[ih] Better-than-Best Effort

[Jack Haverty]

Sounds right.   My experience was well after that early experimental 
period.  The ARPANET was much bigger (1980ish) and the topology had 
evolved over the years.  There was a direct 56K line (IIRC between 
ARPA-TIP and ISI) at that time.  Lots of other circuits too, but in 
normal conditions ARPA<->ISI traffic flowed directly over that long-haul 
circuit.   /Jack

On 8/28/21 1:55 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> Jack, the 4 node configuration had two paths between UCLA and SRI and 
> a two hop path to University of Utah.
> We did a variety of tests to force alternate routing (by congesting 
> the first path).
> I used traffic generators in the IMPs and in the UCLA Sigma-7 to get 
> this effect. Of course, we also crashed the Arpanet with these early 
> experiments.
>
> v
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 4:15 PM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org 
> <mailto:jack at 3kitty.org>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks, Steve.  I hadn't heard the details of why ISI was
>     selected.   I can believe that economics was probably a factor but
>     the people and organizational issues could have been the dominant
>     factors.
>
>     IMHO, the "internet community" seems to often ignore non-technical
>     influences on historical events, preferring to view everything in
>     terms of RFCs, protocols, and such.  I think the other influences
>     are an important part of the story - hence my "economic lens".  
>     You just described a view through a manager's lens.
>
>     /Jack
>
>     PS - I always thought that the "ARPANET demo" aspect of that
>     ARPANET timeframe was suspect, especially after I noticed that the
>     ARPANET had been configured with a leased circuit directly between
>     the nearby IMPs to ISI and ARPA.   So as a demo of "packet
>     switching", there wasn't much actual switching involved.   The 2
>     IMPs were more like multiplexors.
>
>     I never heard whether that configuration was mandated by ARPA, or
>     BBN decided to put a line in as a way to keep the customer happy,
>     or if it just happened naturally as a result of the ongoing
>     measurement of traffic flows and reconfiguration of the topology
>     to adapt as needed.  Or something else.   The interactivity of the
>     service between a terminal at ARPA and a PDP-10 at ISI was
>     noticeably better than other users (e.g., me) experienced.
>
>     On 8/28/21 11:51 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>     Jack,
>>
>>     You wrote:
>>
>>         I recall many visits to ARPA on Wilson Blvd in Arlington, VA.
>>         There were
>>         terminals all over the building, pretty much all connected
>>         through the
>>         ARPANET to a PDP-10 3000 miles away at USC in Marine Del Rey,
>>         CA.  The
>>         technology of Packet Switching made it possible to keep a
>>         PDP-10 busy
>>         servicing all those Users and minimize the costs of everything,
>>         including those expensive communications circuits.  This was
>>         circa
>>         1980. Users could efficiently share expensive communications, and
>>         expensive and distant computers -- although I always thought
>>         ARPA's
>>         choice to use a computer 3000 miles away was probably more to
>>         demonstrate the viability of the ARPANET than because it was
>>         cheaper
>>         than using a computer somewhere near DC.
>>
>>
>>     The choice of USC-ISI in Marina del Rey was due to other
>>     factors.  In 1972, with ARPA/IPTO (Larry Roberts) strong support,
>>     Keith Uncapher moved his research group out of RAND.  Uncapher
>>     explored a couple of possibilities and found a comfortable
>>     institutional home with the University of Southern California
>>     (USC) with the proviso the institute would be off campus. 
>>     Uncapher was solidly supportive of both ARPA/IPTO and of the
>>     Arpanet project.  As the Arpanet grew, Roberts needed a place to
>>     have multiple PDP-10s providing service on the Arpanet.  Not just
>>     for the staff at ARPA but for many others as well.  Uncapher was
>>     cooperative and the rest followed easily.
>>
>>     The fact that it demonstrated the viability of packet-switching
>>     over that distance was perhaps a bonus, but the same would have
>>     been true almost anywhere in the continental U.S. at that time.
>>     The more important factor was the quality of the relationship. 
>>     One could imagine setting up a small farm of machines at various
>>     other universities, non-profits, or selected for profit companies
>>     or even some military bases.  For each of these, cost,
>>     contracting rules, the ambitions of the principal investigator,
>>     and staff skill sets would have been the dominant concerns.
>>
>>     Steve
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> 1435 Woodhurst Blvd
> McLean, VA 22102
> 703-448-0965
>
> until further notice
>
>
>