50_Years_Later=2C_Looking_Back_a?= =?utf-8?q?t_the_Internet=E2=80=99s_Birth_/_Celebrando_el_aniversar?= =?utf-8?q?io_50_de_Internet?= Message-ID: A brief follow up to last week's major do in LA, with a latin flavor. ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 5 November at 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST) LACNIC will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a webinar: 50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engin" On *Tuesday 5 November* at *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST) LACNIC will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first packet sent over the Internet with a webinar: *50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet's Birth*. LACNIC's special guests will be three of the engineers behind that achievement: *Leonard Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline*, and *Steve Crocker*. The webinar will be simulcast, in both English and Spanish, on the *Internet Society Livestream Channels *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic (ENGLISH) VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/DKWsjfRLtPe (ENGLISH)* El *martes 5 de noviembre* a las *17:00 UTC* (12:00 EST), LACNIC conmemorar? el 50 aniversario del primer paquete enviado por Internet con un webinar: *Celebrando el aniversario 50 de Internet*. Los invitados especiales de LACNIC ser?n tres de los ingenieros detr?s de ese logro: *Leonard Kleinrock*, *Charles Kline* y *Steve Crocker*. El webinar se transmitir? simult?neamente, en ingl?s y espa?ol, en los canales de* Internet Society Livestream *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internet50lacnic (ESPA?OL)* *VIEW ON USTREAM: https://video.ibm.com/channel/wJD3jzyMV7X (ESPA?OL)* *INFO: http://bit.ly/webinarInternet50 * *TWITTER: @LACNIC #Internet50 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11483/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Sat Nov 2 13:47:45 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:47:45 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <5DBDDD3B.3134.20B43A87@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <9D74A457-36D6-4F17-B38B-85446A1DDD1B@comcast.net> yes, that is correct. > On Nov 2, 2019, at 16:28, Vint Cerf wrote: > > John, > Michele Elie was at UCLA during part of the ARPANET work if I remember correctly and Kahn and I did also see Zimmermann and Gerard LeLann as well as Louis Pouzin and I think one other person while visiting at IRIA. > > v > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 4:00 PM John Day > wrote: > Actually, the first datagram and end-to-end transport protocols were the CYCLADES protocols in 1972. As near as I can tell, the first dynamic sliding window protocol was CYCLADES TS developed by Elie and Zimmermann. > > John > > > On Nov 2, 2019, at 15:47, Bernie Cosell > wrote: > > > > On 2 Nov 2019 at 12:31, Bob Hinden wrote: > > > >> From reading this article, it would seem that BBN, who designed and > >> developed the IMP, was located in Cambridge, California, not > >> Massachusetts. This was, of course, a much bigger effort than just the > >> folks in California, nor was it was it only in the US. Seems like some > >> of the more recent articles on the history of the Arpanet/Internet are > >> missing that. > >> > >> Bob (who worked at BBN in Cambridge, and now lives in California) > > > > Speaking of California, I believe that the underlying ideas about the IP portion of > > the TCP protocol was first tinkered with in the Cyclades network by folks, I > > guess, in Paris CA. BBN also developed and deployed the TIP, the first "dialup" > > service on the ARPAnet. Also not in Cambridge, CA. > > > > /Bernie\ > > Bernie Cosell > > bernie at fantasyfarm.com > > -- Too many people; too few sheep -- > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Sat Nov 2 13:28:36 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:28:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <5DBDDD3B.3134.20B43A87@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: John, Michele Elie was at UCLA during part of the ARPANET work if I remember correctly and Kahn and I did also see Zimmermann and Gerard LeLann as well as Louis Pouzin and I think one other person while visiting at IRIA. v On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 4:00 PM John Day wrote: > Actually, the first datagram and end-to-end transport protocols were the > CYCLADES protocols in 1972. As near as I can tell, the first dynamic > sliding window protocol was CYCLADES TS developed by Elie and Zimmermann. > > John > > > On Nov 2, 2019, at 15:47, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > > > On 2 Nov 2019 at 12:31, Bob Hinden wrote: > > > >> From reading this article, it would seem that BBN, who designed and > >> developed the IMP, was located in Cambridge, California, not > >> Massachusetts. This was, of course, a much bigger effort than just the > >> folks in California, nor was it was it only in the US. Seems like some > >> of the more recent articles on the history of the Arpanet/Internet are > >> missing that. > >> > >> Bob (who worked at BBN in Cambridge, and now lives in California) > > > > Speaking of California, I believe that the underlying ideas about the IP > portion of > > the TCP protocol was first tinkered with in the Cyclades network by > folks, I > > guess, in Paris CA. BBN also developed and deployed the TIP, the first > "dialup" > > service on the ARPAnet. Also not in Cambridge, CA. > > > > /Bernie\ > > Bernie Cosell > > bernie at fantasyfarm.com > > -- Too many people; too few sheep -- > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Sat Nov 2 13:00:17 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:00:17 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <5DBDDD3B.3134.20B43A87@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <5DBDDD3B.3134.20B43A87@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: Actually, the first datagram and end-to-end transport protocols were the CYCLADES protocols in 1972. As near as I can tell, the first dynamic sliding window protocol was CYCLADES TS developed by Elie and Zimmermann. John > On Nov 2, 2019, at 15:47, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > On 2 Nov 2019 at 12:31, Bob Hinden wrote: > >> From reading this article, it would seem that BBN, who designed and >> developed the IMP, was located in Cambridge, California, not >> Massachusetts. This was, of course, a much bigger effort than just the >> folks in California, nor was it was it only in the US. Seems like some >> of the more recent articles on the history of the Arpanet/Internet are >> missing that. >> >> Bob (who worked at BBN in Cambridge, and now lives in California) > > Speaking of California, I believe that the underlying ideas about the IP portion of > the TCP protocol was first tinkered with in the Cyclades network by folks, I > guess, in Paris CA. BBN also developed and deployed the TIP, the first "dialup" > service on the ARPAnet. Also not in Cambridge, CA. > > /Bernie\ > Bernie Cosell > bernie at fantasyfarm.com > -- Too many people; too few sheep -- > > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Sat Nov 2 12:59:07 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 15:59:07 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <5DBDDD3B.3134.20B43A87@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <5DBDDD3B.3134.20B43A87@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: Bob Kahn and I visited Louis Pouzin and his team in 1973 IIRC where we learned about his datagram ideas in the CYCLADES/CIGALE network. TCP used datagrams as the base but augmented the protocol to create a curated and sequenced stream of bytes end-to-end. Around late 1977, we split IP from TCP so as to allow non-sequenced and potentially lossy packet delivery for low latency applications. We credited Pouzin's work in the 1974 paper on Packet Network Intercommunications in IEEE Transactions on Communication. We also credited Gerard LeLann who spent time at Stanford during the detailed design of TCP and who worked on Cyclades/Cigale. https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall06/cos561/papers/cerf74.pdf Acknowledgements from the 1974 paper: The authors wish to thank a number of colleagues for helpful comments during early discussions of international network protocols, especially R. Metcalfe, R. Scantlebury, D. Walden, and H. Zimmerman; D. Davies and L. Pouzin who constructively commented on the fragmentation and accounting issues; and S. Crocker who commented on the creation and destruction of associations. see also: https://codepen.io/huijing/pen/gMrpYo v On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:47 PM Bernie Cosell wrote: > On 2 Nov 2019 at 12:31, Bob Hinden wrote: > > > From reading this article, it would seem that BBN, who designed and > > developed the IMP, was located in Cambridge, California, not > > Massachusetts. This was, of course, a much bigger effort than just the > > folks in California, nor was it was it only in the US. Seems like some > > of the more recent articles on the history of the Arpanet/Internet are > > missing that. > > > > Bob (who worked at BBN in Cambridge, and now lives in California) > > Speaking of California, I believe that the underlying ideas about the IP > portion of > the TCP protocol was first tinkered with in the Cyclades network by folks, > I > guess, in Paris CA. BBN also developed and deployed the TIP, the first > "dialup" > service on the ARPAnet. Also not in Cambridge, CA. > > /Bernie\ > Bernie Cosell > bernie at fantasyfarm.com > -- Too many people; too few sheep -- > > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Sat Nov 2 12:47:07 2019 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 15:47:07 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com>, Message-ID: <5DBDDD3B.3134.20B43A87@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 2 Nov 2019 at 12:31, Bob Hinden wrote: > From reading this article, it would seem that BBN, who designed and > developed the IMP, was located in Cambridge, California, not > Massachusetts. This was, of course, a much bigger effort than just the > folks in California, nor was it was it only in the US. Seems like some > of the more recent articles on the history of the Arpanet/Internet are > missing that. > > Bob (who worked at BBN in Cambridge, and now lives in California) Speaking of California, I believe that the underlying ideas about the IP portion of the TCP protocol was first tinkered with in the Cyclades network by folks, I guess, in Paris CA. BBN also developed and deployed the TIP, the first "dialup" service on the ARPAnet. Also not in Cambridge, CA. /Bernie\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm.com -- Too many people; too few sheep -- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From bob.hinden at gmail.com Sat Nov 2 12:31:15 2019 From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:31:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, From reading this article, it would seem that BBN, who designed and developed the IMP, was located in Cambridge, California, not Massachusetts. This was, of course, a much bigger effort than just the folks in California, nor was it was it only in the US. Seems like some of the more recent articles on the history of the Arpanet/Internet are missing that. Bob (who worked at BBN in Cambridge, and now lives in California) > On Nov 1, 2019, at 8:42 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > This got forwarded to me this morning: > > How We Misremember the Internet?s Origins > https://newrepublic.com/article/155532/misremember-internets-origins > > This article seems very screedy to me. Yeah we all knew that ARPA was a branch of the US Dept of Defense. And we all knew that in at least some minds (especially the group I worked for, the Joint Chiefs of Staff) survivable communications during nuclear war were a concern. > > What rubs me wrong is how this article seems to try to paint people working on network ideas as somehow evil, somehow linked to the bad things such as the treatment of California indigenous peoples by the Spanish missionaries of the 18th century. > > OK, yeah, it is true that some some, and I emphasize only some, of the motivations for the ARPAnet tributary stream that eventually merged with others to for The Internet, were military and not the most politically correct in today's world. > > But there were a lot of other forces, motivations, and ideas at work. > > For example, pretty soon after I worked with the JCS I also started to get ideas coming out of Dave Farber's DCS project. The idea of restructuring entire computers and operating systems around networks was something revolutionary to me. And we see that idea now fruiting in the web of APIs now available on the net to build applications. AWS and Google Map APIs are, to my mind, a direct result of Farber's DCS. > > The article fails to acknowledge those streams as well as the engendering of social networking via things like bulletin boards and Usenet. And to me, that removes the foundation of credibility from the article. > > --karl-- > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From bill.n1vux at gmail.com Sat Nov 2 10:46:10 2019 From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 13:46:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <474514c8-ae7a-46da-ad38-6a0f81a4e128@www.fastmail.com> References: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <474514c8-ae7a-46da-ad38-6a0f81a4e128@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 9:37 AM wrote: > I think we could channel Padlipsky profitably in this context. Our author > seems to think we should have "designed" the Internet (while having no > concept that that's what was being built) to avoid humans acting like > humans and making the Internet into a poster child of "this is why we can't > have good things." The Literary Estate of Michael Padlipsky approves this message. (OTOH, Mike would have bristled at the "Humanities" degree remark -- his degree literally said Humanities since "English" wasn't separate at MIT then; he had one programming class. When he applied for a Tech Writer job on SAGE, they said full on that today but you've got a programming class, maybe take our aptitude test? And a Systems Programmer was born. And even though it's his (our) own historic ox being gored here, Mike likely would have supported contextual analysis in the historiographic dialog; it was the LitCrit deconstructionist analysis up with which he would not put.) // William D. Ricker, holder of the Scotch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Sat Nov 2 06:49:11 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 06:49:11 -0700 Subject: [ih] New Republic Article - "How We Misremember the Internet???s Origins" In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <20191102102652.GI2287@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <25cde0fb-1ad7-fb12-7196-8356504b6034@dcrocker.net> On 11/2/2019 6:45 AM, gaylord at dirtcheapemail.com wrote: > Right after we add message encryption and sender verification....:-) Based on extensive empirical evidence, we do not yet know how to add useable content encryption that works at scale. (Barriers appear to be key management and UI design.) The same for 'author' verification. However for 'operator' verification, why do you think that spf/dkim/dmar/arc do not suffice? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From gaylord at dirtcheapemail.com Sat Nov 2 06:45:52 2019 From: gaylord at dirtcheapemail.com (gaylord at dirtcheapemail.com) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 09:45:52 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXQ/Pz9zIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <20191102102652.GI2287@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: Right after we add message encryption and sender verification.... :-) On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/2/2019 3:26 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > If i where you, i would wear this t-shirt: > > > It is threads like this, and especially postings like this, that make me > really wish that we had added the equivalent of a Like button to email. > > d/ > > ps. It's not too late, but are we motivated enough to do the work? > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Sat Nov 2 06:37:27 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 06:37:27 -0700 Subject: [ih] New Republic Article - "How We Misremember the Internet???s Origins" In-Reply-To: <20191102102652.GI2287@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <20191102102652.GI2287@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: On 11/2/2019 3:26 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > If i where you, i would wear this t-shirt: It is threads like this, and especially postings like this, that make me really wish that we had added the equivalent of a Like button to email. d/ ps. It's not too late, but are we motivated enough to do the work? -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From gaylord at dirtcheapemail.com Sat Nov 2 06:37:06 2019 From: gaylord at dirtcheapemail.com (gaylord at dirtcheapemail.com) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 09:37:06 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <474514c8-ae7a-46da-ad38-6a0f81a4e128@www.fastmail.com> I think we could channel Padlipsky profitably in this context. Our author seems to think we should have "designed" the Internet (while having no concept that that's what was being built) to avoid humans acting like humans and making the Internet into a poster child of "this is why we can't have good things." By parallel, we had an over engineered top down bureaucratic alternative to our protocol stack and it was an abject failure. Instead we have an unequivocal success built on a fundamental principles of loosely coupled subsystems and protocols, and the openness and freedom they imbue. To my mind, the enormity of the success of the Internet is exactly a reflection of the engineering aesthetics and technological philosophy that it is built upon, and it is these aesthetics that are the (dare I say) paradigm shift, a beacon to engineering efforts of myriad applications. Clark On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, at 8:08 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Lori Emerson > > > I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of her > > degree is considered part of productive discussion > > Perhaps - but one of this things a holder of a liberal arts degree _ought_ to > be able to do is clearly explain what they are trying to say, and organize > their presentation to clearly back that up - and this article doesn't seem to > do that (witness all the discussion about what its point is). > > > I've read it numerous times over the day, trying to work it out, and I focus > on the last para, where she says: > > "But even the most ad hoc of these events occurred in a particular > ideological context. What is the result of ignoring or blithely denying that > context? Lo and behold: It looks a lot like 2019" > > which sounds like she's unhappy that we didn't think through how it would be > used, and do a better job to pre3vent, or at least influence, that. An earlier > para seems to agree with that: > > "But perhaps the most enduring truth of the internet is that so many of its > foundational moments and decisive turning points emerged from ad hoc actions > and experiments undertaken with little sense of foresight or posterity." > > But then there's this: > > "But this is another recurring theme seen in the many moments of ad hoc > internet history: By emphasizing the technical innovations (and obsessive > dedication to them) as more important than the political and economic > contexts in which they were germinated, the graybeards of internet history > .. perpetuate the illusion that technology magically exists outside of > politics, rather than existing in a constant dialogue with it." > > which sounds more like she's saying that contemporary politics played a large > role in making the Internet look like what it is. > > If so, why couldn't she just start out by saying 'The Internet looks like what > it is today because of the political environment at the time it was created - > both in general, and around the people who created it.' Then she could go on > to explain how and why - lay out the detail in an organized way to back up her > thesis. > > (I'm leaving aside for now any comments on what seems to be her thesis. We can > take that up if we agree that's what she's trying to say.) > > Noel > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From tte at cs.fau.de Sat Nov 2 03:26:52 2019 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:26:52 +0100 Subject: [ih] New Republic Article - "How We Misremember the Internet???s Origins" In-Reply-To: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20191102102652.GI2287@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Karl, *: The author seems to self-identify as an artist. Imho the article is better understood as a modern form of expressionism. It certainly does not read like a factual historical record or actual analysis but as a collage of various bits & pieces that don't fit together except as a spiritual travel advisory for california. Looking at the article i particularily enjoyed her condescending, pretentuous verbal warfare in fragments like these: ...intertwined with a landscape defined by evangelism, speculation, and the so-called pioneer spirit ...Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism ...a region heavily shaped by libertarian conservatism and environmental racism Attempting to refute lame memes about the origins of the Internet by loading up on any imaginable meme about California is just brilliant. If i where you, i would wear this t-shirt: ITS ALL MY FAULT The Internet Poisoned Aquifers Dead students Mark Zuckerberg Cheers Toerless On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:42:56AM -0600, Karl Auerbach wrote: > This got forwarded to me this morning: > > How We Misremember the Internet???s Origins > > https://newrepublic.com/article/155532/misremember-internets-origins > > This article seems very screedy to me.? Yeah we all knew that ARPA was a > branch of the US Dept of Defense.? And we all knew that in at least some > minds (especially the group I worked for, the Joint Chiefs of Staff) > survivable communications during nuclear war were a concern. > > What rubs me wrong is how this article seems to try to paint people working > on network ideas as somehow evil, somehow linked to the bad things such as > the treatment of California indigenous peoples by the Spanish missionaries > of the 18th century. > > OK, yeah, it is true that some some, and I emphasize only some, of the > motivations for the ARPAnet tributary stream that eventually merged with > others to for The Internet, were military and not the most politically > correct in today's world. > > But there were a lot of other forces, motivations, and ideas at work. > > For example, pretty soon after I worked with the JCS I also started to get > ideas coming out of Dave Farber's DCS project.? The idea of restructuring > entire computers and operating systems around networks was something > revolutionary to me.? And we see that idea now fruiting in the web of APIs > now available on the net to build applications.? AWS and Google Map APIs > are, to my mind, a direct result of Farber's DCS. > > The article fails to acknowledge those streams as well as the engendering of > social networking via things like bulletin boards and Usenet.? And to me, > that removes the foundation of credibility from the article. > > ??? --karl-- > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- --- tte at cs.fau.de -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jmamodio at gmail.com Sat Nov 2 01:28:17 2019 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 03:28:17 -0500 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 7:08 PM Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Lori Emerson > > > I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of > her > > degree is considered part of productive discussion > > A tidbit about Liberal Arts (my son is a History Major) ... There is no doubt that ARPANet, TCP/IP, Internet, WWW, etc, have been major contributions to the evolution of telecommunications, but one of the earliest uses of electricity to send long distance communications signals was the one wire telegraph, invented by Samuel Morse in 1837. Few years later the famous "What hath God wrought?" message traveled from Washington to Baltimore. In 1847 he finally got his patent issued. There was also a turbulent political and economic context during those years. Samuel in his later years grew a beard, certainly was no hippie, and interestingly he was not an engineer, not a scientist, he was ... a painter :-) Cheers Jorge -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 22:01:30 2019 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 01:01:30 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 10:45 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Clearly McAdam should have anticipated all this and designed his > road-building technology differently. [Darius adds for context: this was a > sarcastic and well-taken point] > Brian, I'm in agreement with every claim you're making, including that it would have been ridiculous for internet pioneers to see the future. What is making me feel crazy here is that the author would clearly agree with every single point in your email as well! She is not saying that people in the 70s should have done this or predicted that. She's saying that popular present day cultural narratives about the 70s networks miss out on a whole lot of stuff and that we do a disservice by painting the era in broad brushes. She points to some of the more common broad brushes, and the people on this list look at those pointers and say "aha! Broad brushes! This is a bad article!" Anyhow I think I'm just repeating myself now, sorry for the spam but I find myself flabbergasted at the response here. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 19:45:07 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 15:45:07 +1300 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Darius, Let me try this, and then I will retire from this thread. My thesis is that contemporary politics played a large role in making the road system look like what it looks like, *even if* the decisions in the moment were ad hoc. As John pointed out earlier, even ad hoc decisions were made by humans out there in the world with their own political leanings. But the motor vehicle industry in particular pushes a narrative of political neutrality *today* that is projected on the road system of the past, one that is not true. When John McAdam invented the basic system of modern road building in 1816, he very possibly didn't realise that he was facilitating the development of steam traction engines, private automobiles, two world wars, Greyhound buses, interstate highways, semi-trailer articulated trucks, and human-induced climate change. He thought he was making things easier for horses, carts and carriages. But in fact, according to Wikipedia, his "efficient road-building and management work had revealed the corruption and abuse of road tolls by unscrupulous Turnpike Trusts, many of which were run at a deliberate loss despite high toll receipts." (Look up the "Rebecca Riots" for more on the social consequences of McAdam's politically neutral invention.) Clearly McAdam should have anticipated all this and designed his road-building technology differently. Regards Brian Carpenter On 02-Nov-19 13:26, Darius Kazemi wrote: > One last set of comments before I get on a plane for 6 hours...? > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 8:08 PM Noel Chiappa > wrote: > > ? ? > I've read it numerous times over the day, trying to work it out, and I focus > on the last para, where she says: > > ? "But even the most ad hoc of these events occurred in a particular > ? ideological context. What is the result of ignoring or blithely denying that > ? context? Lo and behold: It looks a lot like 2019" > > which sounds like she's unhappy that we didn't think through how it would be > used, and do a better job to pre3vent, or at least influence, that. > > > I disagree with this. What she is saying is that latter day technologists and historians deny the context in which the internet was created, and that gets us to our current problems. > > An earlier > para seems to agree with that: > > ? "But perhaps the most enduring truth of the internet is that so many of its > ? foundational moments and decisive turning points emerged from ad hoc actions > ? and experiments undertaken with little sense of foresight or posterity." > > > > But then there's this: > > ? "But this is another recurring theme seen in the many moments of ad hoc > ? internet history: By emphasizing the technical innovations (and obsessive > ? dedication to them) as more important than the political and economic > ? contexts in which they were germinated, the graybeards of internet history > ? .. perpetuate the illusion that technology magically exists outside of > ? politics, rather than existing in a constant dialogue with it." > > which sounds more like she's saying that contemporary politics played a large > role in making the Internet look like what it is. > > > She uses the phrase "internet history" because she is critiquing the way we historicize the internet. Her thesis is that contemporary politics played a large role in making the internet look like what it looks like, *even if* the decisions in the moment were ad hoc. As John pointed out earlier, even ad hoc decisions were made by humans out there in the world with their own political leanings. But the tech industry in particular pushes a narrative of political neutrality *today* that is projected on the internet of the past, one that is not true. It is in the title of the essay even: this is an essay about how we remember the internet, not about what happened at the time.? > > > If so, why couldn't she just start out by saying 'The Internet looks like what > it is today because of the political environment at the time it was created - > both in general, and around the people who created it.' Then she could go on > to explain how and why - lay out the detail in an organized way to back up her > thesis. > > > This is how I would write a college essay about the topic but probably not what the New Republic is looking for, in terms of style. > > I think people here are being defensive (understandable) and missing the point that this is a criticism of present day myth making around the internet and how it (the myth!) is used to further agendas of various actors. > > -Darius > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jgrudin at microsoft.com Fri Nov 1 18:41:31 2019 From: jgrudin at microsoft.com (Jonathan Grudin) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 01:41:31 +0000 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?=5BEXTERNAL=5D_Re=3A___New_Republic_Article_-_=22?= =?utf-8?q?How_We_Misremember_the_Internet=E2=80=99s_Origins=22?= In-Reply-To: <1257F257-F102-43A8-BA6E-B1F2ECD496DA@comcast.net> References: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <1257F257-F102-43A8-BA6E-B1F2ECD496DA@comcast.net> Message-ID: Agreed. I was a student ARPANET user in the 70s. Ted to Vint?s note about commercialization is that national politics were there but in retrospect seem a less important cultural influence than the very high homogeneity and trust in the community. In the 1960s, benign future scenarios were painted by AI researchers and engineers (Bush, Engelbart, Nelson?). In the late 70s, anyone anywhere with a modem could log on as a guest and access any file on the MIT AI Lab PDP-10. The occasional virus or worm was generally a prank or benign and did not trigger strong security responses. Perhaps some of you were thinking early and hard about bad actors, but the extraordinary redirection of resources to security coincided with commercialization and the web overwhelming the homogeneous trusting community. Designers who see positive potential still often don?t consider how bad actors and those operating along a continuum of shades of gray will subvert their inventions. When recently told that the deepest account of how to execute effective A/B testing will be published, I wondered, ?Would we publish the design of a nuclear bomb anyone can make from seawater?? My technological optimism of the 70s is more difficult to connect to each passing year. Jonathan From: Internet-history On Behalf Of John Day Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 6:13 PM To: Darius Kazemi Cc: internet-history at elists.isoc.org; Noel Chiappa Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ih] New Republic Article - "How We Misremember the Internet?s Origins" One last set of comments before I get on a plane for 6 hours... On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 8:08 PM Noel Chiappa > wrote: I've read it numerous times over the day, trying to work it out, and I focus on the last para, where she says: "But even the most ad hoc of these events occurred in a particular ideological context. What is the result of ignoring or blithely denying that context? Lo and behold: It looks a lot like 2019" which sounds like she's unhappy that we didn't think through how it would be used, and do a better job to pre3vent, or at least influence, that. I disagree with this. What she is saying is that latter day technologists and historians deny the context in which the internet was created, and that gets us to our current problems. They do? There was a lot of utopian thinking going on during that period. Not all of it made a big splash, such as the group that was discussing Jean Iseli?s I-colony discussions. How does the politics of then lead us to where we are? If anything, we didn?t foresee how many people would try to use this for less than good purposes. An earlier para seems to agree with that: "But perhaps the most enduring truth of the internet is that so many of its foundational moments and decisive turning points emerged from ad hoc actions and experiments undertaken with little sense of foresight or posterity.? Like what? My concern is that had we had 20-20 foresight, people wouldn?t like it very much. There is the possibility that if the Internet had gone through the same transition as most research: productization, deployment to business first (usually early technology is expensive and business does it first), then to the consumer. That some (and I stress ?some?) of the bad aspects of the Internet would have been avoided. But I don?t see any of those decisions preventing the kinds of problems we have today with Facebook, etc. All of this is in a domain that the ?technical innovations? of the 70s and 80s barely touched, i.e. what kinds of applications could be built. But then there's this: "But this is another recurring theme seen in the many moments of ad hoc internet history: By emphasizing the technical innovations (and obsessive dedication to them) as more important than the political and economic contexts in which they were germinated, the graybeards of internet history .. perpetuate the illusion that technology magically exists outside of politics, rather than existing in a constant dialogue with it." which sounds more like she's saying that contemporary politics played a large role in making the Internet look like what it is. She uses the phrase "internet history" because she is critiquing the way we historicize the internet. Her thesis is that contemporary politics played a large role in making the internet look like what it looks like, *even if* the decisions in the moment were ad hoc. As John pointed out earlier, even ad hoc decisions were made by humans out there in the world with their own political leanings. But the tech industry in particular pushes a narrative of political neutrality *today* that is projected on the internet of the past, one that is not true. It is in the title of the essay even: this is an essay about how we remember the internet, not about what happened at the time. What she seems to be forgetting is that this is about the 50th anniversary of the ARPANET, not the Internet. The Internet was based on a totally different concept, and while there is some overlap. The lack of overlap is also significant. There was a remark earlier that Bob Kahn was hardly a hippie. The thing about the ARPANET was there was a wide range of people in involved. There were senior people who had real jobs and had finished school before the 60s really took off or were deeply buried in their dissertation when it did. Then there was a group just a few years younger for whom it was a totally different experience. Both had a significant hand in how things went. I have offered this conjecture on here before: Suppose some DCA bureaucrat had been put in charge of IANA, rather than Postel. What would have happened? Or Suppose instead of ARPA springing for really expensive super fast 56K lines, we had more normal 9.6K. What would be talking about? If so, why couldn't she just start out by saying 'The Internet looks like what it is today because of the political environment at the time it was created - both in general, and around the people who created it.' Then she could go on to explain how and why - lay out the detail in an organized way to back up her thesis. This is how I would write a college essay about the topic but probably not what the New Republic is looking for, in terms of style. I thought journalism was all about clear concise prose. What is the New Republic interested in? I think people here are being defensive (understandable) and missing the point that this is a criticism of present day myth making around the internet and how it (the myth!) is used to further agendas of various actors. I don?t think she understands the history or the myth. Take care, John -Darius -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Nov 1 18:13:12 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 21:13:12 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <1257F257-F102-43A8-BA6E-B1F2ECD496DA@comcast.net> > One last set of comments before I get on a plane for 6 hours... > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 8:08 PM Noel Chiappa > wrote: > > I've read it numerous times over the day, trying to work it out, and I focus > on the last para, where she says: > > "But even the most ad hoc of these events occurred in a particular > ideological context. What is the result of ignoring or blithely denying that > context? Lo and behold: It looks a lot like 2019" > > which sounds like she's unhappy that we didn't think through how it would be > used, and do a better job to pre3vent, or at least influence, that. > > I disagree with this. What she is saying is that latter day technologists and historians deny the context in which the internet was created, and that gets us to our current problems. They do? There was a lot of utopian thinking going on during that period. Not all of it made a big splash, such as the group that was discussing Jean Iseli?s I-colony discussions. How does the politics of then lead us to where we are? If anything, we didn?t foresee how many people would try to use this for less than good purposes. > > An earlier > para seems to agree with that: > > "But perhaps the most enduring truth of the internet is that so many of its > foundational moments and decisive turning points emerged from ad hoc actions > and experiments undertaken with little sense of foresight or posterity.? Like what? My concern is that had we had 20-20 foresight, people wouldn?t like it very much. There is the possibility that if the Internet had gone through the same transition as most research: productization, deployment to business first (usually early technology is expensive and business does it first), then to the consumer. That some (and I stress ?some?) of the bad aspects of the Internet would have been avoided. But I don?t see any of those decisions preventing the kinds of problems we have today with Facebook, etc. All of this is in a domain that the ?technical innovations? of the 70s and 80s barely touched, i.e. what kinds of applications could be built. > > > But then there's this: > > "But this is another recurring theme seen in the many moments of ad hoc > internet history: By emphasizing the technical innovations (and obsessive > dedication to them) as more important than the political and economic > contexts in which they were germinated, the graybeards of internet history > .. perpetuate the illusion that technology magically exists outside of > politics, rather than existing in a constant dialogue with it." > > which sounds more like she's saying that contemporary politics played a large > role in making the Internet look like what it is. > > She uses the phrase "internet history" because she is critiquing the way we historicize the internet. Her thesis is that contemporary politics played a large role in making the internet look like what it looks like, *even if* the decisions in the moment were ad hoc. As John pointed out earlier, even ad hoc decisions were made by humans out there in the world with their own political leanings. But the tech industry in particular pushes a narrative of political neutrality *today* that is projected on the internet of the past, one that is not true. It is in the title of the essay even: this is an essay about how we remember the internet, not about what happened at the time. What she seems to be forgetting is that this is about the 50th anniversary of the ARPANET, not the Internet. The Internet was based on a totally different concept, and while there is some overlap. The lack of overlap is also significant. There was a remark earlier that Bob Kahn was hardly a hippie. The thing about the ARPANET was there was a wide range of people in involved. There were senior people who had real jobs and had finished school before the 60s really took off or were deeply buried in their dissertation when it did. Then there was a group just a few years younger for whom it was a totally different experience. Both had a significant hand in how things went. I have offered this conjecture on here before: Suppose some DCA bureaucrat had been put in charge of IANA, rather than Postel. What would have happened? Or Suppose instead of ARPA springing for really expensive super fast 56K lines, we had more normal 9.6K. What would be talking about? > > > If so, why couldn't she just start out by saying 'The Internet looks like what > it is today because of the political environment at the time it was created - > both in general, and around the people who created it.' Then she could go on > to explain how and why - lay out the detail in an organized way to back up her > thesis. > > This is how I would write a college essay about the topic but probably not what the New Republic is looking for, in terms of style. I thought journalism was all about clear concise prose. What is the New Republic interested in? > > I think people here are being defensive (understandable) and missing the point that this is a criticism of present day myth making around the internet and how it (the myth!) is used to further agendas of various actors. I don?t think she understands the history or the myth. Take care, John > > -Darius > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 17:26:13 2019 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 20:26:13 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: One last set of comments before I get on a plane for 6 hours... On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 8:08 PM Noel Chiappa wrote: > > I've read it numerous times over the day, trying to work it out, and I > focus > on the last para, where she says: > > "But even the most ad hoc of these events occurred in a particular > ideological context. What is the result of ignoring or blithely denying > that > context? Lo and behold: It looks a lot like 2019" > > which sounds like she's unhappy that we didn't think through how it would > be > used, and do a better job to pre3vent, or at least influence, that. I disagree with this. What she is saying is that latter day technologists and historians deny the context in which the internet was created, and that gets us to our current problems. An earlier > para seems to agree with that: > > "But perhaps the most enduring truth of the internet is that so many of > its > foundational moments and decisive turning points emerged from ad hoc > actions > and experiments undertaken with little sense of foresight or posterity." > But then there's this: > > "But this is another recurring theme seen in the many moments of ad hoc > internet history: By emphasizing the technical innovations (and obsessive > dedication to them) as more important than the political and economic > contexts in which they were germinated, the graybeards of internet > history > .. perpetuate the illusion that technology magically exists outside of > politics, rather than existing in a constant dialogue with it." > > which sounds more like she's saying that contemporary politics played a > large > role in making the Internet look like what it is. > She uses the phrase "internet history" because she is critiquing the way we historicize the internet. Her thesis is that contemporary politics played a large role in making the internet look like what it looks like, *even if* the decisions in the moment were ad hoc. As John pointed out earlier, even ad hoc decisions were made by humans out there in the world with their own political leanings. But the tech industry in particular pushes a narrative of political neutrality *today* that is projected on the internet of the past, one that is not true. It is in the title of the essay even: this is an essay about how we remember the internet, not about what happened at the time. > If so, why couldn't she just start out by saying 'The Internet looks like > what > it is today because of the political environment at the time it was > created - > both in general, and around the people who created it.' Then she could go > on > to explain how and why - lay out the detail in an organized way to back up > her > thesis. > This is how I would write a college essay about the topic but probably not what the New Republic is looking for, in terms of style. I think people here are being defensive (understandable) and missing the point that this is a criticism of present day myth making around the internet and how it (the myth!) is used to further agendas of various actors. -Darius -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Fri Nov 1 17:08:30 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 20:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= Message-ID: <20191102000830.826EB18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Lori Emerson > I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of her > degree is considered part of productive discussion Perhaps - but one of this things a holder of a liberal arts degree _ought_ to be able to do is clearly explain what they are trying to say, and organize their presentation to clearly back that up - and this article doesn't seem to do that (witness all the discussion about what its point is). I've read it numerous times over the day, trying to work it out, and I focus on the last para, where she says: "But even the most ad hoc of these events occurred in a particular ideological context. What is the result of ignoring or blithely denying that context? Lo and behold: It looks a lot like 2019" which sounds like she's unhappy that we didn't think through how it would be used, and do a better job to pre3vent, or at least influence, that. An earlier para seems to agree with that: "But perhaps the most enduring truth of the internet is that so many of its foundational moments and decisive turning points emerged from ad hoc actions and experiments undertaken with little sense of foresight or posterity." But then there's this: "But this is another recurring theme seen in the many moments of ad hoc internet history: By emphasizing the technical innovations (and obsessive dedication to them) as more important than the political and economic contexts in which they were germinated, the graybeards of internet history .. perpetuate the illusion that technology magically exists outside of politics, rather than existing in a constant dialogue with it." which sounds more like she's saying that contemporary politics played a large role in making the Internet look like what it is. If so, why couldn't she just start out by saying 'The Internet looks like what it is today because of the political environment at the time it was created - both in general, and around the people who created it.' Then she could go on to explain how and why - lay out the detail in an organized way to back up her thesis. (I'm leaving aside for now any comments on what seems to be her thesis. We can take that up if we agree that's what she's trying to say.) Noel -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 1 16:52:00 2019 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:52:00 -0600 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Roshomon=3A_Was_Re=3A__New_Republic_Article_-_=22?= =?utf-8?q?How_We_Misremember_the_Internet=E2=80=99s_Origins=22?= In-Reply-To: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: This thread about the New Republic article has reminded me that most events, and especially complex events such as the formation of the Internet is something that is subject to the Roshomon effect, from the 1950 Kurosowa film of the same name. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon ) As the film portrayed, each person viewing or experiencing an event can perceive something quite different from the next observer. It is my hope that every one of us here can set down in some permanent way our view of what happened, what we did, and what others did. Some years ago my wife and I set out to do longish video interviews with various people about their roles.? We stopped a few years back due to competing forces (we had to pay attention to running our businesses.)? But we are getting ready to resume. (Many of you here are on our list of people we want to interview.) Our goal is to have long, free ranging interviews.? We want to publish the raw takes, uncut and complete, via the Internet Archives so that historians-of-the-future can have first person materials. In parallel, we intend to make our own edits to tell our own version of the story, but making it clear that it is but one perspective. We are not documentarians and our background is live theatre, not film (and much less sound recording) and our early recordings show our lack of experience.? But we are learning and equipment has improved. You can see our initial trailer - now seven years old!! - at https://history-of-the-internet.org/videos/trailer/ with some notes at https://history-of-the-internet.org/videos/trailer/ As you can see from that trailer, we seem to have a cold war point of view.? (In actuality we take some of the ideas of store and forward processing of electronic messages back to what I think is the real progenitor of much of the Internet, which is the telegraph system of the late 1830s.)? But it is hard to be synoptic in a two minute video.? ;-) (We are not particularly interested in recapitulating technology; we are far more interested in the dynamics of creation - how ideas come about, how they compete for acceptance, how even good ideas can be lost, and the way that personal relationships and somewhat random happenstance can affect the outcomes.) Here's how we describe what we are attempting. (By-the-way, please excuse the lower case 'i' - we did that because we are trying to explore a broad and somewhat diffuse body of ideas and things rather than the particular system that actually arose to dominance.? In a sense this is why a couple of paragraphs above I used the word "telegraph" rather than "Telegraph".) Also by-the-way, as I re-read the text below I realize that we may have created an impression that the net was merely a random creation by average beings.? That, of course, is far from the truth; there have been (and remain) very impressive intellects at work.? Rather, the notion was that there was no person who woke up one bright morning, applied pen to paper, and said, let me create the Internet. > This series is the story of the internet in the years before the rise > of the world wide web. > > Our story is of people and ideas rather than an explication of technology. > > This series has several themes: > > There was no grand plan. The internet could have evolved into > something quite different than what it is today. Or it could have not > evolved at all. > > The net emerged out of the contributions of many. There were no > singular geniuses who gave birth to the internet; rather the internet > is a collage of many minds. > > There were (and are) no internet deities. > > Much of the early internet was a result of government investments, > initiatives, and policies. > > The internet is not done and its continued existence as an open > platform for innovation and exploration is at risk. > > The internet is much more than the World Wide Web. > We have all lived through (and are still living in) a Gutenberg level shift of social organization and communications.? And as much as we all should tell our truths of how we contributed, we also ought to leave a legacy for reflection back on these events by people in future centuries. ??? ??? --karl-- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Nov 1 16:20:15 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 16:20:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 11/1/2019 4:11 PM, Lori Emerson wrote: > to repeat, my issue is with ad hominem attacks which the thread was > veering?toward if not engaging with. Civil debate about facts is a > different thing altogether--- Yes, but... when someone is an intensely insulting provocateur, it does not necessarily serve as an excuse for responses that are uncivil, but it certainly explains them. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From lori.emerson at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 16:11:43 2019 From: lori.emerson at gmail.com (Lori Emerson) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:11:43 -0600 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: to repeat, my issue is with ad hominem attacks which the thread was veering toward if not engaging with. Civil debate about facts is a different thing altogether--- On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:08 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/1/2019 12:18 PM, Lori Emerson wrote: > > but I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of > > her degree is considered part of productive discussion on this list. > > > I'm inclined to be more concerned about slamming liberal arts degrees > than about slamming this willful, undisciplined, confused and > fact-challenged author. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > -- Lori Emerson Associate Professor | Director, Media Archaeology Lab Department of English and Intermedia Arts, Writing, and Performance University of Colorado at Boulder Hellems 101, 226 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0226 traditional territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations loriemerson.net | mediaarchaeologylab.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Nov 1 16:08:17 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 16:08:17 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 11/1/2019 12:18 PM, Lori Emerson wrote: > but I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of > her degree is considered part of productive discussion on this list. I'm inclined to be more concerned about slamming liberal arts degrees than about slamming this willful, undisciplined, confused and fact-challenged author. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Nov 1 15:50:43 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:50:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <094e8a73-d6ba-8ee0-2c49-ea61418d5f18@dcrocker.net> On 11/1/2019 3:23 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > Yup that?s the article, seems that nowadays reporters don?t do much research anymore;-) I suspect this was more interesting than not doing research. It had lots of correct details. It just confused them a lot, which suggests the problem was more with the reporter's understanding of what he was told than with his not getting the information in the first place. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jmamodio at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 15:29:55 2019 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:29:55 -0500 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F04427-22E5-43F5-A2A7-411163BE2B48@gmail.com> Hi Ben, Thank you for the fast and detailed response. I figured that the reporter didn?t get the story quite right. Funny thing is that I knew something was going to get published since I was next to David Monroe when somebody called him to ask about it. I work with David at the San Antonio Museum of Science and Technology, you should visit us some day, we?ll give you the VIP tour ;-) Invitation is extended to other members of the list if you are around. My email address at the museum is jorge.amodio at samsat.org Cell 210-724-8385 Cheers - Jorge (mobile) > On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:43 PM, "ben at 2barkers.com" wrote: > > ? > I believe that the reporter used the term email as a generic term for a text message across the net. I have not and would not use "email" to refer to a teletype-to-teletype message of the sort that Marty and I exchanged. To me, "email" doesn't apply to communications before Tomlinson's invention of host-to-host textual messages using the @ sign. I believe that the reporter was searching for a term to apply to the sort of real time textual message that I sent that would be conceptually understood at a high level by a technologically unsophisticated readership, and he settled on "email". I believe that "real time end-to-end textual message" would be far more correct, though more difficult for a general press readership to understand. I did try to make clear to him that it was not until a year and a half later when Tomlinson invented email and introduced the @ sign that email came into being. > > Please let me know if I can further clarify. > > /Ben Barker > > Sent from my LG V20, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Jorge Amodio > Date: Fri, Nov 1, 2019 1:09 PM > To: Steve Crocker; > Cc: Ben Barker;internet-history at elists.isoc.org; > Subject:Re: [ih] First E-Mail ? > > > Thanks Steve! > > Ben I believe that the SA Express News article that mentions you is badly titled, was it an email or real time end-to-end message? > > -Jorge > >>> On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:00 PM, Steve Crocker > wrote: >>> >> ? >> Might as well ask Ben directly. >> >>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:58 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: >>> >>> Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. >>> >>> Can anybody confirm that? >>> >>> My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail through ARPANet. >>> >>> Thanks & Regards >>> -Jorge >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jmamodio at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 15:23:16 2019 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:23:16 -0500 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yup that?s the article, seems that nowadays reporters don?t do much research anymore ;-) Regards - Jorge (mobile) > On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:59 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > ?On 11/1/2019 10:58 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. >> Can anybody confirm that? >> My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail through ARPANet. > > > Looks like the article you are getting this from is: > > https://www.expressnews.com/lifestyle/article/Meet-the-San-Antonio-man-who-sent-the-first-email-14574855.php > > or the like. It's impressively confused. > > A separate article I found, with much better grasp of the historical details, says that Barker did debugging on the IMP. > > As for the the confused article's errors, one example is that the guy who did the typing at UCLA was Charlie Kline. More importantly, the things being sent and received between IMPs were messages, but they weren't email. They were at an architectural level quite a large technical step below email. > > For various write-ups about early email, take a look at: > > http://emailhistory.org > > Relevant tidbits: > > 1. There is no definitive reference to the first email, but a common person to cite is Tom van Vleck and a common timeframe is 1965. Relative to email history, this /was/ email but it was within a single machine. > > 2. What Ray Tomlinson did, at the end of 1971, was to make email go between machines. He took existing email creation software (sndmsg) and hacked it to allow specifying a remote host system for the recipient's mailbox -- hence mailbox at host -- and had sndmsg use an existing file transfer mechanism between the systems. > > d/ -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From wayne at playaholic.com Fri Nov 1 15:02:02 2019 From: wayne at playaholic.com (Wayne Hathaway) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:02:02 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <86FD4CBD-E39B-4B8B-B71B-27287D951D45@comcast.net> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <86FD4CBD-E39B-4B8B-B71B-27287D951D45@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1572645722.mw8ivsu3s0o4kcko@hostingemail.digitalspace.net> Agree 100% John, but one micronit: NASA Ames is located in Mountain View, not San Jose, and the only real reason it was deemed more secure was that it was located on a Naval Air Station (Moffett Field). I for one am very glad it was, because that's how I became involved. :-) Wayne Hathaway wayne at ames-67 :-) On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:51:00 -0400, John Day wrote: >> If her point is that those who were involved in the development of the ARPANET were not involved, or not affected by the politics of the day, nothing could be further from the truth. I know not what others were doing but it certainly wasn?t the case at Illinois. As she points out, we were mere graduate students. There wasn't a whole lot we could do, but I do know the following occurred (not in any particular order): >> >> 1) We were building Illiac IV, the other very large ARPA project at the time, which was to be on the ARPANET. The student newspaper, the Daily Illini (DI) and a ?radical movement? were competing to be leaders of the 'movement.' Arguing that the project had been surreptitiously brought to campus. (The DI?s reporting of Board of Trustees meetings didn?t mention it. A similar thing *had* happened at SIU with a Vietnamese Study Center.) There were several demonstrations which finally culminated >> >> 2) In a well-attended debate in the student union between our staff and theirs, it was pointed out that approval of the project by the University Board of Trustees was covered in the local newspapers, The Courier and the News-Gazette. The DI had only reported what was relevant to the fraternities and sororities. >> >> 3) They then shifted their focus to the issue that classified research shouldn?t be done on university campus, which the entire project agreed with. None of us had security clearances, the building IlliacIV was to be housed in was not a secure facility and couldn?t be. We were quite adamant about this both in and out of the project. Of course, then they argued that the DoD would sneak them on campus, not realizing that the DoD is more paranoid than they are. >> >> 4) Our office on campus was firebombed. Luckily, it didn?t go off. That building would have gone up in an instant. >> >> 5) We were making heavy use over the ARPANET of SAIL?s access to the API wire to follow the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile as we tried to arrange to get friends and colleagues out of there before they ended up in the stadium. Through other things we were involved in on campus, we knew people involved in Stafford Beer?s cybernetic project with the Allende government. >> >> 6) We were on strike for several weeks following Kent State and the killing of a black youth in Champaign the next week. >> >> 7) Because of contractual issues with TI on building the chips for the machine, there were massive cost overruns. ARPA was putting considerable pressure on the head of the project and not willing to put more money in. Consequently, to get out from under, the PI made the argument (thanks to the demonstrators) that he couldn?t guarantee the safety of the machine if it came to Illinois. So instead, it went to NASA Ames in San Jose where it could do secret research and did. >> >> and much more I have forgotten. It was far more than an education in the nascent field of networking. >> >> (Actually, networking was about to undergo a similar revolution too that was very much took its lead from the politics (and the science) of the time. But that hasn?t been mentioned here.) >> >> No, the graybeards that created the ARPANET were not involved in the politics and environment of what was going on around us. Yea, right! >> >> >> > On Nov 1, 2019, at 15:37, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> > >> > Lori, >> > >> > I have no idea where she got her degree, and I apologise if it read as a personal attack. It was actually intended as an attack on a whole style of thinking, and I stand by that. >> > >> > Regards >> > Brian Carpenter >> > >> > On 02-Nov-19 08:18, Lori Emerson wrote: >> >> Hi all, I've enjoyed having the chance to be a lurker on this list for awhile and I've learned a lot. I also appreciate that you all might have different views on Ingrid Burrington's think piece, but I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of her degree is considered part of productive discussion on this list. >> >> >> >> best, Lori >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:15 PM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >> >> >> >> "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." >> >> >> >> Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? >> >> >> >> Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Brian Carpenter >> >> -- >> >> Internet-history mailing list >> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Lori Emerson >> >> Associate Professor | Director, Media Archaeology Lab >> >> Department of English and Intermedia Arts, Writing, and Performance >> >> University of Colorado at Boulder >> >> Hellems 101, 226 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0226 >> >> traditional territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations >> >> loriemerson.net | mediaarchaeologylab.com >> > >> > -- >> > Internet-history mailing list >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 14:59:16 2019 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:59:16 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <86FD4CBD-E39B-4B8B-B71B-27287D951D45@comcast.net> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <86FD4CBD-E39B-4B8B-B71B-27287D951D45@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 5:51 PM John Day wrote: > If her point is that those who were involved in the development of the > ARPANET were not involved, or not affected by the politics of the day, > nothing could be further from the truth. > This is not her point. She is criticizing the "apolitical, monumental storytelling about technology?s harms and benefits." It is the *present day myths* about the ARPANET and its people as apolitical that she is critiquing. And believe me, these myths run rampant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Nov 1 14:51:00 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:51:00 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <86FD4CBD-E39B-4B8B-B71B-27287D951D45@comcast.net> If her point is that those who were involved in the development of the ARPANET were not involved, or not affected by the politics of the day, nothing could be further from the truth. I know not what others were doing but it certainly wasn?t the case at Illinois. As she points out, we were mere graduate students. There wasn't a whole lot we could do, but I do know the following occurred (not in any particular order): 1) We were building Illiac IV, the other very large ARPA project at the time, which was to be on the ARPANET. The student newspaper, the Daily Illini (DI) and a ?radical movement? were competing to be leaders of the 'movement.' Arguing that the project had been surreptitiously brought to campus. (The DI?s reporting of Board of Trustees meetings didn?t mention it. A similar thing *had* happened at SIU with a Vietnamese Study Center.) There were several demonstrations which finally culminated 2) In a well-attended debate in the student union between our staff and theirs, it was pointed out that approval of the project by the University Board of Trustees was covered in the local newspapers, The Courier and the News-Gazette. The DI had only reported what was relevant to the fraternities and sororities. 3) They then shifted their focus to the issue that classified research shouldn?t be done on university campus, which the entire project agreed with. None of us had security clearances, the building IlliacIV was to be housed in was not a secure facility and couldn?t be. We were quite adamant about this both in and out of the project. Of course, then they argued that the DoD would sneak them on campus, not realizing that the DoD is more paranoid than they are. 4) Our office on campus was firebombed. Luckily, it didn?t go off. That building would have gone up in an instant. 5) We were making heavy use over the ARPANET of SAIL?s access to the API wire to follow the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile as we tried to arrange to get friends and colleagues out of there before they ended up in the stadium. Through other things we were involved in on campus, we knew people involved in Stafford Beer?s cybernetic project with the Allende government. 6) We were on strike for several weeks following Kent State and the killing of a black youth in Champaign the next week. 7) Because of contractual issues with TI on building the chips for the machine, there were massive cost overruns. ARPA was putting considerable pressure on the head of the project and not willing to put more money in. Consequently, to get out from under, the PI made the argument (thanks to the demonstrators) that he couldn?t guarantee the safety of the machine if it came to Illinois. So instead, it went to NASA Ames in San Jose where it could do secret research and did. and much more I have forgotten. It was far more than an education in the nascent field of networking. (Actually, networking was about to undergo a similar revolution too that was very much took its lead from the politics (and the science) of the time. But that hasn?t been mentioned here.) No, the graybeards that created the ARPANET were not involved in the politics and environment of what was going on around us. Yea, right! > On Nov 1, 2019, at 15:37, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Lori, > > I have no idea where she got her degree, and I apologise if it read as a personal attack. It was actually intended as an attack on a whole style of thinking, and I stand by that. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 02-Nov-19 08:18, Lori Emerson wrote: >> Hi all, I've enjoyed having the chance to be a lurker on this list for awhile and I've learned a lot. I also appreciate that you all might have different views on Ingrid Burrington's think piece, but I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of her degree is considered part of productive discussion on this list. >> >> best, Lori >> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:15 PM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >> >> "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." >> >> Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? >> >> Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >> >> -- >> Lori Emerson >> Associate Professor | Director, Media Archaeology Lab >> Department of English and Intermedia Arts, Writing, and Performance >> University of Colorado at Boulder >> Hellems 101, 226 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0226 >> traditional territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations >> loriemerson.net | mediaarchaeologylab.com > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 14:33:12 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 10:33:12 +1300 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <1C80C7BE-EB8B-4D6A-951A-7A0154F3A684@blum.net> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <1C80C7BE-EB8B-4D6A-951A-7A0154F3A684@blum.net> Message-ID: <1be38ded-396c-c8d3-dd52-8596020e792a@gmail.com> I think an underlying point is that the actual form that the Internet took is really beside the point. Once the technology of the global village was put in place, we got the social and political effects of the global village. Once the neo-liberal economic (and social) doctrine was put in place, it made use of the available global village technology. Other major political trends have done the same of course, e.g. the Arab Spring. In other words, the technical details that most of us on this list obsess about are largely irrelevant to the use society is now making of the technology. Margaret Thatcher used to say "There is no such thing as Society." I suspect that FaceBook has proved her wrong, and not because it runs over TCP/IP. Regards Brian On 02-Nov-19 09:14, Andrew Blum wrote: > I think the current predicament the Internet faces?dominated by a few giants, optimized to sell advertising, with wild social repercussions?might benefit from this ?whole style of thinking.? Ingrid makes a very powerful point here: > >> By emphasizing the technical innovations (and obsessive dedication to them)?as more important than the political and economic contexts in which they were?germinated, the graybeards of internet history and PR machines of the tech industry?perpetuate the illusion that technology magically exists outside of politics, rather?than existing in a constant dialogue with it. The internet emerged in a region heavily?shaped by libertarian conservatism and environmental racism, and it was easily?instrumentalized toward both?and, in a now-familiar feedback loop, the internet?s?ability to amplify specific ideologies further reinforced such polarization. > > I see how that?s a pretty direct attack on some of you (bearded or not!), but surely you (and the Internet) can handle it. It might be too much to expect a conversation along these lines to happen on this list, but I wouldn?t dismiss the article so quickly. There?s way too much at stake for that?as, among so many other examples, Zuckerberg demonstrated this week in Congress.? > > *************** > Andrew Blum > Author, TUBES (Ecco, 2012) > Author, THE WEATHER MACHINE?(Ecco, 2019) > www.andrewblum.net > andrew at blum.net > +1 650-804-5985 > >> On Nov 1, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >> >> Lori, >> >> I have no idea where she got her degree, and I apologise if it read as a personal attack. It was actually intended as an attack on a whole style of thinking, and I stand by that. >> >> Regards >> ??Brian Carpenter >> >> On 02-Nov-19 08:18, Lori Emerson wrote: >>> Hi all, I've enjoyed having the chance to be a lurker on this list for awhile and I've learned a lot. I also appreciate that you all might have different views on Ingrid Burrington's think piece, but I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of her degree is considered part of productive discussion on this list. >>> >>> best, Lori >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:15 PM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >>> >>> ???"But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." >>> >>> ???Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? >>> >>> ???Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. >>> >>> ???Regards >>> ???? ?Brian Carpenter >>> ???-- >>> ???Internet-history mailing list >>> ???Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> ???https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Lori Emerson >>> Associate Professor | Director, Media Archaeology Lab >>> Department of English and Intermedia Arts, Writing, and Performance? >>> University of Colorado at Boulder >>> Hellems 101, 226 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0226 >>> traditional territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations >>> loriemerson.net | mediaarchaeologylab.com >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Nov 1 14:26:42 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:26:42 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_remember_the_Int?= =?utf-8?b?ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <1E057C5B-B841-4883-8411-DBE25BE7BFDA@comcast.net> You are looking for reasons to object. The point is that ?open protocols and infrastructure built by the ARPANET? was part of its founding. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, it was more a product of benign neglect. Also keep in mind that the ARPA before the Proxmire Amendment was a very different place than it is now. And like Brian, I don?t hold this style of thinking in high regard. My lack of specificity is minor compared to what is in the article. > On Nov 1, 2019, at 17:10, Darius Kazemi wrote: > > > It presumes the ?open protocols and infrastructure built by the ARPANET? precluded the effect of ex-hippie whatever. > > John, how am I supposed to understand your argument if you hand wave the subject of your criticism? I take it by your use of "whatever" in place of "neoliberalism" that you either are unfamiliar with the term or don't consider it valid or useful. But to me this is like when I see humanities scholars handwave the difference between, say, ARPANET and NSFNET in favor of a pet theory. It's important to learn terms on both sides of the humanities/tech fence, otherwise we are just ships passing in the night. > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 4:57 PM John Day > wrote: > This suffers from ?the effect of TS Eliot on Shakespere? phenomena. It presumes the ?open protocols and infrastructure built by the ARPANET? precluded the effect of ex-hippie whatever. It assumes the ARPANET as the author knows it now was in existence at the beginning. And has Brian points out, that there were a lot of people involved in that early development that would have been classed as ?hippies?. > > I always tell the story of 4 of us leaving Champaign to fly out to Philly on our ARPA project. As we got off the plane in Chicago, the flight attendant said with a breath of excitement, ?Are you guys in a band?? I replied (trying not to disappoint her too much, ?No, we are crypto-fascist-lackeys of military-industrial complex.? As we had been referred to by demonstrators. We were probably further left than they were. > > > On Nov 1, 2019, at 15:15, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > > > "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." > > > > Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? > > > > Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. > > > > Regards > > Brian Carpenter > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 14:20:06 2019 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:20:06 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <16e28d495f8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> <16e28d495f8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: This article seems to be a rorschach test at this point. I'm seeing claims that the article paints everyone as a hippie, and claims that the article paints everyone as a stuffed shirt authoritarian! On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 5:17 PM Bernie Cosell wrote: > On November 1, 2019 15:42:26 Eric Gade wrote: > >> The very general idea of the article is correct: one can and should take >> political, economic, and cultural forces into consideration when writing >> the history of any technology. What is bizarre about this article is that >> the author is only saying that this is so, implying that no one has done >> this for the history of the Internet (I guess?) while offering no original >> analysis in its place. So it's not really saying much in itself. >> >> > so many people frkm bith coasts and in the middle had to do with the > protocol ddvelopment, the experiments the clever programmers who made > it all work that the description is ludicrous. bob kahn a hippie? > > the author should take a gander of the roster of folk designated "internet > pioneers" at the net at 50 shindig. {c that list isn't even complete.. i > suspect > we all know someone who should have been included {e. g., will crowther} > > > /bernie\ > Bernie Cosell > bernie at fantasyfarm. com > ? Too many people, too few sheep ? > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Fri Nov 1 14:17:31 2019 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 17:17:31 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <16e28d495f8.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> On November 1, 2019 15:42:26 Eric Gade wrote: > The very general idea of the article is correct: one can and should take > political, economic, and cultural forces into consideration when writing > the history of any technology. What is bizarre about this article is that > the author is only saying that this is so, implying that no one has done > this for the history of the Internet (I guess?) while offering no original > analysis in its place. So it's not really saying much in itself. so many people frkm bith coasts and in the middle had to do with the protocol ddvelopment, the experiments the clever programmers who made it all work that the description is ludicrous. bob kahn a hippie? the author should take a gander of the roster of folk designated "internet pioneers" at the net at 50 shindig. {c that list isn't even complete.. i suspect we all know someone who should have been included {e. g., will crowther} /bernie\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm. com ? Too many people, too few sheep ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 14:10:10 2019 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:10:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: > It presumes the ?open protocols and infrastructure built by the ARPANET? precluded the effect of ex-hippie whatever. John, how am I supposed to understand your argument if you hand wave the subject of your criticism? I take it by your use of "whatever" in place of "neoliberalism" that you either are unfamiliar with the term or don't consider it valid or useful. But to me this is like when I see humanities scholars handwave the difference between, say, ARPANET and NSFNET in favor of a pet theory. It's important to learn terms on both sides of the humanities/tech fence, otherwise we are just ships passing in the night. On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 4:57 PM John Day wrote: > This suffers from ?the effect of TS Eliot on Shakespere? phenomena. It > presumes the ?open protocols and infrastructure built by the ARPANET? > precluded the effect of ex-hippie whatever. It assumes the ARPANET as the > author knows it now was in existence at the beginning. And has Brian > points out, that there were a lot of people involved in that early > development that would have been classed as ?hippies?. > > I always tell the story of 4 of us leaving Champaign to fly out to Philly > on our ARPA project. As we got off the plane in Chicago, the flight > attendant said with a breath of excitement, ?Are you guys in a band?? I > replied (trying not to disappoint her too much, ?No, we are > crypto-fascist-lackeys of military-industrial complex.? As we had been > referred to by demonstrators. We were probably further left than they were. > > > On Nov 1, 2019, at 15:15, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > > > "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by > ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie > neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." > > > > Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? > > > > Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich > people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You > might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon > had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. > > > > Regards > > Brian Carpenter > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Nov 1 13:56:55 2019 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 16:56:55 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: This suffers from ?the effect of TS Eliot on Shakespere? phenomena. It presumes the ?open protocols and infrastructure built by the ARPANET? precluded the effect of ex-hippie whatever. It assumes the ARPANET as the author knows it now was in existence at the beginning. And has Brian points out, that there were a lot of people involved in that early development that would have been classed as ?hippies?. I always tell the story of 4 of us leaving Champaign to fly out to Philly on our ARPA project. As we got off the plane in Chicago, the flight attendant said with a breath of excitement, ?Are you guys in a band?? I replied (trying not to disappoint her too much, ?No, we are crypto-fascist-lackeys of military-industrial complex.? As we had been referred to by demonstrators. We were probably further left than they were. > On Nov 1, 2019, at 15:15, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." > > Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? > > Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From andrew at blum.net Fri Nov 1 13:14:26 2019 From: andrew at blum.net (Andrew Blum) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 16:14:26 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <1C80C7BE-EB8B-4D6A-951A-7A0154F3A684@blum.net> I think the current predicament the Internet faces?dominated by a few giants, optimized to sell advertising, with wild social repercussions?might benefit from this ?whole style of thinking.? Ingrid makes a very powerful point here: > By emphasizing the technical innovations (and obsessive dedication to them) as more important than the political and economic contexts in which they were germinated, the graybeards of internet history and PR machines of the tech industry perpetuate the illusion that technology magically exists outside of politics, rather than existing in a constant dialogue with it. The internet emerged in a region heavily shaped by libertarian conservatism and environmental racism, and it was easily instrumentalized toward both?and, in a now-familiar feedback loop, the internet?s ability to amplify specific ideologies further reinforced such polarization. I see how that?s a pretty direct attack on some of you (bearded or not!), but surely you (and the Internet) can handle it. It might be too much to expect a conversation along these lines to happen on this list, but I wouldn?t dismiss the article so quickly. There?s way too much at stake for that?as, among so many other examples, Zuckerberg demonstrated this week in Congress. *************** Andrew Blum Author, TUBES (Ecco, 2012) Author, THE WEATHER MACHINE (Ecco, 2019) www.andrewblum.net andrew at blum.net +1 650-804-5985 > On Nov 1, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Lori, > > I have no idea where she got her degree, and I apologise if it read as a personal attack. It was actually intended as an attack on a whole style of thinking, and I stand by that. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 02-Nov-19 08:18, Lori Emerson wrote: >> Hi all, I've enjoyed having the chance to be a lurker on this list for awhile and I've learned a lot. I also appreciate that you all might have different views on Ingrid Burrington's think piece, but I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of her degree is considered part of productive discussion on this list. >> >> best, Lori >> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:15 PM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >> >> "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." >> >> Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? >> >> Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >> >> -- >> Lori Emerson >> Associate Professor | Director, Media Archaeology Lab >> Department of English and Intermedia Arts, Writing, and Performance >> University of Colorado at Boulder >> Hellems 101, 226 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0226 >> traditional territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations >> loriemerson.net | mediaarchaeologylab.com > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Nov 1 13:02:09 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:02:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: <999269327.427353.1572637072032@mail.yahoo.com> References: <999269327.427353.1572637072032@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <139fff58-1f06-9eb1-d597-8f1ba55c8327@dcrocker.net> On 11/1/2019 12:37 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: > Ben Barker was the first person to send user data between two ARPAnet > IMPs connected by a Telco circuit.? He typed on a TTY directly connected > to IMP 1, installed at UCLA, and IMP 2, installed at SRI.? His typing > was reproduced on a TTY directly connected to IMP 2, and was read by > Marty Thrope.? Both Ben and Marty were part of the BBN IMP team, and the > purpose of their typing to each other was to verify that the IMPs and > the communication circuit were working. Alex, Of the various networking milestones, I hadn't seen a reference to this one one before, although it was obvious something like it should have happened. d/ ps. I saw a photo of the cake that was at BBN for its celebration this year... -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 1 12:37:52 2019 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 19:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <999269327.427353.1572637072032@mail.yahoo.com> Jorge, Ben Barker was the first person to send user data between two ARPAnet IMPs connected by a Telco circuit.? He typed on a TTY directly connected to IMP 1, installed at UCLA, and IMP 2, installed at SRI.? His typing was reproduced on a TTY directly connected to IMP 2, and was read by Marty Thrope.? Both Ben and Marty were part of the BBN IMP team, and the purpose of their typing to each other was to verify that the IMPs and the communication circuit were working.? This happened at the time the SRI IMP and the circuit were installed, in October 1969. Len Kleinrock and his group at UCLA, and Doug Englebart's group at SRI were the first groups to send user data from one Host computer to another.? The characters LO were submitted to the UCLA IMP from the UCLA Host and were received by the SRI Host. Neither what Ben Barker and Marty Thrope did, or what Len Kleinrock's group and Doug Englebart's group did had anything to do with network mail, now commonly known as email.? Network mail was first sent by Ray Tomlinson from an account belonging to him on one TENEX system to another account belonging to him on another TENEX system, where the two TENEX systems were each connected to the ARPAnet and thereby to each other.? That happened in 1971.? As others have mentioned, computer mail had been sent between users of a single computer since the mid-1960's.? In y opinion it is fair to also refer to this computer mail as email but not network mail. Hope this helps clarify the various celebrations taking place these days. Alex McKenzieBBN 1967=1996 On Friday, November 1, 2019, 1:58:59 PM EDT, Jorge Amodio wrote: Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. Can anybody confirm that? My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail through ARPANet. Thanks & Regards -Jorge -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org Len Kleinrock and his group, and Dhttps://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 12:37:30 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 08:37:30 +1300 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Lori, I have no idea where she got her degree, and I apologise if it read as a personal attack. It was actually intended as an attack on a whole style of thinking, and I stand by that. Regards Brian Carpenter On 02-Nov-19 08:18, Lori Emerson wrote: > Hi all, I've enjoyed having the chance to be a lurker on this list for awhile and I've learned a lot. I also appreciate that you all might have different views on Ingrid Burrington's think piece, but I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of her degree is considered part of productive discussion on this list. > > best, Lori > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:15 PM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." > > Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? > > Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. > > Regards > ? ?Brian Carpenter > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > Lori Emerson > Associate Professor | Director, Media Archaeology Lab > Department of English and Intermedia Arts, Writing, and Performance? > University of Colorado at Boulder > Hellems 101, 226 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0226 > traditional territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations > loriemerson.net | mediaarchaeologylab.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From eric.gade at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 12:35:50 2019 From: eric.gade at gmail.com (Eric Gade) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:35:50 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: The very general idea of the article is correct: one can and should take political, economic, and cultural forces into consideration when writing the history of any technology. What is bizarre about this article is that the author is only saying that this is so, implying that no one has done this for the history of the Internet (I guess?) while offering no original analysis in its place. So it's not really saying much in itself. Regarding the influence of the counterculture (the "hippie" angle), this has already been tackled for the more general history of computing by the likes of Fred Turner and John Markoff. > Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? > This list is presumably a conversation about history (one of the liberal arts), correct? On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 3:19 PM Lori Emerson wrote: > Hi all, I've enjoyed having the chance to be a lurker on this list for > awhile and I've learned a lot. I also appreciate that you all might have > different views on Ingrid Burrington's think piece, but I can't imagine > that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of her degree is > considered part of productive discussion on this list. > > best, Lori > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:15 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > >> "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by >> ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie >> neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." >> >> Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? >> >> Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich >> people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You >> might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon >> had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > Lori Emerson > Associate Professor | Director, Media Archaeology Lab > Department of English and Intermedia Arts, Writing, and Performance > University of Colorado at Boulder > Hellems 101, 226 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0226 > traditional territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations > loriemerson.net | mediaarchaeologylab.com > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 12:35:08 2019 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 19:35:08 +0000 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Maybe a link would have been good but Fred Turner's book "From Counterculture to Cyberculture" is well-researched good reading on the topic and makes an excellent case for the sources and existence of that particular brand of ideology. On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 7:27 PM Vint Cerf wrote: > well, that sure clears things up..... > :-/ > v > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 3:24 PM Darius Kazemi > wrote: > >> Hi Brian, quick response inline below-- >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 7:15 PM Brian E Carpenter < >> brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by >> ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie >> neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." >> >> Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? >> >> Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; >> >> >> I believe you are parsing her sentence wrong. She's not saying "all >> neoliberalism arose from hippies" but rather is referring to a particular >> strain of "ex-hippie neoliberalism". The ex-hippie part is a modifier to >> make it different from garden variety neoliberalism. >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > New postal address: > Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Fri Nov 1 12:26:51 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:26:51 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: well, that sure clears things up..... :-/ v On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 3:24 PM Darius Kazemi wrote: > Hi Brian, quick response inline below-- > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 7:15 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > > "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by > ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie > neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." > > Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? > > Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; > > > I believe you are parsing her sentence wrong. She's not saying "all > neoliberalism arose from hippies" but rather is referring to a particular > strain of "ex-hippie neoliberalism". The ex-hippie part is a modifier to > make it different from garden variety neoliberalism. > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 12:24:03 2019 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 19:24:03 +0000 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Hi Brian, quick response inline below-- On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 7:15 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; I believe you are parsing her sentence wrong. She's not saying "all neoliberalism arose from hippies" but rather is referring to a particular strain of "ex-hippie neoliberalism". The ex-hippie part is a modifier to make it different from garden variety neoliberalism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From lori.emerson at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 12:18:48 2019 From: lori.emerson at gmail.com (Lori Emerson) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:18:48 -0600 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I've enjoyed having the chance to be a lurker on this list for awhile and I've learned a lot. I also appreciate that you all might have different views on Ingrid Burrington's think piece, but I can't imagine that veering into ad hominem attacks on the worth of her degree is considered part of productive discussion on this list. best, Lori On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:15 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by > ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie > neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." > > Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? > > Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich > people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You > might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon > had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Lori Emerson Associate Professor | Director, Media Archaeology Lab Department of English and Intermedia Arts, Writing, and Performance University of Colorado at Boulder Hellems 101, 226 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0226 traditional territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations loriemerson.net | mediaarchaeologylab.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 12:15:16 2019 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 08:15:16 +1300 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: "But when the publicly funded open protocols and infrastructure built by ARPANET entered the Californian crucible of nascent ex-hippie neoliberalism, the windows of possibility narrow." Um, meaningless drivel from someone with a liberal arts degree? Neoliberalism didn't *actually* arise from hippiedom; it arose from rich people endorsing a particular stream of thought in academic economics. You might as well say that the Postel principle arose from hippiedom, since Jon had long hair. It would make as much sense IMNSHO. Regards Brian Carpenter -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Nov 1 11:59:40 2019 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:59:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/1/2019 10:58 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > > Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. > > Can anybody confirm that? > > My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail through ARPANet. Looks like the article you are getting this from is: https://www.expressnews.com/lifestyle/article/Meet-the-San-Antonio-man-who-sent-the-first-email-14574855.php or the like. It's impressively confused. A separate article I found, with much better grasp of the historical details, says that Barker did debugging on the IMP. As for the the confused article's errors, one example is that the guy who did the typing at UCLA was Charlie Kline. More importantly, the things being sent and received between IMPs were messages, but they weren't email. They were at an architectural level quite a large technical step below email. For various write-ups about early email, take a look at: http://emailhistory.org Relevant tidbits: 1. There is no definitive reference to the first email, but a common person to cite is Tom van Vleck and a common timeframe is 1965. Relative to email history, this /was/ email but it was within a single machine. 2. What Ray Tomlinson did, at the end of 1971, was to make email go between machines. He took existing email creation software (sndmsg) and hacked it to allow specifying a remote host system for the recipient's mailbox -- hence mailbox at host -- and had sndmsg use an existing file transfer mechanism between the systems. d/ -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Fri Nov 1 11:34:23 2019 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 14:34:23 -0400 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: <28D908DC-78D0-48FC-879E-B94DC73DBBE3@gmail.com> References: <28D908DC-78D0-48FC-879E-B94DC73DBBE3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <16e283f3b98.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> On November 1, 2019 14:09:59 Jorge Amodio wrote:> > > Ben I believe that the SA Express News article that mentions you is badly > titled, was it an email or real time end-to-end message? that certainly happened! been and marty were at sri and ucla and had exchanged imp tty to imp tty messages to each other. those transited the embryonic Arpanet well before the "LO" between the hosts. Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm. com ? Too many people, too few sheep ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Fri Nov 1 11:19:28 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? Message-ID: <20191101181928.A9C6018C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Jorge Amodio > My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an > E-Mail through ARPANet. Define 'e-mail'. CTSS had inter-user e-mail in 1965, and if single-system doesn't count for you, there's a rumour that the SAGE air defence system had some sort of electronic messaging capability. Noel -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From steffen at sdaoden.eu Fri Nov 1 11:17:53 2019 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 19:17:53 +0100 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20191101181753.-yWRw%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Jorge Amodio wrote in : | |Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local \ |news about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. | |Can anybody confirm that? | |My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an \ |E-Mail through ARPANet. I was now settling on this timeline: Electronic mail exchange in general is a concept even older. The earli? est well documented electronic mail system was part of the Compatible Time Sharing System (CTSS) at MIT, its MAIL command had been proposed in a staff planning memo at the end of 1964 and was implemented in mid-1965 when Tom Van Vleck and Noel Morris wrote the necessary code. Similar communication programs were built for other timesharing systems. One of the most ambitious and influential was Murray Turoff's EMISARI. Created in 1971 for the United States Office of Emergency Preparedness, EMISARI combined private electronic messages with a chat system, public postings, voting, and a user directory. During the 1960s it was common to connect a large number of terminals to a single, central computer. Connecting two computers together was rela? tively unusual. This began to change with the development of the ARPANET, the ancestor of today's Internet. In 1971 Ray Tomlinson adapted the SNDMSG program, originally developed for the University of California at Berkeley timesharing system, to give it the ability to transmit a mes? sage across the network into the mailbox of a user on a different com? puter. For the first time it was necessary to specify the recipient's computer as well as an account name. Tomlinson decided that the under? used commercial at ?@? would work to separate the two. Sending a message across the network was originally treated as a special instance of transmitting a file, and so a MAIL command was included in RFC 385 on file transfer in 1972. Because it was not always clear when or where a message had come from, RFC 561 in 1973 aimed to formalize electronic mail headers, including ?from?, ?date?, and ?subject?. In 1975 RFC 680 described fields to help with the transmission of messages to multiple users, including ?to?, ?cc?, and ?bcc?. In 1977 these fea? tures and others went from best practices to a binding standard in RFC 733. Queen Elizabeth II of England became the first head of state to send electronic mail on March 26 1976 while ceremonially opening a build? ing in the British Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (RSRE) in Malvern. Most of these facts with credit to an article of the historian Thomas Haigh at https://www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai. --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) -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Fri Nov 1 11:09:53 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:09:53 -0400 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: <16e28243988.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> References: <16e28243988.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: this could easily have been a message exchange between two users on the same timeshare host. v On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 2:05 PM Bernie Cosell wrote: > On November 1, 2019 13:58:56 Jorge Amodio wrote: > > Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news >> about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. >> >> Can anybody confirm that? >> >> My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail >> through ARPANet. >> > > ben slmost certainly didn't send an email through the {then 4 node} > ARPANET in 1969. the hosts were still struggling just to get connected. > > /bernie\ > > Bernie Cosell > bernie at fantasyfarm. com > ? Too many people, too few sheep ? > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jmamodio at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 11:09:45 2019 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:09:45 -0500 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28D908DC-78D0-48FC-879E-B94DC73DBBE3@gmail.com> Thanks Steve! Ben I believe that the SA Express News article that mentions you is badly titled, was it an email or real time end-to-end message? -Jorge > On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:00 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > > ? > Might as well ask Ben directly. > >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:58 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: >> >> Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. >> >> Can anybody confirm that? >> >> My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail through ARPANet. >> >> Thanks & Regards >> -Jorge >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jmamodio at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 11:09:45 2019 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:09:45 -0500 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28D908DC-78D0-48FC-879E-B94DC73DBBE3@gmail.com> Thanks Steve! Ben I believe that the SA Express News article that mentions you is badly titled, was it an email or real time end-to-end message? -Jorge > On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:00 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > > ? > Might as well ask Ben directly. > >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:58 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: >> >> Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. >> >> Can anybody confirm that? >> >> My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail through ARPANet. >> >> Thanks & Regards >> -Jorge >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jmamodio at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 11:09:45 2019 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:09:45 -0500 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28D908DC-78D0-48FC-879E-B94DC73DBBE3@gmail.com> Thanks Steve! Ben I believe that the SA Express News article that mentions you is badly titled, was it an email or real time end-to-end message? -Jorge > On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:00 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > > ? > Might as well ask Ben directly. > >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:58 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: >> >> Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. >> >> Can anybody confirm that? >> >> My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail through ARPANet. >> >> Thanks & Regards >> -Jorge >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Fri Nov 1 11:04:54 2019 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 14:04:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16e28243988.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> On November 1, 2019 13:58:56 Jorge Amodio wrote: > Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news > about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. > > > Can anybody confirm that? > > > My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail > through ARPANet. ben slmost certainly didn't send an email through the {then 4 node} ARPANET in 1969. the hosts were still struggling just to get connected. /bernie\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm. com ? Too many people, too few sheep ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From steve at shinkuro.com Fri Nov 1 11:00:08 2019 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:00:08 -0400 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Might as well ask Ben directly. On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:58 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: > > Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news > about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. > > Can anybody confirm that? > > My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail > through ARPANet. > > Thanks & Regards > -Jorge > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jmamodio at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 10:58:37 2019 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:58:37 -0500 Subject: [ih] First E-Mail ? Message-ID: Checking with the ?Elders? the veracity of a recent article in local news about Ben Barker (a San Antonian) sent the first E-Mail Oct 1st, 1969. Can anybody confirm that? My recollection is that Ray Tomlinson was the first one to send an E-Mail through ARPANet. Thanks & Regards -Jorge -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From clemc at ccc.com Fri Nov 1 10:13:45 2019 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:13:45 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Oh how sad... We need the 'Delts' to stand up to Dean Wormer and start to scream 'BJ.' How it tries to link hippie movement with technology is high tech is very stretched, IMHO. I fear this is the sort of thing that people looking for excuses and ways to attack with be attracted. I way to much reminds me of way the evangelicals often attack science et al. Seems almost like FOX News. On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 8:43 AM Karl Auerbach wrote: > This got forwarded to me this morning: > How We Misremember the Internet?s Origins > > https://newrepublic.com/article/155532/misremember-internets-origins > > This article seems very screedy to me. Yeah we all knew that ARPA was a > branch of the US Dept of Defense. And we all knew that in at least some > minds (especially the group I worked for, the Joint Chiefs of Staff) > survivable communications during nuclear war were a concern. > > What rubs me wrong is how this article seems to try to paint people > working on network ideas as somehow evil, somehow linked to the bad things > such as the treatment of California indigenous peoples by the Spanish > missionaries of the 18th century. > > OK, yeah, it is true that some some, and I emphasize only some, of the > motivations for the ARPAnet tributary stream that eventually merged with > others to for The Internet, were military and not the most politically > correct in today's world. > > But there were a lot of other forces, motivations, and ideas at work. > > For example, pretty soon after I worked with the JCS I also started to get > ideas coming out of Dave Farber's DCS project. The idea of restructuring > entire computers and operating systems around networks was something > revolutionary to me. And we see that idea now fruiting in the web of APIs > now available on the net to build applications. AWS and Google Map APIs > are, to my mind, a direct result of Farber's DCS. > > The article fails to acknowledge those streams as well as the engendering > of social networking via things like bulletin boards and Usenet. And to > me, that removes the foundation of credibility from the article. > > --karl-- > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Fri Nov 1 09:41:16 2019 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:41:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= Message-ID: <20191101164116.E1A0218C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Karl Auerbach > This got forwarded to me this morning: > How We Misremember the Internet???s Origins > ... > This article seems very screedy to me. I await breathlessly the author's forth-coming article on the deep ideological linkage between Christianity and moveable type (hey, Gutenberg invented it to print the Bible). > What rubs me wrong is how this article seems to try to paint people > working on network ideas as somehow evil I didn't get that, actually - she refers to the meeting of technology with the hippie mindset in California, for example. But it's very hard to me to say just what her point is, past some vague sophmoric vapidness about how technology has links of some sort to the society that created it. Noel PS: She can't spell 'Internet'. -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Fri Nov 1 09:01:58 2019 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:01:58 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= In-Reply-To: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> References: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> Message-ID: this is a totally bullshit article. For once I agree with Karl, I think. It's basically a "what about" pivot full of irrelevance with regard to the ARPANET and subsequent Internet developments that really were essentially technical until commercialization entered into the picture, first with equipment (routers/ethernet) and then services (ISPs) and then commercial domain names and the WWW. Then social networking.... that sequence strikes me as largely orthogonal to the rant in the New Republic. bleah. v On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:43 AM Karl Auerbach wrote: > This got forwarded to me this morning: > How We Misremember the Internet?s Origins > > https://newrepublic.com/article/155532/misremember-internets-origins > > This article seems very screedy to me. Yeah we all knew that ARPA was a > branch of the US Dept of Defense. And we all knew that in at least some > minds (especially the group I worked for, the Joint Chiefs of Staff) > survivable communications during nuclear war were a concern. > > What rubs me wrong is how this article seems to try to paint people > working on network ideas as somehow evil, somehow linked to the bad things > such as the treatment of California indigenous peoples by the Spanish > missionaries of the 18th century. > > OK, yeah, it is true that some some, and I emphasize only some, of the > motivations for the ARPAnet tributary stream that eventually merged with > others to for The Internet, were military and not the most politically > correct in today's world. > > But there were a lot of other forces, motivations, and ideas at work. > > For example, pretty soon after I worked with the JCS I also started to get > ideas coming out of Dave Farber's DCS project. The idea of restructuring > entire computers and operating systems around networks was something > revolutionary to me. And we see that idea now fruiting in the web of APIs > now available on the net to build applications. AWS and Google Map APIs > are, to my mind, a direct result of Farber's DCS. > > The article fails to acknowledge those streams as well as the engendering > of social networking via things like bulletin boards and Usenet. And to > me, that removes the foundation of credibility from the article. > > --karl-- > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 1 08:42:56 2019 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:42:56 -0600 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?New_Republic_Article_-_=22How_We_Misremember_the_?= =?utf-8?b?SW50ZXJuZXTigJlzIE9yaWdpbnMi?= Message-ID: <6124c204-b24f-fab9-5e01-952d164f28fe@cavebear.com> This got forwarded to me this morning: How We Misremember the Internet?s Origins https://newrepublic.com/article/155532/misremember-internets-origins This article seems very screedy to me.? Yeah we all knew that ARPA was a branch of the US Dept of Defense.? And we all knew that in at least some minds (especially the group I worked for, the Joint Chiefs of Staff) survivable communications during nuclear war were a concern. What rubs me wrong is how this article seems to try to paint people working on network ideas as somehow evil, somehow linked to the bad things such as the treatment of California indigenous peoples by the Spanish missionaries of the 18th century. OK, yeah, it is true that some some, and I emphasize only some, of the motivations for the ARPAnet tributary stream that eventually merged with others to for The Internet, were military and not the most politically correct in today's world. But there were a lot of other forces, motivations, and ideas at work. For example, pretty soon after I worked with the JCS I also started to get ideas coming out of Dave Farber's DCS project.? The idea of restructuring entire computers and operating systems around networks was something revolutionary to me.? And we see that idea now fruiting in the web of APIs now available on the net to build applications.? AWS and Google Map APIs are, to my mind, a direct result of Farber's DCS. The article fails to acknowledge those streams as well as the engendering of social networking via things like bulletin boards and Usenet.? And to me, that removes the foundation of credibility from the article. ??? --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history