[ih] Recently restored and a small ARPANET was run using simulated IMP hardware. (was: TTL [was Exterior Gateway Protocol])
the keyboard of geoff goodfellow
geoff at iconia.com
Wed Sep 9 15:45:59 PDT 2020
yours truly observed/experienced/had this exact "desensing issue" with/when
2 of the 100 "test" (pre-commercial and by hand constructed/"manufactured")
DYNATAC handheld cellphone's on the ARTS (American Radio Telephone System)
test system in the 80's that Motorola had constructed in the Washington
D.C. & Baltimore MD area were used simultaneously in close proximity with
one another...
geoff
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:41 AM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> Radio technology has gotten a lot better over the last 40 years; my
> experience is that desensing isn't as much of an issue now. Also,
> signal strength decreases rapidly with distance, so socially-distanced
> cellphone users shouldn't have a problem, except perhaps if they try to
> use a phone on each ear. /j
>
> On 9/8/20 2:49 AM, vinton cerf wrote:
> > i wonder whether CHM has cataloged what it has been given in
> > searchable form?
> >
> > i also wonder whether dense crowds of wifi users creates a big
> > desensing risk?
> >
> > v
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 10:55 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history
> > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jack,
> > This might not have been clear. I worked for BBN on the packet
> > radio project before SRI. As you mentioned the packet radio work
> > was in Div4 at BBN. I decided to move to California and took a job
> > at SRI.
> > Besides ARPA, SRI had contracts with other military organizations
> > for the networking research . The Army (CECOM) funded a lot of the
> > work. I think a couple projects I worked on had funding from the
> > Navy and the Air Force (Rome Labs? ) but I could be wrong where
> > the dollars actually came from.
> >
> > Unfortunately I don't remember any contract numbers right now.
> > Much of the information on what was done is in the monthly,
> > quarterly and final reports delivered to the contracting
> > organization. I think there were only a handful of conference
> > papers and a few talks here and there.
> > I have tried to use the DTIC site to find information on the SAC
> > Strategic C3 Experiments (Mobile IP work) and I did find it hard
> > to locate what I was looking for. I have no idea how SRI handled
> > the deliverables once a project was over. I did find documentation
> > on the Port Expander awhile ago but it wasn't very detailed. If
> > you would like a copy, I will see if I can find it again. I think
> > it helps to know the project name when searching for information.
> > barbara
> >
> > On Monday, September 7, 2020, 11:00:48 AM PDT, Jack Haverty
> > via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Barbara,
> >
> > Packet Radio artifacts of any kind were elusive (at least in 2013
> when
> > we searched), except for a few conference papers. Specifically,
> > we were
> > looking for things like QTRs or other project reports that SRI
> > presumably submitted to ARPA, analogous to the BBN QTRs. We found a
> > lot of the BBN reports online at DTIC, but little from SRI. I'm not
> > sure, but the BBN QTRs may have been found by the search engine
> > because
> > I had the BBN/ARPA contract numbers involved, but I didn't know the
> > appropriate contract numbers for the SRI (or any other) contracts.
> >
> > Not much detail about Fuzzballs, or Port Expanders, or other such
> > boxes
> > that were prolific in the early days of the Internet. Google wasn't
> > much help, but that may be from lack of knowledge in how to best
> > use the
> > search mechanisms.
> >
> > IMHO, there wasn't as much collaboration between the ARPANET and
> > Packet
> > Radio as there was with the Internet/Gateway work at BBN.
> >
> > BBN had internal structure that to some extent influenced the
> > "technology transfer" between projects. In particular there were two
> > "divisions", Div4 and Div6, that both did similar computer and
> network
> > research. Div6 was where the ARPANET project began and evolved to an
> > operational service over the ten years preceding the Internet, so
> > there
> > was a lot of operational experience and war wounds there. Div4 was
> > where the Packet Radio work was done, along with lots of other
> things,
> > such as TENEX. Both were very competent, but had different
> > experiences.
> >
> > Although the technical staffs of the two divisions got along pretty
> > well, pragmatic details limited collaboration. We were physically
> > located in separate buildings, so hallway encounters and casual
> > interactions were less likely. Interesting "teaching events" that
> > occurred in the ARPANET propagated quickly through Div6 where the NOC
> > was literally just down the hallway, less so to Div4.
> Cross-charging
> > (charging your time to the other Division's project) was possible but
> > discouraged.
> >
> > The "Gateway Project" began in Div4, where Ginny Strazisar
> implemented
> > the first gateway; I don't know if that was a separate
> > project/contract, or just a part of the Packet Radio contract at the
> > time. Some few years later, as it became desirable for the
> > Internet to
> > stabilize and become an operational service, ARPA moved the
> > gateway work
> > from Div4 to Div6, folding it into the "Internet Project" contract
> > that
> > was my responsibility at the time (it included various TCP
> > implementations, SATNET, WBNET, Remote Site Maintenance, etc.).
> >
> > That was the point where we started injecting "ARPANET DNA" into the
> > Internet/gateways, blatantly adopting ARPANET techniques as the most
> > obvious (to us in Div6) way to get the Internet to be as managed
> > as the
> > ARPANET.
> >
> > I know little about the internal mechanisms of the Packet Radio
> > environment. But it did not move to Div6 (which became BBN
> > Communications Corp at some point) at least during my involvement
> > (roughly 1978-1990).
> >
> > So I suspect that the Packet Radio system did not reuse much of
> > the IMP
> > ideas/techniques, especially the ones that were rather mundane and
> not
> > well documented or publicized (such as the "reload from neighbor"
> > idea). The Packet Radio QTRs, if they survive, would probably answer
> > that question.
> >
> > I've often wondered, from a historical perspective now, to what
> extent
> > things like internal corporate structure and organizational decisions
> > influenced the design and implementation of the Internet.
> >
> > /Jack
> >
> >
> > On 9/6/20 11:44 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> > > Because of BBN's involvement, I am thinking Packet Radio might
> > have reused many of the same ideas as the IMPs for loading new
> > software from another node. Do you know this was not the case? I
> > never needed to look at that part of the code.
> > > I remember using XNET for examination of the Packet Radio
> > station. Given your recent email it sounds like you looked for old
> > Packet Radio station software and couldn't find it. Is this correct?
> > > I don't think Rockwell released their Packet Radio software in
> > the late 70s/early 80s. I would have to contact Rockwell if I
> > thought bugs required a change to a packet radio, versus the
> > Packet Radio station, when I worked at BBN. I know several years
> > later SRI did get some of their code because I implemented one of
> > the new routing algorithms ( I am pretty sure it was called
> > threshold distance vector routing if anyone is interested). BTW, I
> > think the software may have only been tested in a simulator due to
> > delays in the delivery of the LPR (Low Cost Packet Radio). This
> > was during the SURAN program.
> > > The first demo of Packet Radio and ARPANET in 1976 involved
> > submitting the status report. Don Nielson would probably remember
> > if that was done through anything like email. Below is a link to
> > an article that discusses this event. The text from the article
> > mentions email but more importantly it has a link to a podcast
> > with Don. I didn't know this podcast existed so I still need to
> > listen to it. I can see why you might think the report submission
> > may have been done by using a telnet connection to a SRI host that
> > had email.
> > >
> >
> https://hightechforum.org/happy-birthday-internet-richard-bennett-talks-with-don-nielson/
> > > barbara
> > > On Sunday, September 6, 2020, 12:39:38 PM PDT, Jack Haverty
> > via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Geoff - thanks for that bit of history and kudos!
> > >
> > > I think there's an Internet connection in your experience. I'm
> > not sure
> > > what, legally, "wireless email" means. But I suspect that email
> was
> > > being sent and received, wirelessly, well before even 1982, if
> > only to
> > > and from the SRI Packet Radio van that could occasionally be
> > seen then
> > > roaming around the Bay Area.
> > >
> > > Of course, technically, that probably involved a Telnet connection,
> > > wirelessly, to some PDP-10 running an email program. But,
> > legally, it
> > > might meet the court accepted definition of "wireless email". I
> > > learned from the lawyers that much of litigation involves
> > arguing about
> > > the meaning of words and phrases.
> > >
> > > So, perhaps someone could have looked for mouldering Packet
> > Radio (aka
> > > PR) hardware and software, and demonstrated wireless email circa
> > 1978
> > > over one or more PRNETs.
> > >
> > > Sadly, although I was pretty sure that interesting "prior art"
> > would be
> > > found in the PR environment, we had little success 7 years ago
> while
> > > trying to find anything that might show exactly how PR equipment
> > > "downloaded instructions".
> > >
> > > There's remarkably little readily discoverable material about
> > lots of
> > > the computer and network systems of the 70s/80s, especially
> internal
> > > details of operation, tools, procedures, etc. Plenty of stuff on
> > > Routing, but little on other mechanisms, or other types of
> > networks of
> > > that era, at least that the lawyers and I could find. IMHO,
> > that's a
> > > huge gap even in Internet History, since the Internet did not
> > evolve in
> > > a vacuum, was itself composed of more than the ARPANET, and was
> > > surrounded by competitors (remember multiprotocol routers).
> > >
> > > /Jack
> > >
> > > On 9/6/20 11:58 AM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote:
> > >> Jack, you're a Most Eloquent purveyor of history and that WHY
> > explain
> > >> is exactly what yours truly was hoping for... Thank You for the
> > >> elucidation! :D
> > >>
> > >> along the lines vis-a-vis:
> > >>
> > >> So, that's a bit about the "Why", for history to ponder. The
> > >> experience got me wondering about the "patent history" of The
> > >> Internet. Clearly there was a lot of innovation in those
> > days.
> > >> My recollection is that very little was patented, even if
> > only to
> > >> make sure no one else could. Maybe someone will document the
> > >> patent-related aspects of Internet History someday.
> > >>
> > >> please excuse/pardon this immodesty: yours truly had a kinda
> > similar
> > >> "lawyered" experience with respect to WHO was the purported
> > >> "inventor"/originator of wireless email in a patent litigation
> case
> > >> and the "challenge" of finding/presenting any extant legally
> > >> submissive "artifactual proof" to that effect -- for which John
> > >> Markoff at the New York Times wrote about in this 2006 article:
> > >>
> > >> In Silicon Valley, a Man Without a Patent
> > >>
> >
> https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/business/technology/in-silicon-valley-a-man-without-a-patent.html
> > >>
> > >> for which some links of "proof" exist -- for some stuff
> > mentioned in
> > >> the above NYT article -- on my website https://iconia.com/ under
> > >> "wireless email" (in case any historians are duly interested)...
> > >>
> > >> geoff
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 8:24 AM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org
> > <mailto:jack at 3kitty.org>
> > >> <mailto:jack at 3kitty.org <mailto:jack at 3kitty.org>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Geoff,
> > >>
> > >> Dave's IEEE paper does an excellent job of the
> > >> Who/What/When/Where. He's right that it was about 7 years
> > ago.
> > >> Time flies... but I guess it's still "recent" when viewed
> > as part
> > >> of Internet History.
> > >>
> > >> For the curious, I can add a bit more about the Why.
> > >>
> > >> Sometime in 2013, I got an email out of the blue from Charlie
> > >> Neuhauser, someone I didn't recognize or remember at all,
> > asking
> > >> if I was the "Jack Haverty" who authored IEN 158 -
> > documenting the
> > >> XNET protocol in 1980. Figuring that the statute of
> > limitations
> > >> must have expired after 30+ years, I cautiously said yes.
> Over
> > >> the next few days, he hooked me up with the lawyers who were
> > >> involved in a patent dispute - one that had been going on for
> > >> several decades by then. In fact, the patent involved had
> been
> > >> issued, ran its 17 year lifetime, and expired, but there
> > was still
> > >> litigation in process about whether or not the patent was
> > valid,
> > >> and 17 years of violations were alleged cause for
> > compensation in
> > >> the many millions. For the next few years I was involved
> > in the
> > >> battles, working with the lawyers scattered all over the
> > country.
> > >> I never met any of them. All our work was done by email and
> > >> telephone. No Zoom then or we probably would have used it.
> > >>
> > >> The core issue in the patent battle concerned "downloading
> > >> instructions", mechanisms such as would be involved in
> > patching or
> > >> issuing new software releases to remote equipment. XNET
> > seemed
> > >> to them to possibly have something to do with that, hence the
> > >> interest. The goal was to find hard evidence that such
> > procedures
> > >> were being done by 1980, which would prove that prior art
> > >> existed. Hard evidence literally means "hard" - opinions
> help,
> > >> but physical equipment and running code is much more
> > impressive in
> > >> a courtroom.
> > >>
> > >> They hadn't found any XNET artifacts, and I couldn't point
> > them to
> > >> any surviving implementations. But I pointed out that my
> XNET
> > >> document simply captured the technology that we "stole"
> > from the
> > >> ARPANET IMP experience, and that the IMPs routinely
> "downloaded
> > >> code" from their neighbors and the NOC all during the life
> > of the
> > >> ARPANET.
> > >>
> > >> Since the IMPs had existed since the early 70s, that really
> > >> sparked their interest, and a search (worldwide) ensued to
> find
> > >> old IMPs, in the hope that just maybe one of them still had
> the
> > >> IMP software in its magnetic-core memory. A few IMPs were
> > >> located, but none were functional. The one in the museum
> > at UCLA
> > >> seemed promising, but the owners were reluctant to even
> > hook it up
> > >> to power after sitting idle for so many years, expecting it
> > might
> > >> go up in smoke.
> > >>
> > >> Then I learned from the BBN alumni mailing list that an
> ancient
> > >> IMP listing had been found in a basement. The story from
> that
> > >> point is pretty well described in Dave's paper.
> > >>
> > >> Personally, it was an interesting experience. I worked
> > >> extensively with one lawyer in San Diego. I taught him how
> > >> computers and networks actually work; he taught me a lot
> > about the
> > >> legal system regarding patents. IMHO, they are equally
> > >> convoluted and complex when viewed from the other's
> > perspective.
> > >>
> > >> I also learned a lot about the IMP code, which I had never
> even
> > >> looked at while I was at BBN. One task I took on was to
> > >> exhaustively analyze the parts of the IMP code that
> implemented
> > >> the "download new instructions" functionality, writing up an
> > >> instruction-by-instruction description of how the code
> > >> accomplished that by interacting with a neighboring IMP.
> > It was
> > >> a very clever design, and extremely tight code, even including
> > >> self-modifying instructions. Not easy to figure out (or
> > explain
> > >> in language amenable to a non-technical judge or jury). So
> > there
> > >> was great interest in being able to demonstrate the code in
> > action
> > >> using real software from the 70s and hardware simulators.
> > >> Tangible evidence is much better than even expert opinions.
> > >>
> > >> The whole legal project came to a sudden end just a few months
> > >> prior to the first court date. I was looking forward to
> > going
> > >> to Delaware (legal action was filed in Federal court in
> > Delaware),
> > >> and finally meeting some of the people. But the parties
> > settled
> > >> suddenly, the case was dropped, and AFAIK the patent
> > question was
> > >> never resolved.
> > >>
> > >> So, that's a bit about the "Why", for history to ponder.
> The
> > >> experience got me wondering about the "patent history" of The
> > >> Internet. Clearly there was a lot of innovation in those
> > days.
> > >> My recollection is that very little was patented, even if
> > only to
> > >> make sure no one else could. Maybe someone will document the
> > >> patent-related aspects of Internet History someday.
> > >>
> > >> /Jack Haverty
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 9/6/20 12:34 AM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote:
> > >>> jack, you've raised my curiosity with respect to:
> > >>>
> > >>> ... There
> > >>> *is* ARPANET IMP software which was recently restored
> > and a small
> > >>> ARPANET was run using simulated IMP hardware.
> > >>>
> > >>> Who/What/When/Where/Why?
> > >>>
> > >>> geoff
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 8:40 PM Jack Haverty via
> > Internet-history
> > >>> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > >>> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Lukasz,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that the earliest implementations of TTL called
> it
> > >>> "Time", but
> > >>> I'm not aware that anyone actually used time per se in
> > >>> gateways, at
> > >>> least in the early days (1977-1982 or so).
> > >>>
> > >>> TCP implementations didn't do anything with TTL other
> than
> > >>> set it on
> > >>> outgoing datagrams, and at least in my implementation
> (TCP
> > >>> for Unix), it
> > >>> was just set to some arbitrary value. Until we had
> > some data
> > >>> from
> > >>> experimentation it was hard to evaluate ideas about what
> > >>> routers, hosts,
> > >>> et al should actually do. The early TCPs did use time
> in
> > >>> handling
> > >>> retransmission timers, and there was work a bit later to
> > >>> incorporate
> > >>> time more powerfully into TCP behavior, e.g., Van
> > Jacobson's
> > >>> work.
> > >>>
> > >>> The early gateways, IIRC, used the terminology "time",
> > but in
> > >>> practice
> > >>> used just hop counts, since time measurements were
> > difficult to
> > >>> implement. The exception to that may be Dave Mills'
> > >>> Fuzzballs, since
> > >>> Dave was the implementor most interested in time and
> > making
> > >>> precise
> > >>> measurements of network behavior. I *think* Dave may
> > have
> > >>> used time
> > >>> values and delay-based routing amongst his "fuzzies".
> > >>>
> > >>> The BBN doc you're seeking might have been one of many
> > that
> > >>> discussed
> > >>> the ARPANET internal mechanisms, e.g., ones with
> > titles like
> > >>> "Routing
> > >>> Algorithm Improvements". The ARPANET internal
> > mechanisms did
> > >>> use time.
> > >>> It was fairly simple in the IMPs, since the delay
> > introduced
> > >>> by the
> > >>> synchronous communications lines could be easily
> > predicted,
> > >>> and the
> > >>> other major component of delay was the time spent in
> > queues,
> > >>> which could
> > >>> be measured fairly easily.
> > >>>
> > >>> I even found one BBN ARPANET Project QTR from circa
> > 1975 that
> > >>> discussed
> > >>> the merits of the new-fangled TCP proposal that some
> > >>> professor had
> > >>> published -- and seemed to conclude it couldn't
> > possibly work.
> > >>>
> > >>> My involvement in implementations of TCPs and gateways
> > lasted
> > >>> through
> > >>> about mid-1983, so I don't know much of the detail of
> > subsequent
> > >>> implementations. For the various BBN gateway/router
> > >>> equipment, Bob
> > >>> Hinden would probably be a good source. The other major
> > >>> early player
> > >>> was MIT and spinoffs (Proteon), which perhaps Noel
> > Chiappa will
> > >>> remember. There's also at least one paper on the
> > Fuzzballs
> > >>> which may
> > >>> have some details.
> > >>>
> > >>> One thing I'd advise being careful of is the various
> > >>> "specifications" in
> > >>> RFCs. Much of the wording in those was intentionally
> > >>> non-prescriptive
> > >>> (use of "should" or "may" instead of "must"), to
> > provide as much
> > >>> latitude as possible for experimentation with new ideas,
> > >>> especially
> > >>> within an AS. The Internet was an Experiment.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, there was no consistent enforcement mechanism to
> > assure
> > >>> that
> > >>> implementations actually even conformed to the "must"
> > >>> elements. So
> > >>> Reality could be very different from Specification.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't know of any gateway implementations that have
> > >>> survived. There
> > >>> *is* ARPANET IMP software which was recently restored
> > and a small
> > >>> ARPANET was run using simulated IMP hardware. I
> > still have
> > >>> a ~1979
> > >>> listing of the TCP I wrote for Unix, but haven't
> > scanned it
> > >>> into digital
> > >>> form yet.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jack
> > >>>
> > >>> On 9/5/20 7:38 PM, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> > >>> > Jack,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I was reading a lot of old BBN PDFs thanks to all
> > good souls on
> > >>> > this list that post nice URLs from time to time.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I remember reading in at least one of them, that
> > apparently
> > >>> first
> > >>> > TCP/IP implementations were indeed using TTL as
> > literally
> > >>> “time”,
> > >>> > not hop count. I believe there somewhere there
> > between PDP docs
> > >>> > and ARPANET docs I’ve read something to the effect “and
> > >>> from this
> > >>> > time we changed from measuring time to simply count
> > routing
> > >>> hops”.
> > >>> > Of course, right now google-fu is failing me.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Quoting RFC 1009 that was already brought up,
> > there’s quite
> > >>> > direct “definition” of the field:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > "4.8. Time-To-Live
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The Time-to-Live (TTL) field of the IP header is
> > defined
> > >>> to be a
> > >>> > timer limiting the lifetime of a datagram in the
> > >>> Internet. It is
> > >>> > an 8-bit field and the units are seconds. This would
> > >>> imply that
> > >>> > for a maximum TTL of 255 a datagram would time-out
> > after
> > >>> about 4
> > >>> > and a quarter minutes. Another aspect of the
> > definition
> > >>> requires
> > >>> > each gateway (or other module) that handles a
> > datagram to
> > >>> > decrement the TTL by at least one, even if the elapsed
> > >>> time was
> > >>> > much less than a second. Since this is very often the
> > >>> case, the
> > >>> > TTL effectively becomes a hop count limit on how far a
> > >>> datagram
> > >>> > can propagate through the Internet."
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Were there any implementations that survived
> > somewhere and
> > >>> actually
> > >>> > did exactly that - counted actual time/processing
> delay,
> > >>> not hops?
> > >>> > And if it took 2s to process packet, did they really
> > >>> decrement TTL
> > >>> > by two?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Thanks for any pointers,
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Internet-history mailing list
> > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > >>> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> > >>>
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
> > <mailto:Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com>
> > <mailto:Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
> > <mailto:Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com>>
> > >>> living as The Truth is True
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
> > <mailto:Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com>
> > <mailto:Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
> > <mailto:Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com>>
> > >> living as The Truth is True
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > <mailto: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
More information about the Internet-history
mailing list