[ih] On queueing from len

[Dave Taht]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Leonard Kleinrock <lk at cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Tue, Oct 4, 2022, 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: since you indicated you wanted in
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>
Cc: Leonard Kleinrock <lk at cs.ucla.edu>


Much thanks for connecting me, Dave.

I am adding below my updated comments.  Feel free to post:


_____________________________________
Some of these guys have happily adopted my “unusual” spelling of “queueing”
with the extra “e” since I loved the idea of it being the only word in
english with 5 vowels in a row (if you spell it the British way, which is
why I chose the British spelling).  So I guess they read my book 😊.

If you don’t now what a RFNM is, I’ll be happy to tell you.

A real takeaway from the email you sent is that flow control was never
really thought out carefully, but was patchwork on guesswork time after
time and that has helped bring on the mess we have today.  I have been
warning about how difficult flow control is for many decades.  You should
also note that I pointed out in my Volume II how poorly designed were the
early Arpanet flow control mechanisms; for example, they exhibited the need
for multiple kinds of tokens to get a flow started, and these different
tokens came from different places in the Arpanet architecture and
protocols.

Another point is that my good, but now deceased, friend, Danny Cohen was
pushing Network Voice Protocol in the late 1970’s and supported getting TCP
to split into TCP/IP so he could run what amounted to UDP over IP

Another point.  As you know, at UCLA we were designated as the Network
Measurement Center from day 1 of the Arpanet.  It was our job to push the
network to its limits and try to break it - and break it we could and then
we determined how to fix the fault and prevent it in the future; of course,
BBN was not happy with us doing that (just as Jack Haverty quotes re Dave
Mills in your email). We were responsible for the multi-faceted set of
measurement tools in each IMP (in this paper
<https://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/data/files/Naylor/On%20Measured%20Behavior%20of%20the%20ARPA%20Network.pdf>
of
mine and Naylor, in the section “Measurement Tools” you will see what we
added to the IMP tools).  BUT, in 1975, our role was taken over by DCA and
as far as I know, the did little, if any, further experimentation and so we
lost track of what was going on in the net.  Of course, we continue to pay
the price of not really knowing how the network is performing.

I very much agree that the Arpanet was, indeed, and experiment and allowed
for lots of research and tinkering for very good purpose.

I see that Virtual Cut-Through was mentioned recently.  My paper with
Kermani was the source paper on that technology, and that paper was "P.
Kermani and L. Kleinroc*k*, "Virtual Cut-through: A New Computer
Communication Switching Technique," *Computer Networks*, vol. 3, no. 4, pp.
267–286, September 1979
<https://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/data/files/Kermani/Virtual%20Cut-through%20A%20New%20Computer%20Communication%20Switching.pdf>
.”

Jack makes the good point that direct connections (in his case,
circuit-switched channels) may sometimes be of value.  Actually, I referred
to that in my 1962 PhD dissertation where I say, “…even for small values of
rho the introduction of some direct links (between the nodes which carry
the bulk of the traffic) is required."

Best,
Len
______________________________________________________


On Oct 4, 2022, at 7:11 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:

I just subscribed you. There will be a link to confirm...

I am at a wispa conference and not on my laptop so editing your nice
email is beyond me.

That thread continued here:
https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2022-October/thread.html

-- 
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC