From vint at google.com  Mon Apr  1 04:05:11 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 07:05:11 -0400
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggeqRkJ4BsmcFmwXowAmh6YSemLME9rUaEiNzxTvUo7_Tg@mail.gmail.com>

TCP Bakeoff was jon postel's way of getting us to cross-test our TCP
implementations
INTEROP had a broader objective.

v


On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 1:51?AM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>  I never went to InterOp but I kinda remember Jim Mathis telling me about
> it starting. Wasn't it originally called TCP Bake Off?
> Very sad to hear about his passing.  Condolences to all his family and
> friends.
> barbara
>     On Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 01:39:39 PM PDT, Craig Partridge via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>  On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 1:45?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > Dan was a great person.
> >
> > ...
> > In Monterey, at one of the early TCP/IP Interoperability gatherings -
> > around 1987 - I remember overhearing Dan and Craig P. having lunch and
> > discussing network control and management.  From that came the push to
> > develop protocols like SNMP (and HEMS and CMOT) and instrumentation MIBs.
>
>
> That kind of interaction is what I remember best about Dan.  Somehow,
> whenever we were in the same town, he and I usually managed to find a few
> minutes (or in rare cases, a meal) for a quiet discussion.  Usually Dan
> helping (mentoring) me -- I'd see a technical challenge or issue and be
> trying to figure out how to get it fixed.  Dan would invariably have wisdom
> to impart and encouragement too.
>
> I like to think I sometimes returned the favor.  At the 2nd Monterrey
> conference, Dan was trying to figure out a better name for his
> workshop/conference and was running some names past me.  I liked one of
> them and so, as we parted, I said "See you at InterOp!"
>
> 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
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice

From vgcerf at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 04:59:45 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 07:59:45 -0400
Subject: [ih] Nice obit for Dan
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_UcC2mER_ZRy33FSsE3Ge_hh5cuAyNF25pi-OjkAF-NVA@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/31/technology/daniel-c-lynch-dead.html

v


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr  1 05:29:14 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 05:29:14 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>

On 3/31/2024 10:50 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> asn't it originally called TCP Bake Off?

Bake-offs were part of protocol development from the start of the 
Internet development.? (And earlier.)? These were narrow efforts to 
test/ensure interoperability for specific protocols.

If I remember the details correctly...

As the Internet gained adoption, in the latter 1980s, under the auspices 
of Heidi Heiden and the Defense Data Network, a small meeting was held 
to facilitate the growing TCP/IP adoption.? Think of it as a technology 
transfer? event, gathering Internet experts and Internet newbies. There 
were already some Internet-oriented companies active, but deep knowledge 
of implementation, deployment, and use of the protocols was still scarce.

The event was quite successful.? Dan asked Heiden whether more were 
planned, was told no, and decided that having more events like that 
would be worth pursuing commercially.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 05:50:57 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 08:50:57 -0400
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>

Jon's bakeoffs were scheduled, often at ISI, in the late 70's and early
80's during my time at ARPA.

v


On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 8:29?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 3/31/2024 10:50 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> > asn't it originally called TCP Bake Off?
>
> Bake-offs were part of protocol development from the start of the
> Internet development.  (And earlier.)  These were narrow efforts to
> test/ensure interoperability for specific protocols.
>
> If I remember the details correctly...
>
> As the Internet gained adoption, in the latter 1980s, under the auspices
> of Heidi Heiden and the Defense Data Network, a small meeting was held
> to facilitate the growing TCP/IP adoption.  Think of it as a technology
> transfer  event, gathering Internet experts and Internet newbies. There
> were already some Internet-oriented companies active, but deep knowledge
> of implementation, deployment, and use of the protocols was still scarce.
>
> The event was quite successful.  Dan asked Heiden whether more were
> planned, was told no, and decided that having more events like that
> would be worth pursuing commercially.
>
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From geoff at iconia.com  Mon Apr  1 08:08:10 2024
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 08:08:10 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEf-zrhd--CxJsZ6oixS6A6o=37xMZi=sUZu6XQ2rf3A2Dj6Zg@mail.gmail.com>

indeed at ISI in the 70's -- as yours truly recalls flying down from SRI
with an LSI-11 in a (checked luggage) HEAVY "foam padded brown box crate
with metal handles" thingy for one of them.

g

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:51?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Jon's bakeoffs were scheduled, often at ISI, in the late 70's and early
> 80's during my time at ARPA.
>
> v
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 8:29?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > On 3/31/2024 10:50 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> > > asn't it originally called TCP Bake Off?
> >
> > Bake-offs were part of protocol development from the start of the
> > Internet development.  (And earlier.)  These were narrow efforts to
> > test/ensure interoperability for specific protocols.
> >
> > If I remember the details correctly...
> >
> > As the Internet gained adoption, in the latter 1980s, under the auspices
> > of Heidi Heiden and the Defense Data Network, a small meeting was held
> > to facilitate the growing TCP/IP adoption.  Think of it as a technology
> > transfer  event, gathering Internet experts and Internet newbies. There
> > were already some Internet-oriented companies active, but deep knowledge
> > of implementation, deployment, and use of the protocols was still scarce.
> >
> > The event was quite successful.  Dan asked Heiden whether more were
> > planned, was told no, and decided that having more events like that
> > would be worth pursuing commercially.
> >
> >
> > d/
> >
> > --
> > Dave Crocker
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking
> > bbiw.net
> > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> > --
> > 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


From karl at cavebear.com  Mon Apr  1 08:19:45 2024
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 08:19:45 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4be0947c-0ed8-4008-8774-1fb3975a358b@cavebear.com>

We also had bakeoffs at FTP Software's mill in North Andover, Mass.

 ??? --karl--

On 4/1/24 5:50 AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> Jon's bakeoffs were scheduled, often at ISI, in the late 70's and early
> 80's during my time at ARPA.
>
> v
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 8:29?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/2024 10:50 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>> asn't it originally called TCP Bake Off?
>> Bake-offs were part of protocol development from the start of the
>> Internet development.  (And earlier.)  These were narrow efforts to
>> test/ensure interoperability for specific protocols.
>>
>> If I remember the details correctly...
>>
>> As the Internet gained adoption, in the latter 1980s, under the auspices
>> of Heidi Heiden and the Defense Data Network, a small meeting was held
>> to facilitate the growing TCP/IP adoption.  Think of it as a technology
>> transfer  event, gathering Internet experts and Internet newbies. There
>> were already some Internet-oriented companies active, but deep knowledge
>> of implementation, deployment, and use of the protocols was still scarce.
>>
>> The event was quite successful.  Dan asked Heiden whether more were
>> planned, was told no, and decided that having more events like that
>> would be worth pursuing commercially.
>>
>>
>> d/
>>
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>


From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 09:10:39 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:10:39 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8D2C1DD5-FF75-4A30-9144-15F09EED7E10@gmail.com>

Vint,

I remember being at ISI for meeting in the large conference room with the nice view, where you (and John I think) did a test where you would telnet to a host, then start a new Telnet session and telnet to another host, and keep doing that to see how far it went.

Bob


> On Apr 1, 2024, at 5:50?AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Jon's bakeoffs were scheduled, often at ISI, in the late 70's and early
> 80's during my time at ARPA.
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 8:29?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/31/2024 10:50 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>> asn't it originally called TCP Bake Off?
>> 
>> Bake-offs were part of protocol development from the start of the
>> Internet development.  (And earlier.)  These were narrow efforts to
>> test/ensure interoperability for specific protocols.
>> 
>> If I remember the details correctly...
>> 
>> As the Internet gained adoption, in the latter 1980s, under the auspices
>> of Heidi Heiden and the Defense Data Network, a small meeting was held
>> to facilitate the growing TCP/IP adoption.  Think of it as a technology
>> transfer  event, gathering Internet experts and Internet newbies. There
>> were already some Internet-oriented companies active, but deep knowledge
>> of implementation, deployment, and use of the protocols was still scarce.
>> 
>> The event was quite successful.  Dan asked Heiden whether more were
>> planned, was told no, and decided that having more events like that
>> would be worth pursuing commercially.
>> 
>> 
>> d/
>> 
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
>> --
>> 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 gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Mon Apr  1 09:11:21 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:11:21 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9A575459-899B-45D8-8D28-ACE77B225E98@icloud.com>

There is quite a bit of information about bake-offs in RFC 1025, which refers to several IENs that go into more detail about the actual tests.

?gregbo



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr  1 09:21:50 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:21:50 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <4b56c474-f382-4baf-b86a-77697fb82a3b@dcrocker.net>

On 4/1/2024 5:29 AM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> Bake-offs were part of protocol development from the start of the 
> Internet development.? (And earlier.)? These were narrow efforts to 
> test/ensure interoperability for specific protocols. 


Some offline exchanges are prompting a bit of elaboration about 
bake-offs, interoperability testing, and Interop:

Bake-offs were simply protocol interoperability testing events, with a 
narrow focus on what was being tested as part of the protocol definition 
and initial implementation process. As noted, they go back to the 
beginning of Arpanet development, not just Internet development.

Interop was a technology transfer event that included product 
interoperability on the exhibit show network, as proof of product 
competence.? Interop also had an extensive program of panels and 
presentations with serious technical content.? (There also were slots 
for pure marketing presentations, but they we confined. Anyone who did 
pure marketing during a session that was intended to be substantive was 
not invited back.)

So:? Bake-off/interoperability = standards development.? Interop = 
technology transfer.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Mon Apr  1 09:22:43 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:22:43 -0700
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <83E4A149-BCFB-44C2-A2B2-F4A437E37D8C@icloud.com>

On Feb 10, 2024, at 11:16?AM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> 
> A few months ago, after getting tired of all the "I never got your email" reports, I did a deep dive into email to try and figure out what's happening.   I wrote one of the first email servers back in the early 1970s, so I thought I might still be able to figure it out.
> 
> Bottom line - it's a mess.  [?]

You all may be interested in a recent article that takes a similar deep dive into email [1], and a Hacker News discussion about it. [2] (The deep dive mentions Ray Tomlinson.)

?gregbo

[1] https://www.xomedia.io/blog/a-deep-dive-into-email-deliverability/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39888383



From vgcerf at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 09:23:55 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:23:55 -0400
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <8D2C1DD5-FF75-4A30-9144-15F09EED7E10@gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D2C1DD5-FF75-4A30-9144-15F09EED7E10@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_UGMbT7w2qr9oY9JVJOVZ-VNjJycLL_2-yJSS8HH7LjMQ@mail.gmail.com>

I remember that one!! We also did TCP interop tests - whoever broke the
most TCPs got a bottle of champagne from yours truly.
v


On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:11?PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:

> Vint,
>
> I remember being at ISI for meeting in the large conference room with the
> nice view, where you (and John I think) did a test where you would telnet
> to a host, then start a new Telnet session and telnet to another host, and
> keep doing that to see how far it went.
>
> Bob
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 2024, at 5:50?AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Jon's bakeoffs were scheduled, often at ISI, in the late 70's and early
> > 80's during my time at ARPA.
> >
> > v
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 8:29?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/31/2024 10:50 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> asn't it originally called TCP Bake Off?
> >>
> >> Bake-offs were part of protocol development from the start of the
> >> Internet development.  (And earlier.)  These were narrow efforts to
> >> test/ensure interoperability for specific protocols.
> >>
> >> If I remember the details correctly...
> >>
> >> As the Internet gained adoption, in the latter 1980s, under the auspices
> >> of Heidi Heiden and the Defense Data Network, a small meeting was held
> >> to facilitate the growing TCP/IP adoption.  Think of it as a technology
> >> transfer  event, gathering Internet experts and Internet newbies. There
> >> were already some Internet-oriented companies active, but deep knowledge
> >> of implementation, deployment, and use of the protocols was still
> scarce.
> >>
> >> The event was quite successful.  Dan asked Heiden whether more were
> >> planned, was told no, and decided that having more events like that
> >> would be worth pursuing commercially.
> >>
> >>
> >> d/
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dave Crocker
> >> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> >> bbiw.net
> >> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> >> --
> >> 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 6.internet at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 09:33:56 2024
From: 6.internet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:03:56 +0530
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_UGMbT7w2qr9oY9JVJOVZ-VNjJycLL_2-yJSS8HH7LjMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D2C1DD5-FF75-4A30-9144-15F09EED7E10@gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UGMbT7w2qr9oY9JVJOVZ-VNjJycLL_2-yJSS8HH7LjMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKsgsGxsHuiDX5AeGWq5_FzWbHapn1v1s_oRrDGzUuCU7G-Ymg@mail.gmail.com>

Truly Dan Lynch's  vision of an expanded Internet was probably what
directed the early growth of the Internet towards becoming what it is
today. Please do pass on my tributes and condolences as from a person who
has never known him in hisliftime.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Mon, 1 Apr, 2024, 21:54 vinton cerf via Internet-history, <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I remember that one!! We also did TCP interop tests - whoever broke the
> most TCPs got a bottle of champagne from yours truly.
> v
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:11?PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vint,
> >
> > I remember being at ISI for meeting in the large conference room with the
> > nice view, where you (and John I think) did a test where you would telnet
> > to a host, then start a new Telnet session and telnet to another host,
> and
> > keep doing that to see how far it went.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 1, 2024, at 5:50?AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jon's bakeoffs were scheduled, often at ISI, in the late 70's and early
> > > 80's during my time at ARPA.
> > >
> > > v
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 8:29?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
> > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 3/31/2024 10:50 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> > >>> asn't it originally called TCP Bake Off?
> > >>
> > >> Bake-offs were part of protocol development from the start of the
> > >> Internet development.  (And earlier.)  These were narrow efforts to
> > >> test/ensure interoperability for specific protocols.
> > >>
> > >> If I remember the details correctly...
> > >>
> > >> As the Internet gained adoption, in the latter 1980s, under the
> auspices
> > >> of Heidi Heiden and the Defense Data Network, a small meeting was held
> > >> to facilitate the growing TCP/IP adoption.  Think of it as a
> technology
> > >> transfer  event, gathering Internet experts and Internet newbies.
> There
> > >> were already some Internet-oriented companies active, but deep
> knowledge
> > >> of implementation, deployment, and use of the protocols was still
> > scarce.
> > >>
> > >> The event was quite successful.  Dan asked Heiden whether more were
> > >> planned, was told no, and decided that having more events like that
> > >> would be worth pursuing commercially.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> d/
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Dave Crocker
> > >> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> > >> bbiw.net
> > >> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> > >> --
> > >> 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 olejacobsen at me.com  Mon Apr  1 09:37:20 2024
From: olejacobsen at me.com (Ole Jacobsen)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:37:20 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <4b56c474-f382-4baf-b86a-77697fb82a3b@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <4b56c474-f382-4baf-b86a-77697fb82a3b@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <361DA58B-5843-44A9-8462-04655547AF18@me.com>


Just to answer the original question about what Interop was called initially:

The very first one, with funding from the US government was actually called:

"TCP/IP Vendors Workshop" (August 25-27, 1986)

After that the first "real" conference, in March 1987 was called:

"The TCP/IP Interoperability Conference"

A second one, with the same name, was held in December 1987 in Arlington, VA.

INTEROP 88, in September 1988 became the first event to use that name.

Ole

> On Apr 1, 2024, at 09:21, Dave Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On 4/1/2024 5:29 AM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>> Bake-offs were part of protocol development from the start of the Internet development.  (And earlier.)  These were narrow efforts to test/ensure interoperability for specific protocols.
> 
> 

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen at me.com
E-mail: ole at protocoljournal.org









From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr  1 09:38:35 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:38:35 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_UGMbT7w2qr9oY9JVJOVZ-VNjJycLL_2-yJSS8HH7LjMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D2C1DD5-FF75-4A30-9144-15F09EED7E10@gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UGMbT7w2qr9oY9JVJOVZ-VNjJycLL_2-yJSS8HH7LjMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fef70275-f95f-45d4-bd59-3717a8629623@dcrocker.net>

On 4/1/2024 9:23 AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> We also did TCP interop tests - whoever broke the
> most TCPs got a bottle of champagne from yours truly.


An anecdote about interop testing outside of a planned event:

Roughly 1987.? At Ungerman-Bass we'd put TCP onto the the company's 
'intelligent' Ethernet card.? The card had a 80186 processor, whicht was 
more powerful than the chip on many PCs. Our Telnet and FTP ran on the PC.

We'd been deploying for some time, with no interoperability problems.? 
Then one day I get a call from Boeing which was testing our product.? 
(Boeing was big on OSI in those days.? This group was off in a corner of 
the company.)? They reported that our telnet was not working against 
another company's telnet server.

We had a primitive packet-capture tool and I had them use it to record 
the session.? On reviewing this I found that the other company's product 
was doing the telnet protocol only to accept the connection and it then 
just handed the session over to the regular terminal handler, with no 
protocol engine mediating.

Unfortunately, our telnet client was aggressive and initiated some 
options.? But the requests were just treated as user data ans were 
getting echoed back to our telnet client.

I called the customer up and went through the details with them. They 
had been working with us for awhile and were technically quite 
competent.? So I was thrown off-balance when their response to my 
showing them what was happening was to asked what /we/ were going to do 
to fix it.

I repeated the summary of the problem, noting that the other company's 
product was in completely violation of the telnet spec and Boeing should 
get them to change it.

Their response was that they understood this and would certainly talk 
with the other company.? But ours was the product causing the problem -- 
the other company's product worked fine with everyone else --? AND... we 
were more responsive...

I'd never thought of interoperability testing as a having marketing 
potential until that point.

Dan, on the other hand, saw this from the start.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Mon Apr  1 10:00:20 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 10:00:20 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <361DA58B-5843-44A9-8462-04655547AF18@me.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <4b56c474-f382-4baf-b86a-77697fb82a3b@dcrocker.net>
 <361DA58B-5843-44A9-8462-04655547AF18@me.com>
Message-ID: <F307FD4F-940B-4DA6-8B00-0CBEBFD18D64@icloud.com>

On Apr 1, 2024, at 9:37?AM, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Just to answer the original question about what Interop was called initially:
> 
> The very first one, with funding from the US government was actually called:
> 
> "TCP/IP Vendors Workshop" (August 25-27, 1986)

I found Dan?s announcement of it on the tcp-ip mailing list (via Google Groups):

https://groups.google.com/g/mod.protocols.tcp-ip/c/e-cZs9c3OVs/m/Ivp-gvqud4MJ



From christinehaughneydb at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 11:31:45 2024
From: christinehaughneydb at gmail.com (Christine Dare-Bryan)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:31:45 -0400
Subject: [ih] Flagging the passing of Joseph Haughney
Message-ID: <CACr+R5LQvraxO0AMV-7GQHQjU-Ru29PvN0qToGXqpa4jMpZpCQ@mail.gmail.com>

I wanted to make sure to reach out to members of this group who helped me
with reporting on the Computer Freaks podcast
<https://www.inc.com/computerfreaks> to let you know that my father Joseph
Haughney passed away on Feb. 14th, 2024. He was network manager for the
Arpanet from 1979 through 1981.

https://www.vazzafunerals.com/memorials/joseph-haughney/5380111/index.php

That podcast recently won a prestigious award
<https://sabew.org/2024/03/2023-best-in-business-honorees-judging-comments/>
from SABEW for its coverage of the Arpanet.

All my best,
Christine


From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Mon Apr  1 18:31:22 2024
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon,  1 Apr 2024 21:31:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
Message-ID: <20240402013122.BD9B718C077@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: Vint Cerf

    > TCP Bakeoff was jon postel's way of getting us to cross-test our TCP
    > implementations
    > INTEROP had a broader objective.

Two more dissimilar events than the first bakfeoff, and the later Interops
(which were as much trade shows as anything), would be hard to find.

I still have memories of the second bakeoff (my first); it made a real
impression on me. Saturday at ISI - and all the hallway lights were out (at
least to start with): so we were going back and forth from office to office
in the gloom. I think for some of the TCPs there, it may have been the first
time they interacted with a _number_ of other TCPs. Sure, in addition to
testing with themselves, there had been _some_ onesies (e.g. the TIU TCP with
the TENEX TCP), but nothing like the mass cross-connects that were happening
that day.

It's all written up in an early IEN (those things are gems of history); I
remember looking at it some years back for a Computer History Wiki page:

  https://gunkies.org/wiki/TCP_and_IP_bake_offs

Yeah, the one I remember is in IEN-77:

  https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien77.pdf

Now that I look, it looks like there was more cross-connection at the first
one, in IEN-70:

  https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/scanned/ien70.pdf

than I realized; I definitely had the impression at the second that that was
the first big attempt at cross-connections. Not so!


I think I recall a story Dan told about an escapade of him and you, at the
first Interop. (I'm pretty sure it was him and you; it may have been
elsewhere; and it might have been you who told it to me.)

A group had been out to dinner, and you all got a bunch of special wines. You
took the left-overs away with you. Late that night, you two were out
somewhere on the Pacific Coast Highway, and decided to polish off the
left-overs! I just had this image of the two of you sitting on the bumper, no
glasses, and tilting back these bottles!


I also think Dan may have been the third person at the bizarre bar meeting
with me and Phill Gross one evening after an early IETF meeting in DC. If it
was an IETF meeting, it would have been the 7th - that was the first one in
DC. I thought it was earlier; maybe not.

There were three of us at the bar (somewhere roughly on the Beltway, in/near
Reston), at a table: me, Phill, and a third, who I think was Dan. I was
making the point about how the Internet was going to really take off, _big
time_, and we (the Internet technical community) really needed to get
ourselves seriously organized (by which I meant in what we produced, as well
as internally - although we had to do a good job on the latter, to do a good
job on the former), to be ready for it.

So they agreed with me; and we somehow spontaneously made up this strange
chant, which I'm not sure I recall exactly - something like "It's time too
get _real_" - and we were all repeatedly saying this in unison; and, IIRC,
hammering on the table with our hands. The other people in the bar must have
thought we were bonkers.

It's a very vivid memory, to this day.

Salud, Dan. With your help. we got real.

	Noel


From vint at google.com  Mon Apr  1 19:31:47 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:31:47 -0400
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <20240402013122.BD9B718C077@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20240402013122.BD9B718C077@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggfWyzaFqfq--Dd6QiJE6Lo0DubWmTC5T8_CCKWhNzKE=g@mail.gmail.com>

inline - thanks for these memories, noel.



On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:31?PM Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:

>     > From: Vint Cerf
>
>     > TCP Bakeoff was jon postel's way of getting us to cross-test our TCP
>     > implementations
>     > INTEROP had a broader objective.
>
> Two more dissimilar events than the first bakfeoff, and the later Interops
> (which were as much trade shows as anything), would be hard to find.
>
> I still have memories of the second bakeoff (my first); it made a real
> impression on me. Saturday at ISI - and all the hallway lights were out (at
> least to start with): so we were going back and forth from office to office
> in the gloom. I think for some of the TCPs there, it may have been the
> first
> time they interacted with a _number_ of other TCPs. Sure, in addition to
> testing with themselves, there had been _some_ onesies (e.g. the TIU TCP
> with
> the TENEX TCP), but nothing like the mass cross-connects that were
> happening
> that day.
>
> It's all written up in an early IEN (those things are gems of history); I
> remember looking at it some years back for a Computer History Wiki page:
>
>   https://gunkies.org/wiki/TCP_and_IP_bake_offs
>
> Yeah, the one I remember is in IEN-77:
>
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien77.pdf
>
> Now that I look, it looks like there was more cross-connection at the first
> one, in IEN-70:
>
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/scanned/ien70.pdf
>
> than I realized; I definitely had the impression at the second that that
> was
> the first big attempt at cross-connections. Not so!
>
>
> I think I recall a story Dan told about an escapade of him and you, at the
> first Interop. (I'm pretty sure it was him and you; it may have been
> elsewhere; and it might have been you who told it to me.)
>
> A group had been out to dinner, and you all got a bunch of special wines.
> You
> took the left-overs away with you. Late that night, you two were out
> somewhere on the Pacific Coast Highway, and decided to polish off the
> left-overs! I just had this image of the two of you sitting on the bumper,
> no
> glasses, and tilting back these bottles!
>

This was a celebration I think. Maybe Dave Clark's end of tenure at IAB?
something else.
Yes, Dan had procured some of the most wonderful NAPA cabs: 1969 BV George
Latour private reserve, maybe also a 1968 and perhaps a 1970. Maybe also
Cask 23 Stag's Leap. We had not poured every bottle fully (sediment). But
when we took these nearly empty bottles away after dinner we decided,
sediment of not, we had to finish them..... you got the picture exactly
right.

>
>
> I also think Dan may have been the third person at the bizarre bar meeting
> with me and Phill Gross one evening after an early IETF meeting in DC. If
> it
> was an IETF meeting, it would have been the 7th - that was the first one in
> DC. I thought it was earlier; maybe not.
>
> There were three of us at the bar (somewhere roughly on the Beltway,
> in/near
> Reston), at a table: me, Phill, and a third, who I think was Dan. I was
> making the point about how the Internet was going to really take off, _big
> time_, and we (the Internet technical community) really needed to get
> ourselves seriously organized (by which I meant in what we produced, as
> well
> as internally - although we had to do a good job on the latter, to do a
> good
> job on the former), to be ready for it.
>
> So they agreed with me; and we somehow spontaneously made up this strange
> chant, which I'm not sure I recall exactly - something like "It's time too
> get _real_" - and we were all repeatedly saying this in unison; and, IIRC,
> hammering on the table with our hands. The other people in the bar must
> have
> thought we were bonkers.
>
> It's a very vivid memory, to this day.
>
boy, were you guys ever right about that!!

>
> Salud, Dan. With your help. we got real.
>
So we did!

>
>         Noel
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice

From wayne at playaholic.com  Tue Apr  2 16:32:06 2024
From: wayne at playaholic.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 19:32:06 -0400
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <fef70275-f95f-45d4-bd59-3717a8629623@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D2C1DD5-FF75-4A30-9144-15F09EED7E10@gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UGMbT7w2qr9oY9JVJOVZ-VNjJycLL_2-yJSS8HH7LjMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fef70275-f95f-45d4-bd59-3717a8629623@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <1712100726.ggr2ky2wbokkck0g@hostingemail.digitalspace.net>

When I worked for Auspex Systems, I added code to our devices to automatically take and email me memory dumps on system failure.  So often I would know of a problem, debug it, and download a fix long before the clients even reported the reboot.? But as Dave noted, often times it was some other device that was causing the issues with a faulty implementation (usually NFS rather than TCP/IP), so occasionally I would start my email to the customer?s IT people with something like ?When did you install the machine at 192.36.72.14?? it is doing so-and-so in violation of the NFS protocol spec and it is causing problems for others on your network.?? The responses were often hilarious.? ?


Wayne Hathaway
wayne at Ames-67 in the good old days

On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:38:35 -0700, Dave Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>> On 4/1/2024 9:23 AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>> > We also did TCP interop tests - whoever broke the
>> > most TCPs got a bottle of champagne from yours truly.
>>
>>
>> An anecdote about interop testing outside of a planned event:
>>
>> Roughly 1987. At Ungerman-Bass we'd put TCP onto the the company's
>> 'intelligent' Ethernet card.? The card had a 80186 processor, whicht was
>> more powerful than the chip on many PCs. Our Telnet and FTP ran on the PC.
>>
>> We'd been deploying for some time, with no interoperability problems.?
>> Then one day I get a call from Boeing which was testing our product.?
>> (Boeing was big on OSI in those days.? This group was off in a corner of
>> the company.)? They reported that our telnet was not working against
>> another company's telnet server.
>>
>> We had a primitive packet-capture tool and I had them use it to record
>> the session.? On reviewing this I found that the other company's product
>> was doing the telnet protocol only to accept the connection and it then
>> just handed the session over to the regular terminal handler, with no
>> protocol engine mediating.
>>
>> Unfortunately, our telnet client was aggressive and initiated some
>> options.? But the requests were just treated as user data ans were
>> getting echoed back to our telnet client.
>>
>> I called the customer up and went through the details with them. They
>> had been working with us for awhile and were technically quite
>> competent.? So I was thrown off-balance when their response to my
>> showing them what was happening was to asked what /we/ were going to do
>> to fix it.
>>
>> I repeated the summary of the problem, noting that the other company's
>> product was in completely violation of the telnet spec and Boeing should
>> get them to change it.
>>
>> Their response was that they understood this and would certainly talk
>> with the other company.? But ours was the product causing the problem --
>> the other company's product worked fine with everyone else --? AND... we
>> were more responsive...
>>
>> I'd never thought of interoperability testing as a having marketing
>> potential until that point.
>>
>> Dan, on the other hand, saw this from the start.
>>
>>
>> d/
>>
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Tue Apr  2 17:28:07 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 17:28:07 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <1712100726.ggr2ky2wbokkck0g@hostingemail.digitalspace.net>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>
 <58d0adf4-b0e8-4ee7-9b3c-aef212e7462c@dcrocker.net>
 <CAAFtm_Vv3h-JDrnO69Nk1J6YO7BtNWbGUOMmukZEUB=mgEkANw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D2C1DD5-FF75-4A30-9144-15F09EED7E10@gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UGMbT7w2qr9oY9JVJOVZ-VNjJycLL_2-yJSS8HH7LjMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fef70275-f95f-45d4-bd59-3717a8629623@dcrocker.net>
 <1712100726.ggr2ky2wbokkck0g@hostingemail.digitalspace.net>
Message-ID: <2c1ac1de-3feb-4c34-8f0d-6f84e869aeaf@dcrocker.net>

On 4/2/2024 4:32 PM, Wayne Hathaway via Internet-history wrote:
> so occasionally I would start my email to the customer?s IT people with
> something like ?When did you install the machine at 192.36.72.14?? it is
>   doing so-and-so in violation of the NFS protocol spec and it is causing
>   problems for others on your network.?? The responses were often
> hilarious.

My understanding is that the Arpanet Network Control folk at BBN would 
watch the link-level error rates and see when a line's performance began 
to degrade.? They would then call up the relevant phone line folk -- 
AT&T, GTE, etc. -- reporting the impending failure.

Initially, of course, the phone folk had no precedent for customer 
reports like this.? So this, too, was a case of 'how the heck do you 
know this?" from the phone people.? Apparently it took some time to get 
them to heed the reports.

I'm sure there is a person or two on this list to confirm or correct 
this understanding...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From geoff at iconia.com  Sun Apr  7 12:14:08 2024
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:14:08 -0700
Subject: [ih] "On this day in 1969: a 25-year old grad student published a
 document about ARPANET...
Message-ID: <CAEf-zribaKzpom==Z8FChzkiKwroR4+mEjwVojV9_RC8nrD09w@mail.gmail.com>

He stayed up all night quietly writing it in a bathroom so he wouldn?t wake
people up where he was staying.

It helped pave the way for the Internet...
??https://twitter.com/JonErlichman/status/1776995234695590181

-- 
Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
living as The Truth is True


From vint at google.com  Mon Apr  8 15:05:04 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 16:05:04 -0600
Subject: [ih] early networking
Message-ID: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>

interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0

-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4006 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240408/2ae94b85/attachment.p7s>

From steve at shinkuro.com  Mon Apr  8 15:13:05 2024
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 18:13:05 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvK8PBoU5nyQQYtwh9M8ytOibxgjzHERJ=Fjqcoun+i_dw@mail.gmail.com>

Hanging chad was a feature, not a bug!

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 6:05?PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>
> --
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
>
>
> until further notice
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Sent by a Verified
[image: Sent by a Verified sender]
<https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
sender


From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 16:24:42 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 16:24:42 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvK8PBoU5nyQQYtwh9M8ytOibxgjzHERJ=Fjqcoun+i_dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABf5zvK8PBoU5nyQQYtwh9M8ytOibxgjzHERJ=Fjqcoun+i_dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F39BFA7F-6488-4515-BED0-282AEE32B927@gmail.com>

Yea, I also thought that was a cool feature in the system.

Bob


> On Apr 8, 2024, at 3:13?PM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hanging chad was a feature, not a bug!
> 
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 6:05?PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>> 
>> --
>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>> Vint Cerf
>> Google, LLC
>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>> 
>> 
>> until further notice
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent by a Verified
> [image: Sent by a Verified sender]
> <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
> sender
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr  8 17:28:20 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 20:28:20 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6EB66310-267B-4C11-A4DA-D995043E685D@comcast.net>

Yes, last summer I was reading Ian Toll?s Volume 3 of the War in the Pacific and it was mentioning that how the long delays for relaying radio messages through Pearl affected the outcome of battles. Odd, I thought. Then realized yes, they were torn-tape systems, at least at the relays. And message switching just automated that. I remembered from the early days of the ARPANET how the military was adamant about priority and precedence. And stories of important messages from an admiral being delayed behind long messages over 70 baud channels. 

Then the light dawned, as the video relates, message switching was analogous to FCFS batch processesing. Packet switching was analogous to multiprogramming (timeslicing) round-robin scheduling. (To continue the operating system analogy, long messages take a little longer but the completion time for short messages is shorter.) And virtual circuit was round-robin with contiguous memory allocation, and datagrams were a tool for exploring the next step,  but because they handled the immediate problem that step was never taken.

Recently, in exploring the papers of Derek Barber and Donald Davies, we have come across papers where Davies states explicitly that his inspiration for packet switching came after attending a 1965 IFIP Conference and hearing all about timesharing systems. He came back and told Derek that that was what they should do for communications. What is curious is that in the better known accounts by Davies on the history of packet switching he doesn?t mention this.

I have always believed that networking was much closer related to operating systems than to telecom. It is primarily a resource allocation problem. Telecom is really only a concern of the physical media, and the data comm protocols (link layer) turn out to be a degenerate case of the layers above. 

It is also interesting that reading Baran?s report that there is really nothing about this. He does cover issues like routing, congestion, etc. but it is more to check off the boxes that what he is proposing is feasible. His focus is distinctly on survivability, and the military uses of a such a network. Davies, on the other hand, was not involved with military research at all, their focus was more on these resource allocation issues (although I doubt he would have used that characteristics at the time). I have also been told by members of the CYCLADES project that their focus was on dynamic resource allocation (which dovetails nicely with Davies focus) and was one of the things they couldn?t get France Telecom to see. Because CYCLADES was shut down so early, they never got the chance to explore what they had seen.

Also remember that Peter Denning had shown in 1968 that static allocation of buffers required orders of magnitude more memory than dynamic allocation. We had seen this in the first OS we wrote where we used dynamic allocation, not because we were so smart but because we didn?t have enough memory to do anything else. ;-) It worked beyond our wildest imagination.

Take care,
John

> On Apr 8, 2024, at 18:05, Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> 
> -- 
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
> 
> 
> until further notice
> -- 
> 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  Mon Apr  8 19:45:01 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:45:01 +1200
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <6EB66310-267B-4C11-A4DA-D995043E685D@comcast.net>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <6EB66310-267B-4C11-A4DA-D995043E685D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <10451d9f-61dd-4520-9638-c5241fd083ce@gmail.com>

Two comments in line...
On 09-Apr-24 12:28, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> Yes, last summer I was reading Ian Toll?s Volume 3 of the War in the Pacific and it was mentioning that how the long delays for relaying radio messages through Pearl affected the outcome of battles. Odd, I thought. Then realized yes, they were torn-tape systems, at least at the relays. And message switching just automated that. I remembered from the early days of the ARPANET how the military was adamant about priority and precedence. And stories of important messages from an admiral being delayed behind long messages over 70 baud channels.

I recently found a copy of "Code Breakers" by Craig Collie (2017, ISBN 978 1 74331 210 0). It covers Australian SIGINT efforts during World War II, and American efforts to the extent that they interacted with Oz. The two main bases were in Melbourne and Brisbane, but with outposts and mobile teams throughout the Pacific theatre. So it covers a lot of what John mentions, but from an Oz perspective. (Naturally it also covers the earliest days of 5 Eyes.) SIGINT of course had decisive impact on various major battles, depite the foul-up over Pearl Harbor. However, getting important decrypts where they were needed was also often delayed by routine military traffic, until SIGINT got its own circuits.

> 
> Then the light dawned, as the video relates, message switching was analogous to FCFS batch processesing. Packet switching was analogous to multiprogramming (timeslicing) round-robin scheduling. (To continue the operating system analogy, long messages take a little longer but the completion time for short messages is shorter.) And virtual circuit was round-robin with contiguous memory allocation, and datagrams were a tool for exploring the next step,  but because they handled the immediate problem that step was never taken.
> 
> Recently, in exploring the papers of Derek Barber and Donald Davies, we have come across papers where Davies states explicitly that his inspiration for packet switching came after attending a 1965 IFIP Conference and hearing all about timesharing systems. He came back and told Derek that that was what they should do for communications. What is curious is that in the better known accounts by Davies on the history of packet switching he doesn?t mention this.

I see that in section 2.4 of Barber, Davies et al. "Computer Networks and Their Protocols" (1979), there is an explicit discussion of the relationship between remote access to time sharing systems and the choice of packet switching, including a histogram of observed message size. No citations from 1965, however.

   Brian

> 
> I have always believed that networking was much closer related to operating systems than to telecom. It is primarily a resource allocation problem. Telecom is really only a concern of the physical media, and the data comm protocols (link layer) turn out to be a degenerate case of the layers above.
> 
> It is also interesting that reading Baran?s report that there is really nothing about this. He does cover issues like routing, congestion, etc. but it is more to check off the boxes that what he is proposing is feasible. His focus is distinctly on survivability, and the military uses of a such a network. Davies, on the other hand, was not involved with military research at all, their focus was more on these resource allocation issues (although I doubt he would have used that characteristics at the time). I have also been told by members of the CYCLADES project that their focus was on dynamic resource allocation (which dovetails nicely with Davies focus) and was one of the things they couldn?t get France Telecom to see. Because CYCLADES was shut down so early, they never got the chance to explore what they had seen.
> 
> Also remember that Peter Denning had shown in 1968 that static allocation of buffers required orders of magnitude more memory than dynamic allocation. We had seen this in the first OS we wrote where we used dynamic allocation, not because we were so smart but because we didn?t have enough memory to do anything else. ;-) It worked beyond our wildest imagination.
> 
> Take care,
> John
> 
>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 18:05, Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>
>> -- 
>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>> Vint Cerf
>> Google, LLC
>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>
>>
>> until further notice
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 

From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Apr  8 19:51:41 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 8 Apr 2024 22:51:41 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <6EB66310-267B-4C11-A4DA-D995043E685D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20240409025141.8543C875DAB0@ary.qy>

It appears that John Day via Internet-history <jeanjour at comcast.net> said:
w>Then the light dawned, as the video relates, message switching was analogous to FCFS batch processesing. Packet switching was analogous to
>multiprogramming (timeslicing) round-robin scheduling. (To continue the operating system analogy, long messages take a little longer but the
>completion time for short messages is shorter.) And virtual circuit was round-robin with contiguous memory allocation, and datagrams were a
>tool for exploring the next step,  but because they handled the immediate problem that step was never taken.

I suspect this sort of thing has been invented many times.

In 1956, TAT-1 was the first telephone cable between North America and
Europe (well, Newfoundland to Scotland) using highly reliable vacuum
tube amplifiers* to provide 37 voice channels in each direction. It
was a huge improvement over the former SSB radio and 37 channels
wasn't enough.

In 1960 Bell Labs invented Time Assiged Speech Interpolation (TASI.)
They knew that in a phone conversation each person is only speaking
about 40% of the time, so when someone paused talking, they'd swap
another conversation into the channel, and when they resumed, they'd
put the paused conversation onto a free channel. This smells sort of
like packet multiplexing although done almost entirely with analog
equipment. TASI worked well enough that they could put 74
conversations on the 37 channels with no noticable loss of quality.

Here's some BSTJ articles about TASI:

https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_BellSystemJV41N04196207_12232730/page/1438/mode/2up

R's,
John

* - in the two decades TAT-1 was in use there were zero amplifier
failures. They stopped using it because TAT-6 and -7 each had
thousands of channels making the early cables irrelevant.



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr  8 20:29:29 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 20:29:29 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40f69f9f-cd58-4911-944f-b5d0202bfb60@dcrocker.net>

On 4/8/2024 3:05 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0

Since this was an effort to exactly replace the torn-tape interchanges, 
let's add this to the mix: the USC-ISI Military Message System 
Experiment for Oahu:

    SIGMA Final Report. Volume V, Part 1-3. Introduction, Functional
    Description and Evaluation.

    https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA116359
    https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA116359.pdf


            Abstract:

    The first part of this report introduces SIGMA, the automated
    message-handling system used in the Military Message Experiment,
    developed at the Information Sciences Institute. This introduction
    is divided into two parts. The first, from 1968 to 1975, covers the
    period from the recognition of the need for improved communications
    at Camp Smith, Oahu, to the actual signing of a Memorandum of
    Agreement to conduct the MME. The second part covers ISIs
    involvement in the planning and the actual conducting of the MME,
    roughly from 1973 to 1979. The second part of the SIGMA Final Report
    describes the functionality of SIGMA as a user views it. This part
    introduces the reader to the system in roughly the sequences that a
    new user is exposed to it. It starts with a discussion of the
    terminal, followed by the log-on procedure, then proceeds to the
    various objects the user deals with in SIGMA and the operations he
    may perform on them. The developers of SIGMA learned a great deal
    during the MME about what the proper functions of an automated
    message-handling system should be, but these lessons were only part
    of the developers education. The experimental results were affected
    more by several higher level issues than by the details of the
    message service operation. This part of the SIGMA Final Report is
    divided into the following major sections high-level issues,
    functional and design considerations for a message service, and
    lessons on development and operational environment for the experiment.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From 6.internet at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 20:33:42 2024
From: 6.internet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:03:42 +0530
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKsgsGzbLMCWELPjL7hhFxZrYdFUFHchedgiG8i-Yv88VJUdzw@mail.gmail.com>

This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.



On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>
> --
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
>
>
> until further notice
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr  8 20:42:26 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:42:26 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <10451d9f-61dd-4520-9638-c5241fd083ce@gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <6EB66310-267B-4C11-A4DA-D995043E685D@comcast.net>
 <10451d9f-61dd-4520-9638-c5241fd083ce@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9DFD988C-E428-4710-87D6-381D57F71FC1@comcast.net>

Thanks, Brian. We will check that out.  What we found wasn?t from 1965, but Davies later relating the event later. The same with Derek in a later piece he relates Davies walking into his office after the conference to talk about the idea.

It is good that it is in that book. A prominent place for it. I just wish people had picked up on it more.  But the ?telecom? mentality was strong and still is.

John

> On Apr 8, 2024, at 22:45, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Two comments in line...
> On 09-Apr-24 12:28, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> Yes, last summer I was reading Ian Toll?s Volume 3 of the War in the Pacific and it was mentioning that how the long delays for relaying radio messages through Pearl affected the outcome of battles. Odd, I thought. Then realized yes, they were torn-tape systems, at least at the relays. And message switching just automated that. I remembered from the early days of the ARPANET how the military was adamant about priority and precedence. And stories of important messages from an admiral being delayed behind long messages over 70 baud channels.
> 
> I recently found a copy of "Code Breakers" by Craig Collie (2017, ISBN 978 1 74331 210 0). It covers Australian SIGINT efforts during World War II, and American efforts to the extent that they interacted with Oz. The two main bases were in Melbourne and Brisbane, but with outposts and mobile teams throughout the Pacific theatre. So it covers a lot of what John mentions, but from an Oz perspective. (Naturally it also covers the earliest days of 5 Eyes.) SIGINT of course had decisive impact on various major battles, depite the foul-up over Pearl Harbor. However, getting important decrypts where they were needed was also often delayed by routine military traffic, until SIGINT got its own circuits.
> 
>> Then the light dawned, as the video relates, message switching was analogous to FCFS batch processesing. Packet switching was analogous to multiprogramming (timeslicing) round-robin scheduling. (To continue the operating system analogy, long messages take a little longer but the completion time for short messages is shorter.) And virtual circuit was round-robin with contiguous memory allocation, and datagrams were a tool for exploring the next step,  but because they handled the immediate problem that step was never taken.
>> Recently, in exploring the papers of Derek Barber and Donald Davies, we have come across papers where Davies states explicitly that his inspiration for packet switching came after attending a 1965 IFIP Conference and hearing all about timesharing systems. He came back and told Derek that that was what they should do for communications. What is curious is that in the better known accounts by Davies on the history of packet switching he doesn?t mention this.
> 
> I see that in section 2.4 of Barber, Davies et al. "Computer Networks and Their Protocols" (1979), there is an explicit discussion of the relationship between remote access to time sharing systems and the choice of packet switching, including a histogram of observed message size. No citations from 1965, however.
> 
>  Brian
> 
>> I have always believed that networking was much closer related to operating systems than to telecom. It is primarily a resource allocation problem. Telecom is really only a concern of the physical media, and the data comm protocols (link layer) turn out to be a degenerate case of the layers above.
>> It is also interesting that reading Baran?s report that there is really nothing about this. He does cover issues like routing, congestion, etc. but it is more to check off the boxes that what he is proposing is feasible. His focus is distinctly on survivability, and the military uses of a such a network. Davies, on the other hand, was not involved with military research at all, their focus was more on these resource allocation issues (although I doubt he would have used that characteristics at the time). I have also been told by members of the CYCLADES project that their focus was on dynamic resource allocation (which dovetails nicely with Davies focus) and was one of the things they couldn?t get France Telecom to see. Because CYCLADES was shut down so early, they never got the chance to explore what they had seen.
>> Also remember that Peter Denning had shown in 1968 that static allocation of buffers required orders of magnitude more memory than dynamic allocation. We had seen this in the first OS we wrote where we used dynamic allocation, not because we were so smart but because we didn?t have enough memory to do anything else. ;-) It worked beyond our wildest imagination.
>> Take care,
>> John
>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 18:05, Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>> 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>> Vint Cerf
>>> Google, LLC
>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>> 
>>> 
>>> until further notice
>>> -- 
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr  8 20:47:00 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:47:00 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <20240409025141.8543C875DAB0@ary.qy>
References: <20240409025141.8543C875DAB0@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <E0702210-B732-4BE9-89AB-E4EE720C279A@comcast.net>

This has been my contention for decades. There is considerable evidence that it was independently invented several times. Stat muxes were basically packet switches and there were a couple of other places where it appears it was independently invented.  To someone with a computing background, when presented the problem of communicating with another machine. The data is in a buffer, the obvious thing is to pick up the buffer and send it!  Why go to the work of making it look continuous like voice?  ;-)

> On Apr 8, 2024, at 22:51, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> 
> It appears that John Day via Internet-history <jeanjour at comcast.net> said:
> w>Then the light dawned, as the video relates, message switching was analogous to FCFS batch processesing. Packet switching was analogous to
>> multiprogramming (timeslicing) round-robin scheduling. (To continue the operating system analogy, long messages take a little longer but the
>> completion time for short messages is shorter.) And virtual circuit was round-robin with contiguous memory allocation, and datagrams were a
>> tool for exploring the next step,  but because they handled the immediate problem that step was never taken.
> 
> I suspect this sort of thing has been invented many times.
> 
> In 1956, TAT-1 was the first telephone cable between North America and
> Europe (well, Newfoundland to Scotland) using highly reliable vacuum
> tube amplifiers* to provide 37 voice channels in each direction. It
> was a huge improvement over the former SSB radio and 37 channels
> wasn't enough.
> 
> In 1960 Bell Labs invented Time Assiged Speech Interpolation (TASI.)
> They knew that in a phone conversation each person is only speaking
> about 40% of the time, so when someone paused talking, they'd swap
> another conversation into the channel, and when they resumed, they'd
> put the paused conversation onto a free channel. This smells sort of
> like packet multiplexing although done almost entirely with analog
> equipment. TASI worked well enough that they could put 74
> conversations on the 37 channels with no noticable loss of quality.
> 
> Here's some BSTJ articles about TASI:
> 
> https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_BellSystemJV41N04196207_12232730/page/1438/mode/2up
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> * - in the two decades TAT-1 was in use there were zero amplifier
> failures. They stopped using it because TAT-6 and -7 each had
> thousands of channels making the early cables irrelevant.
> 



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr  8 20:49:23 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:49:23 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CAKsgsGzbLMCWELPjL7hhFxZrYdFUFHchedgiG8i-Yv88VJUdzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKsgsGzbLMCWELPjL7hhFxZrYdFUFHchedgiG8i-Yv88VJUdzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8C596376-12E5-469A-8526-62CB587B2D32@comcast.net>

I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?

> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>> 
>> --
>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>> Vint Cerf
>> Google, LLC
>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>> 
>> 
>> until further notice
>> --
>> 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 6.internet at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 21:06:36 2024
From: 6.internet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:36:36 +0530
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <8C596376-12E5-469A-8526-62CB587B2D32@comcast.net>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKsgsGzbLMCWELPjL7hhFxZrYdFUFHchedgiG8i-Yv88VJUdzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8C596376-12E5-469A-8526-62CB587B2D32@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAKsgsGxQmcNh4nJDpRbu+RTKbdN_WM=vDfWs9Pzzsk6iWd+Ypg@mail.gmail.com>

John,

There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end
free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and
fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is
unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the
telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !

On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>
> > On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
> > Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
> > Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
> > ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> >>
> >> --
> >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> >> Vint Cerf
> >> Google, LLC
> >> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> >> Reston, VA 20190
> >> +1 (571) 213 1346
> >>
> >>
> >> until further notice
> >> --
> >> 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 wayne at playaholic.com  Mon Apr  8 21:31:30 2024
From: wayne at playaholic.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:31:30 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CAKsgsGxQmcNh4nJDpRbu+RTKbdN_WM=vDfWs9Pzzsk6iWd+Ypg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKsgsGzbLMCWELPjL7hhFxZrYdFUFHchedgiG8i-Yv88VJUdzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8C596376-12E5-469A-8526-62CB587B2D32@comcast.net>
 <CAKsgsGxQmcNh4nJDpRbu+RTKbdN_WM=vDfWs9Pzzsk6iWd+Ypg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1712637090.maqmw77pc48wo8ok@hostingemail.digitalspace.net>

It's not a great literary work, but along the lines of this discussion, I would recommend "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage.  Just to keep everything in proper perspective.

wayne
?



On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:36:36 +0530, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>> John,
>>
>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end
>> free, open about telegrams. OUR "InterNetWorks" is something totally and
>> fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is
>> unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the
>> telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, wrote:
>>
>> > I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>> >
>> > > On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <
>> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>> > > Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>> > > Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>> > > ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
>> > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>> > >>
>> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>> > >> Vint Cerf
>> > >> Google, LLC
>> > >> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>> > >> Reston, VA 20190
>> > >> +1 (571) 213 1346
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> until further notice
>> > >> --
>> > >> 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 vint at google.com  Tue Apr  9 02:35:06 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 03:35:06 -0600
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <1712637090.maqmw77pc48wo8ok@hostingemail.digitalspace.net>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKsgsGzbLMCWELPjL7hhFxZrYdFUFHchedgiG8i-Yv88VJUdzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8C596376-12E5-469A-8526-62CB587B2D32@comcast.net>
 <CAKsgsGxQmcNh4nJDpRbu+RTKbdN_WM=vDfWs9Pzzsk6iWd+Ypg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1712637090.maqmw77pc48wo8ok@hostingemail.digitalspace.net>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdTqPt5xEZ4vWjOdRR0OCfPS+7k57v6njGf_YAciBQ8sA@mail.gmail.com>

yes, that's a great book. Headlines about telegraph read like Internet in
the 1990s especially.

v


On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:31?PM Wayne Hathaway via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> It's not a great literary work, but along the lines of this discussion, I
> would recommend "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage.  Just to keep
> everything in proper perspective.
>
> wayne
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:36:36 +0530, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> >> John,
> >>
> >> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
> end-to-end
> >> free, open about telegrams. OUR "InterNetWorks" is something totally and
> >> fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is
> >> unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the
> >> telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
> >>
> >> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, wrote:
> >>
> >> > I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
> internetworking?
> >> >
> >> > > On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <
> >> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history
> of the
> >> > > Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that
> US
> >> > > Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching
> euipment
> >> > > ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
> >> > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> >> > >>
> >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> >> > >> Vint Cerf
> >> > >> Google, LLC
> >> > >> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> >> > >> Reston, VA 20190
> >> > >> +1 (571) 213 1346 <(571)%20213-1346>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> until further notice
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> 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
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4006 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240409/e26d9959/attachment.p7s>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Tue Apr  9 03:24:13 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 06:24:13 -0400
Subject: [ih] Fwd:  early networking
References: <41E656AD-3529-45C0-AFD6-BD901EB7A55C@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <BB796846-3DAB-4312-BEF6-8F2296D978B1@comcast.net>

Sorry forgot to hit reply-all

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:19:40 EDT
> To: "John R. Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>
> 
> Could you elaborate a bit?  What is S/F?
> 
> There seems to be a convergence of ideas here. 
> 
> As to the operating system analogy, it is also interesting that the developments in communications seem to track the developments in operating systems reasonably closely.
> 
> John
> 
>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:55, John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> This has been my contention for decades. There is considerable evidence that it was independently invented several times. Stat muxes were basically packet switches and there were a couple of other places where it appears it was independently invented.  To someone with a computing background, when presented the problem of communicating with another machine. The data is in a buffer, the obvious thing is to pick up the buffer and send it!  Why go to the work of making it look continuous like voice?  ;-)
>> 
>> If you look at that BSTJ, the article before the one about TASI is about sharing trunks between direct (i.e. voice) and store/forward traffic, using the S/F to fill in the gaps between direct uses.  So, yeah.
>> 
>> R's,
>> John
>> 
>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 22:51, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> It appears that John Day via Internet-history <jeanjour at comcast.net> said:
>>>> w>Then the light dawned, as the video relates, message switching was analogous to FCFS batch processesing. Packet switching was analogous to
>>>>> multiprogramming (timeslicing) round-robin scheduling. (To continue the operating system analogy, long messages take a little longer but the
>>>>> completion time for short messages is shorter.) And virtual circuit was round-robin with contiguous memory allocation, and datagrams were a
>>>>> tool for exploring the next step,  but because they handled the immediate problem that step was never taken.
>>>> 
>>>> I suspect this sort of thing has been invented many times.
>>>> 
>>>> In 1956, TAT-1 was the first telephone cable between North America and
>>>> Europe (well, Newfoundland to Scotland) using highly reliable vacuum
>>>> tube amplifiers* to provide 37 voice channels in each direction. It
>>>> was a huge improvement over the former SSB radio and 37 channels
>>>> wasn't enough.
>>>> 
>>>> In 1960 Bell Labs invented Time Assiged Speech Interpolation (TASI.)
>>>> They knew that in a phone conversation each person is only speaking
>>>> about 40% of the time, so when someone paused talking, they'd swap
>>>> another conversation into the channel, and when they resumed, they'd
>>>> put the paused conversation onto a free channel. This smells sort of
>>>> like packet multiplexing although done almost entirely with analog
>>>> equipment. TASI worked well enough that they could put 74
>>>> conversations on the 37 channels with no noticable loss of quality.
>>>> 
>>>> Here's some BSTJ articles about TASI:
>>>> 
>>>> https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_BellSystemJV41N04196207_12232730/page/1438/mode/2up
>>>> 
>>>> R's,
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> * - in the two decades TAT-1 was in use there were zero amplifier
>>>> failures. They stopped using it because TAT-6 and -7 each had
>>>> thousands of channels making the early cables irrelevant.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> 



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Tue Apr  9 03:24:40 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 06:24:40 -0400
Subject: [ih] Fwd:  early networking
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>

sorry forgot to hit reply-all

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com>
> 
> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
> 
> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
> 
> John
> 
>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> John, 
>> 
>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>> 
>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>> 
>>> > On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>> > Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>> > Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>> > ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
>>> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> >> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>> >> 
>>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>> >> 
>>> >> --
>>> >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>> >> Vint Cerf
>>> >> Google, LLC
>>> >> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>> >> Reston, VA 20190
>>> >> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> until further notice
>>> >> --
>>> >> 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
>>> 
> 



From craig at tereschau.net  Tue Apr  9 06:24:35 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 07:24:35 -0600
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <40f69f9f-cd58-4911-944f-b5d0202bfb60@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAHxHggcanos74d8jBaUga1K4Cv96R=phm_3gwD1YBFUtBC69=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <40f69f9f-cd58-4911-944f-b5d0202bfb60@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4Cf0Esh4nzjFdBmfx0ZW1Xw11qCvELs4Fibs73xtF4w2BA@mail.gmail.com>

The Navy also had an operational messaging system at this time, known as
NAVCOMPARS (though that was also the name of the message routing machines).
 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA127990.pdf

It was overwhelmed by the volume of messages during the US invasion of
Grenada and I was part of a team that helped design a way to tunnel its
traffic over the Internet.

Craig

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 9:29?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 4/8/2024 3:05 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> > interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>
> Since this was an effort to exactly replace the torn-tape interchanges,
> let's add this to the mix: the USC-ISI Military Message System
> Experiment for Oahu:
>
>     SIGMA Final Report. Volume V, Part 1-3. Introduction, Functional
>     Description and Evaluation.
>
>     https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA116359
>     https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA116359.pdf
>
>
>             Abstract:
>
>     The first part of this report introduces SIGMA, the automated
>     message-handling system used in the Military Message Experiment,
>     developed at the Information Sciences Institute. This introduction
>     is divided into two parts. The first, from 1968 to 1975, covers the
>     period from the recognition of the need for improved communications
>     at Camp Smith, Oahu, to the actual signing of a Memorandum of
>     Agreement to conduct the MME. The second part covers ISIs
>     involvement in the planning and the actual conducting of the MME,
>     roughly from 1973 to 1979. The second part of the SIGMA Final Report
>     describes the functionality of SIGMA as a user views it. This part
>     introduces the reader to the system in roughly the sequences that a
>     new user is exposed to it. It starts with a discussion of the
>     terminal, followed by the log-on procedure, then proceeds to the
>     various objects the user deals with in SIGMA and the operations he
>     may perform on them. The developers of SIGMA learned a great deal
>     during the MME about what the proper functions of an automated
>     message-handling system should be, but these lessons were only part
>     of the developers education. The experimental results were affected
>     more by several higher level issues than by the details of the
>     message service operation. This part of the SIGMA Final Report is
>     divided into the following major sections high-level issues,
>     functional and design considerations for a message service, and
>     lessons on development and operational environment for the experiment.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> --
> 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.


From crypto at glassblower.info  Wed Apr 10 12:36:23 2024
From: crypto at glassblower.info (Tony Patti)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:36:23 -0400
Subject: [ih] IEEE Spectrum: How Engineers at Digital Equipment Corp. Saved
 Ethernet
In-Reply-To: <CALT_JwvA4VsmTYnh_83NjtS-0nd5bY9HynGb=qv8kAK5rnXzag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALT_JwvA4VsmTYnh_83NjtS-0nd5bY9HynGb=qv8kAK5rnXzag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b201da8b7e$5ea78cf0$1bf6a6d0$@glassblower.info>

https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-dec-engineers-saved-ethernet 

?Their groundbreaking learning bridge technology increased LAN performance?

Published April 7, 2024 by Alan Kirby

 

Tony Patti

(ARPAnet NIC IDENT ?TP4?)

 



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Wed Apr 10 12:39:59 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:39:59 -0400
Subject: [ih] IEEE Spectrum: How Engineers at Digital Equipment Corp.
 Saved Ethernet
In-Reply-To: <00b201da8b7e$5ea78cf0$1bf6a6d0$@glassblower.info>
References: <CALT_JwvA4VsmTYnh_83NjtS-0nd5bY9HynGb=qv8kAK5rnXzag@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b201da8b7e$5ea78cf0$1bf6a6d0$@glassblower.info>
Message-ID: <5F66C73F-29C6-491B-8CAA-A4CDC6569A79@comcast.net>

Or routing comes to the Link Layer.  ;-)

> On Apr 10, 2024, at 15:36, Tony Patti via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-dec-engineers-saved-ethernet 
> 
> ?Their groundbreaking learning bridge technology increased LAN performance?
> 
> Published April 7, 2024 by Alan Kirby
> 
> 
> 
> Tony Patti
> 
> (ARPAnet NIC IDENT ?TP4?)
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Apr 14 13:07:04 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:07:04 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>

I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.

Take care,
John

> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com>
>> 
>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>> 
>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>> 
>> John
>> 
>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> John, 
>>> 
>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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



From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Apr 14 13:41:53 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 14 Apr 2024 16:41:53 -0400
Subject: [ih] early internetworking
In-Reply-To: <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20240414204154.0C587886F33A@ary.qy>

It appears that John Day via Internet-history <jeanjour at comcast.net> said:
>I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely
>the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.

Seems to me it depends on what you mean by internetworking.

Telephone systems were fighting about interconnection in the early
1900s leading to the 1913 Kingsbury commitment in which AT&T promised
to interconnect with other telcos so long as their service area didn't
overlap with Bell's.

I suppose Mailgrams were sort of internetworking, kind of.

R's,
John


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Apr 14 13:47:27 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 13:47:27 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <740f1864-2384-4cdd-a4a4-7f5d75f7133f@dcrocker.net>

On 4/14/2024 1:07 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>   It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?

Apparently there used to be at least some competition, with multiple 
telegraph companies.? I don't know if they interoperated or merely 
competed, but suspect that some amount of exchanging between them was 
needed.

    https://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-the-u-s-telegraph-industry/

Having just watch the movie Ithaca, however, I only saw competing for 
traffic.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Apr 14 14:54:55 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 14 Apr 2024 17:54:55 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <740f1864-2384-4cdd-a4a4-7f5d75f7133f@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>

It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>On 4/14/2024 1:07 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>   It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?
>
>Apparently there used to be at least some competition, with multiple 
>telegraph companies.?

George Oslin's "Story of Telecommunications", published by Mercer
University Press, is the best history I know of the telegraph business.

Western Union consolidated most of the telegraph companies before
1900, other than Postal Telegraph which struggled along until WW II.
It was much smaller than WU and often had to pay WU to deliver
telegrams to places its wires didn't go. By the 1930s it was owned by
Sosthenes Behn's well connected ITT, and finally was merged into WU in
1945 by congressional action on extremely favorable terms to Postal
employees, a wound from which Oslin (a WU lifer so not a impartial
source) says WU never recovered.

Starting in the 1930s there was also AT&T's TWX, competing with WU's
Telex. There were many missed opportunities, as when WU could have
bought the Teletype company, making AT&T's TWX a captive customer, but
Behn said no so they sold to Western Electric. Telex and TWX
interconnected sometime in the 1950s but Oslin doesn't give details.

The best reference on the history of telephone interconnection and
consolidation is Milt Mueller's thesis which he published as
"Universal Service: Competition, Interconnection and Monopoly in the
Making of the American Telephone System." It is now online (legally)
at https://surface.syr.edu/books/18/

Since it's Milt, I'd check the references, of course.

R's,
John


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sun Apr 14 15:05:18 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:05:18 +1200
Subject: [ih] early internetworking
In-Reply-To: <20240414204154.0C587886F33A@ary.qy>
References: <20240414204154.0C587886F33A@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <44610784-00a1-49e5-8496-6a6c979568a3@gmail.com>

I couldn't find a well-defined date for the start of automatic Telex internetworking. Electronic switching of Telex seems to have arrived in early 1969, according to Wikipedia.

The first version of CCITT Recommendation F.68 ("Establishment of the Automatic Intercontinental Telex Network") was published in December 1972**. Given CCITT timelines, that presumably means that the work started in the late 1960s.

Of course that was very definitely circuit-switching, but it was also message-switching, and I think there was a sort of multicast provision.

Anecdote: While I was briefly in charge of CERN's phone system, the operators told me that the worst time of their year was when the Physics Nobel Prize was announced. There was an amazing peak in Telex traffic (inbound if the winner was at CERN, outbound otherwise) with paper jams, ink ribbon catastrophes, and multiple retransmission attempts, often overnight due to time zones. It was a horrible technology operationally.

** https://www.itu.int/ITU-T/recommendations/rec.aspx?rec=10965&lang=en

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 15-Apr-24 08:41, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> It appears that John Day via Internet-history <jeanjour at comcast.net> said:
>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely
>> the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
> 
> Seems to me it depends on what you mean by internetworking.
> 
> Telephone systems were fighting about interconnection in the early
> 1900s leading to the 1913 Kingsbury commitment in which AT&T promised
> to interconnect with other telcos so long as their service area didn't
> overlap with Bell's.
> 
> I suppose Mailgrams were sort of internetworking, kind of.
> 
> R's,
> John

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Apr 14 15:18:32 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 15:18:32 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <2dadfc8e-c963-4657-8682-357513d96350@dcrocker.net>


> Since it's Milt, I'd check the references, of course.

and the footnotes.? very carefully.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sun Apr 14 16:20:11 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:20:11 +1200
Subject: [ih] IEEE Spectrum: How Engineers at Digital Equipment Corp.
 Saved Ethernet
In-Reply-To: <00b201da8b7e$5ea78cf0$1bf6a6d0$@glassblower.info>
References: <CALT_JwvA4VsmTYnh_83NjtS-0nd5bY9HynGb=qv8kAK5rnXzag@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b201da8b7e$5ea78cf0$1bf6a6d0$@glassblower.info>
Message-ID: <8902157a-c6ac-46d7-8058-176d0b2c00a6@gmail.com>

Correction:

?Their groundbreaking learning bridge technology increased LAN performance and enabled site-wide multicast storms?

The fun we had...

(Learning bridges were not unique to DEC in 1986: https://cds.cern.ch/record/174243/files/dd-87-2.pdf)

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 11-Apr-24 07:36, Tony Patti via Internet-history wrote:
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-dec-engineers-saved-ethernet
> 
> ?Their groundbreaking learning bridge technology increased LAN performance?
> 
> Published April 7, 2024 by Alan Kirby
> 
>   
> 
> Tony Patti
> 
> (ARPAnet NIC IDENT ?TP4?)
> 
>   
> 

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Apr 14 17:12:20 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:12:20 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>

Thanks for all the responses.

Interesting. So all of these networks were interconnected. But what was the solution?

And in particular were these the solution that was used for the Internet?

> On Apr 14, 2024, at 17:54, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>> On 4/14/2024 1:07 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>>  It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?
>> 
>> Apparently there used to be at least some competition, with multiple 
>> telegraph companies. 
> 
> George Oslin's "Story of Telecommunications", published by Mercer
> University Press, is the best history I know of the telegraph business.
> 
> Western Union consolidated most of the telegraph companies before
> 1900, other than Postal Telegraph which struggled along until WW II.
> It was much smaller than WU and often had to pay WU to deliver
> telegrams to places its wires didn't go. By the 1930s it was owned by
> Sosthenes Behn's well connected ITT, and finally was merged into WU in
> 1945 by congressional action on extremely favorable terms to Postal
> employees, a wound from which Oslin (a WU lifer so not a impartial
> source) says WU never recovered.
> 
> Starting in the 1930s there was also AT&T's TWX, competing with WU's
> Telex. There were many missed opportunities, as when WU could have
> bought the Teletype company, making AT&T's TWX a captive customer, but
> Behn said no so they sold to Western Electric. Telex and TWX
> interconnected sometime in the 1950s but Oslin doesn't give details.
> 
> The best reference on the history of telephone interconnection and
> consolidation is Milt Mueller's thesis which he published as
> "Universal Service: Competition, Interconnection and Monopoly in the
> Making of the American Telephone System." It is now online (legally)
> at https://surface.syr.edu/books/18/
> 
> Since it's Milt, I'd check the references, of course.
> 
> R's,
> John
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From jack at 3kitty.org  Sun Apr 14 17:43:05 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 17:43:05 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <73f6acc3-9143-4720-9c48-15659646bada@3kitty.org>

If you have watched the show "Murdoch Mysteries" set 100+ years ago in 
Toronto, episodes sometimes illustrate how telegraphy worked.? I don't 
know how historically accurate the show is, but sometimes a telegram 
would be couriered, on a bicycle or horse, from one telegraphy office to 
another, run by a competitor, if that was necessary to get the message 
through.

FWIW, back in the days when TCP4 was congealing, we actually talked 
about such historical methods, hoping to learn from experience and maybe 
avoid mistakes made in past "internet" mechanisms.

IMHO, "internetting", "packet switching" and other contemporary terms 
reflect concepts and mechanisms that have literally been in use for 
millenia.? Humans have been moving "stuff" from place to place since we 
were all hunter-gatherers.

We have used many different types of "networks".??? In Greco-Roman 
times, there was an extensive transportation network using ships in the 
Mediterranean.?? Rome also built an extensive network of roads, some of 
which survive today.?? Their goal was apparently to achieve low-latency 
(for the time) throughout the Empire, and good roads were their 
solution.? Within Roman cities, slaves provided local delivery, carrying 
goods (or even people) into Roman villas

When a ship reached a port, its cargo was offloaded and transferred to 
carts and wagons suitable for traversing the roads.? At its final 
destination, the cargo would be further distributed across several 
networks, and some of a cargo of wine might end up in the goblet of a 
patrician Citizen.

They didn't use the term "internet", or "gateway", or "router", or 
"LAN", but their mechanisms performed similar functions.

They even had "packets" ... for example, amphora were big jugs that 
could carry wine, water, olive oil, or even grain.? Many amphora could 
be carried in a single ship, avoiding the need to have special ships for 
each type of cargo.?? Amphora were of a size that could be readily 
transferred to another transport network, e.g., to carts used on the 
road system.?? In other words, there was a "MTU" for "packets" crossing 
the Roman Internet.

Some transportation needs were met by a form of "circuit switching".? 
E.g., aqueducts carried water for long distances, but it wasn't possible 
to mix cargos in an aqueduct.?? It was dedicated to a particular 
commodity.?? But even aqueducts could be "gatewayed" to another network, 
e.g,. by using amphora for part of the journey.

It's always seemed to me that there are some basic, and ancient, 
principles and concepts in use for millenia to move "stuff". Whenever 
some new technology is created, a frenzy often occurs to create the 
particular new mechanisms to implement those ancient concepts in the new 
environment.? For example, as railroads appeared, techniques were 
invented to integrate them into the older systems.?? In the 19th 
century, mechanisms such as "team tracks" gatewayed the rail network to 
the roads.? Today, "containerized shipping" uses similar "packets" to 
move cargo across rail, ship, road, and even air networks.

So, for telegraphy, radio, and today's Internet, the new technology was 
electronics, and new mechanisms are still being developed to create the 
same millenias-old concepts.? Bits are just another form of "stuff" to 
be moved.? Today, bits are even being moved by trucks - e.g., Amazon's 
use of trucks full of storage devices to move huge piles of data to its 
cloud using the road network.

Our networks today seem to increasingly use computers and Artificial 
Intelligence to keep the cargo moving.? Curiously, even the Romans 
automated their Internet.?? They used an advanced implementation of 
Intelligence to keep things running smoothly.? Of course they didn't 
have computers or AI, but they did have slaves - lots of them. Slaves 
could keep the systems all running and the cargo moving. Even the 
"email" sent by military and business users throughout the Internet.?? 
Slaves made excellent couriers.? So even "SneakerNet" is an ancient concept.

Instead of moving physical cargo, our electronic networks are limited - 
they can only move bits.

Until someone figures out how to implement the Transporters of the 
sci-fi world.

Beam me up Scotty,
Jack Haverty


On 4/14/24 13:07, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
>
> Take care,
> John
>
>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>
>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> From: John Day<jeanjour at comcast.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>> To: Sivasubramanian M<6.internet at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>>>
>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M<6.internet at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net  <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org  <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org  <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240414/9e0dc415/attachment.asc>

From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Apr 14 18:06:36 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 14 Apr 2024 21:06:36 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024, John Day wrote:
> Thanks for all the responses.
> Interesting. So all of these networks were interconnected. But what was the solution?

They were all different.  Interconnecting telephone networks was a 
political rather than technical problem since in practice all US phone 
networks used AT&T's conventions and often their equipment.  I also don't 
think there were many technical barriers to interconnecting telegraph and 
telex networks.  Even translation between Baudot Telex and ASCII TWX was 
pretty straightforward and didn't have to work for every possible obscure 
character.  (The 103 modems had a "restrain" light which temporarily 
stopped the paper tape reader so the ASCII to Baudot translator at the 
other end could catch up.)

Much later, 1950s and 1960s, interconnection had some technical issues 
because North American networks worked differently from CCITT networks 
everywhere else, but the semantics were close enough, e.g., this is a 
phone number, that is a 56Kbps encoded voice channel, that it wasn't a big 
deal to translate.

I can't think of anything as different as the various flavors of e-mail 
that people tried to glue together.  Look at RFC 987, 69 pages of mappings 
between X.400 mail and SMTP mail.  In that case, the solution turned out 
to be that SMTP won and everything else disappeared.

R's,
John


>
> And in particular were these the solution that was used for the Internet?
>
>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 17:54, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>>> On 4/14/2024 1:07 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>  It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?
>>>
>>> Apparently there used to be at least some competition, with multiple
>>> telegraph companies.
>>
>> George Oslin's "Story of Telecommunications", published by Mercer
>> University Press, is the best history I know of the telegraph business.
>>
>> Western Union consolidated most of the telegraph companies before
>> 1900, other than Postal Telegraph which struggled along until WW II.
>> It was much smaller than WU and often had to pay WU to deliver
>> telegrams to places its wires didn't go. By the 1930s it was owned by
>> Sosthenes Behn's well connected ITT, and finally was merged into WU in
>> 1945 by congressional action on extremely favorable terms to Postal
>> employees, a wound from which Oslin (a WU lifer so not a impartial
>> source) says WU never recovered.
>>
>> Starting in the 1930s there was also AT&T's TWX, competing with WU's
>> Telex. There were many missed opportunities, as when WU could have
>> bought the Teletype company, making AT&T's TWX a captive customer, but
>> Behn said no so they sold to Western Electric. Telex and TWX
>> interconnected sometime in the 1950s but Oslin doesn't give details.
>>
>> The best reference on the history of telephone interconnection and
>> consolidation is Milt Mueller's thesis which he published as
>> "Universal Service: Competition, Interconnection and Monopoly in the
>> Making of the American Telephone System." It is now online (legally)
>> at https://surface.syr.edu/books/18/
>>
>> Since it's Milt, I'd check the references, of course.
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Apr 14 18:16:40 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:16:40 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>

So should we say that the fundamental concept behind the internetworking based on what we use today is translation between different networks?

John

> On Apr 14, 2024, at 21:06, John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024, John Day wrote:
>> Thanks for all the responses.
>> Interesting. So all of these networks were interconnected. But what was the solution?
> 
> They were all different.  Interconnecting telephone networks was a political rather than technical problem since in practice all US phone networks used AT&T's conventions and often their equipment.  I also don't think there were many technical barriers to interconnecting telegraph and telex networks.  Even translation between Baudot Telex and ASCII TWX was pretty straightforward and didn't have to work for every possible obscure character.  (The 103 modems had a "restrain" light which temporarily stopped the paper tape reader so the ASCII to Baudot translator at the other end could catch up.)
> 
> Much later, 1950s and 1960s, interconnection had some technical issues because North American networks worked differently from CCITT networks everywhere else, but the semantics were close enough, e.g., this is a phone number, that is a 56Kbps encoded voice channel, that it wasn't a big deal to translate.
> 
> I can't think of anything as different as the various flavors of e-mail that people tried to glue together.  Look at RFC 987, 69 pages of mappings between X.400 mail and SMTP mail.  In that case, the solution turned out to be that SMTP won and everything else disappeared.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 
>> 
>> And in particular were these the solution that was used for the Internet?
>> 
>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 17:54, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>>>> On 4/14/2024 1:07 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?
>>>> 
>>>> Apparently there used to be at least some competition, with multiple
>>>> telegraph companies.
>>> 
>>> George Oslin's "Story of Telecommunications", published by Mercer
>>> University Press, is the best history I know of the telegraph business.
>>> 
>>> Western Union consolidated most of the telegraph companies before
>>> 1900, other than Postal Telegraph which struggled along until WW II.
>>> It was much smaller than WU and often had to pay WU to deliver
>>> telegrams to places its wires didn't go. By the 1930s it was owned by
>>> Sosthenes Behn's well connected ITT, and finally was merged into WU in
>>> 1945 by congressional action on extremely favorable terms to Postal
>>> employees, a wound from which Oslin (a WU lifer so not a impartial
>>> source) says WU never recovered.
>>> 
>>> Starting in the 1930s there was also AT&T's TWX, competing with WU's
>>> Telex. There were many missed opportunities, as when WU could have
>>> bought the Teletype company, making AT&T's TWX a captive customer, but
>>> Behn said no so they sold to Western Electric. Telex and TWX
>>> interconnected sometime in the 1950s but Oslin doesn't give details.
>>> 
>>> The best reference on the history of telephone interconnection and
>>> consolidation is Milt Mueller's thesis which he published as
>>> "Universal Service: Competition, Interconnection and Monopoly in the
>>> Making of the American Telephone System." It is now online (legally)
>>> at https://surface.syr.edu/books/18/
>>> 
>>> Since it's Milt, I'd check the references, of course.
>>> 
>>> R's,
>>> John
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
>> 
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Apr 14 18:21:53 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 18:21:53 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
 <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>

On 4/14/2024 6:16 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> So should we say that the fundamental concept behind the internetworking
>   based on what we use today is translation between different networks?

No.? Translation means that the substance is altered into a 
different-but-roughly-equivalent form.

What we do within the IP Internet is to change a layer of envelopes, 
without altering the substance.

Translation is the sort of thing done when gatewaying, such as between 
Internet email and X.400.? The entire structure of the mail -- and 
potential some of its actual data -- are altered.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Apr 14 18:24:08 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:24:08 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
 <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
 <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <6A40E902-E94F-456C-B0B7-B88D0765E2CD@comcast.net>

Then is it just the translation of the headers of the protocol?  We can leave the applications out of it.  The question is more about interworking between different networks.

John

> On Apr 14, 2024, at 21:21, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
> On 4/14/2024 6:16 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> So should we say that the fundamental concept behind the internetworking
>>  based on what we use today is translation between different networks?
> No.  Translation means that the substance is altered into a different-but-roughly-equivalent form.
> 
> What we do within the IP Internet is to change a layer of envelopes, without altering the substance.
> 
> Translation is the sort of thing done when gatewaying, such as between Internet email and X.400.  The entire structure of the mail -- and potential some of its actual data -- are altered.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social <mailto:mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social>


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Apr 14 18:37:39 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 18:37:39 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <6A40E902-E94F-456C-B0B7-B88D0765E2CD@comcast.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
 <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
 <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>
 <6A40E902-E94F-456C-B0B7-B88D0765E2CD@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <565e99f9-00ea-44ac-9dd2-715b16918a30@dcrocker.net>

On 4/14/2024 6:24 PM, John Day wrote:
> Then is it just the translation of the headers of the protocol? ?We 
> can leave the applications out of it. ?The question is more about 
> interworking between different networks.

IP relaying doesn't 'translate' the IP header.? It does minimal 
alterations.

It's the layer below that is entirely replaced, not just translated.? 
That is, the 'different networks' are /below/ IP.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Apr 14 18:55:28 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:55:28 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <565e99f9-00ea-44ac-9dd2-715b16918a30@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
 <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
 <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>
 <6A40E902-E94F-456C-B0B7-B88D0765E2CD@comcast.net>
 <565e99f9-00ea-44ac-9dd2-715b16918a30@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <EFE058AF-04F2-4646-92DA-9399BD926FE6@comcast.net>

Right.  So you believe that the solution to internetworking all networks use the same network protocol?

Should I jump to the conclusion that that was true, prior to IP being separated from TCP?

John

> On Apr 14, 2024, at 21:37, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
> On 4/14/2024 6:24 PM, John Day wrote:
>> Then is it just the translation of the headers of the protocol?  We can leave the applications out of it.  The question is more about interworking between different networks.
> 
> IP relaying doesn't 'translate' the IP header.  It does minimal alterations.
> 
> It's the layer below that is entirely replaced, not just translated.  That is, the 'different networks' are /below/ IP.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> 



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Apr 14 20:02:30 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:02:30 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <EFE058AF-04F2-4646-92DA-9399BD926FE6@comcast.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
 <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
 <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>
 <6A40E902-E94F-456C-B0B7-B88D0765E2CD@comcast.net>
 <565e99f9-00ea-44ac-9dd2-715b16918a30@dcrocker.net>
 <EFE058AF-04F2-4646-92DA-9399BD926FE6@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <841a7546-e98d-4f3c-b104-a1969ee93628@dcrocker.net>

On 4/14/2024 6:55 PM, John Day wrote:
> Right.  So you believe that the solution to internetworking all networks use the same network protocol?

Given that my graduate work was an email gateway system, between 
independent, heterogeneous services, no, I would not say all.

However meaningful heterogeneity essentially requires losing some 
information, so I'd say 'preferred solution'.


> Should I jump to the conclusion that that was true, prior to IP being separated from TCP?

Since I was not involved in any of that work, my response is based on 
comments from others.

My understanding is that the design model then and now is a homogeneous 
service, on top a variety of heterogeneous services. Hiding the 
differences by providing a common service on top of them.? That the 
common service was originally specified as one layer and evolved into 
two does not change the meta-design approach.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Apr 14 20:11:30 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 14 Apr 2024 23:11:30 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <841a7546-e98d-4f3c-b104-a1969ee93628@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <20240415031131.6367D8873DC6@ary.qy>

It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>My understanding is that the design model then and now is a homogeneous 
>service, on top a variety of heterogeneous services. Hiding the 
>differences by providing a common service on top of them.? That the 
>common service was originally specified as one layer and evolved into 
>two does not change the meta-design approach.

Back in the day we moved a fair amount of mail via UUCP, a store and
forward dialup scheme quite different from SMTP. The format of the
mail messages was the same, and once we had the uucp mapping project
to figure out the routing, the addresses looked pretty much the same,
too, e.g. my address was johnl at ima.uucp. The sendmail mail program,
which is still widely used today, has a complex internal language to
describe how to route various addresses while keeping everything above
the same.

The ability to use the same higher level software and just futz with the
lower levels was and is quite powerful.

R's,
John


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr 15 07:40:21 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:40:21 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <841a7546-e98d-4f3c-b104-a1969ee93628@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
 <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
 <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>
 <6A40E902-E94F-456C-B0B7-B88D0765E2CD@comcast.net>
 <565e99f9-00ea-44ac-9dd2-715b16918a30@dcrocker.net>
 <EFE058AF-04F2-4646-92DA-9399BD926FE6@comcast.net>
 <841a7546-e98d-4f3c-b104-a1969ee93628@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <C2FFF60A-34CC-4FB7-822E-3705AB4A8958@comcast.net>

The internetworking question was the one before that:

A collection of different heterogeneous networks with potentially different technologies, which might be multi-access, different forms of relaying, etc that would be interconnected by some means.

The mail problem was much later and not the core problem.

Take care,
John

> On Apr 14, 2024, at 23:02, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
> On 4/14/2024 6:55 PM, John Day wrote:
>> Right.  So you believe that the solution to internetworking all networks use the same network protocol?
> Given that my graduate work was an email gateway system, between independent, heterogeneous services, no, I would not say all.  
> 
> However meaningful heterogeneity essentially requires losing some information, so I'd say 'preferred solution'.
> 
> 
> 
>> Should I jump to the conclusion that that was true, prior to IP being separated from TCP?
> Since I was not involved in any of that work, my response is based on comments from others.  
> 
> My understanding is that the design model then and now is a homogeneous service, on top a variety of heterogeneous services.  Hiding the differences by providing a common service on top of them.  That the common service was originally specified as one layer and evolved into two does not change the meta-design approach.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social <mailto:mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr 15 07:46:37 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:46:37 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <20240415031131.6367D8873DC6@ary.qy>
References: <20240415031131.6367D8873DC6@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <B039C7AE-ED82-406A-B65B-373D58087085@comcast.net>

To some degree, ?back in the day? was pretty recently. ;-) Long after the fundamental problem was solved. As I just noted to Dave, the original problem was the existence and expectation of many heterogenous networks of different technologies, some multi-access, some switched or relayed, some circuit-switched, virtual circuit switched, datagram, etc. 

The problem was how to interconnect them.  A solution was arrived at. From what I can tell, somewhere before 1976 or so.

The question is precisely what was it? Or perhaps more to the point, what did people think it was?

Take care,
John

> On Apr 14, 2024, at 23:11, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>> My understanding is that the design model then and now is a homogeneous 
>> service, on top a variety of heterogeneous services. Hiding the 
>> differences by providing a common service on top of them.  That the 
>> common service was originally specified as one layer and evolved into 
>> two does not change the meta-design approach.
> 
> Back in the day we moved a fair amount of mail via UUCP, a store and
> forward dialup scheme quite different from SMTP. The format of the
> mail messages was the same, and once we had the uucp mapping project
> to figure out the routing, the addresses looked pretty much the same,
> too, e.g. my address was johnl at ima.uucp. The sendmail mail program,
> which is still widely used today, has a complex internal language to
> describe how to route various addresses while keeping everything above
> the same.
> 
> The ability to use the same higher level software and just futz with the
> lower levels was and is quite powerful.
> 
> R's,
> John
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr 15 07:49:52 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:49:52 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <C2FFF60A-34CC-4FB7-822E-3705AB4A8958@comcast.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
 <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
 <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>
 <6A40E902-E94F-456C-B0B7-B88D0765E2CD@comcast.net>
 <565e99f9-00ea-44ac-9dd2-715b16918a30@dcrocker.net>
 <EFE058AF-04F2-4646-92DA-9399BD926FE6@comcast.net>
 <841a7546-e98d-4f3c-b104-a1969ee93628@dcrocker.net>
 <C2FFF60A-34CC-4FB7-822E-3705AB4A8958@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <95648f08-8397-439d-a102-cb708b30495e@dcrocker.net>

On 4/15/2024 7:40 AM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> A collection of different heterogeneous networks with potentially
> different technologies, which might be multi-access, different forms of
> relaying, etc that would be interconnected by some means.

Please review your above text, and let me know what about it does not 
apply to the email world of the 1970s and 1980s. because I think it 
describes it quite nicely.


> The mail problem was much later and not the core problem.

Using 1972 as the base reference, I think 5-8 years is later, but not 
'much'.

And while I understand what you intend about 'core', consider that the 
ultimate need for a user is getting the application they use to work 
widely and reliably enough.? They don't really care about underlying 
tech.? And for quite a long time, email was /their/ view of a core 
requirement.

IP sought to create a new, basic, end-to-end data exchange 
infrastructure.? Creating infrastructure usually takes a long time.? 
Gatewaying an application service can be much, much quicker.? Weeks, or 
months, rather than years.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr 15 08:42:30 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:42:30 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <95648f08-8397-439d-a102-cb708b30495e@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
 <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
 <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>
 <6A40E902-E94F-456C-B0B7-B88D0765E2CD@comcast.net>
 <565e99f9-00ea-44ac-9dd2-715b16918a30@dcrocker.net>
 <EFE058AF-04F2-4646-92DA-9399BD926FE6@comcast.net>
 <841a7546-e98d-4f3c-b104-a1969ee93628@dcrocker.net>
 <C2FFF60A-34CC-4FB7-822E-3705AB4A8958@comcast.net>
 <95648f08-8397-439d-a102-cb708b30495e@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <8E24D942-CCD8-480B-8C43-01F4748CF574@comcast.net>



> On Apr 15, 2024, at 10:49, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
> On 4/15/2024 7:40 AM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> A collection of different heterogeneous networks with potentially 
>> different technologies, which might be multi-access, different forms of 
>> relaying, etc that would be interconnected by some means.
> Please review your above text, and let me know what about it does not apply to the email world of the 1970s and 1980s. because I think it describes it quite nicely.
> 
Because it is not the question I am interested in.

So far you haven?t answered that question for email. You have said it was solved, you have given examples, but not stated what the solution was.
>> The mail problem was much later and not the core problem.
> Using 1972 as the base reference, I think 5-8 years is later, but not 'much'.  
> 
> And while I understand what you intend about 'core', consider that the ultimate need for a user is getting the application they use to work widely and reliably enough.  They don't really care about underlying tech.  And for quite a long time, email was /their/ view of a core requirement.
> 
> IP sought to create a new, basic, end-to-end data exchange infrastructure.  Creating infrastructure usually takes a long time.  Gatewaying an application service can be much, much quicker.  Weeks, or months, rather than years. 
> 

IP didn?t appear until 1978. The solution to the question had occurred years earlier. By the time, IP appeared, the problem was long ago solved. But what was it?

Take care,
John
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social <mailto:mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social>


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr 15 09:08:18 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:08:18 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <8E24D942-CCD8-480B-8C43-01F4748CF574@comcast.net>
References: <20240414215456.749278870596@ary.qy>
 <731B322C-F408-4359-937C-D25EA8FF73EE@comcast.net>
 <ca6e5e3f-046d-3390-196a-dff0a9d9f662@iecc.com>
 <3B3C4FDD-311C-41A2-A482-3C8E3CC84A0E@comcast.net>
 <0f3da498-3ec8-4b82-9ce5-5397280495a2@dcrocker.net>
 <6A40E902-E94F-456C-B0B7-B88D0765E2CD@comcast.net>
 <565e99f9-00ea-44ac-9dd2-715b16918a30@dcrocker.net>
 <EFE058AF-04F2-4646-92DA-9399BD926FE6@comcast.net>
 <841a7546-e98d-4f3c-b104-a1969ee93628@dcrocker.net>
 <C2FFF60A-34CC-4FB7-822E-3705AB4A8958@comcast.net>
 <95648f08-8397-439d-a102-cb708b30495e@dcrocker.net>
 <8E24D942-CCD8-480B-8C43-01F4748CF574@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <fc38c30d-c63e-453a-839b-f48d6b73a992@dcrocker.net>

On 4/15/2024 8:42 AM, John Day wrote:
> IP didn?t appear until 1978. The solution to the question had occurred 
> years earlier. By the time, IP appeared, the problem was long ago 
> solved. But what was it?

Sorry.? At this point I don't recall what question you are referring to, 
and my quick search of the thread archive didn't produce it.? Please 
repeat the question.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Apr 15 09:27:43 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 15 Apr 2024 12:27:43 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <B039C7AE-ED82-406A-B65B-373D58087085@comcast.net>
References: <20240415031131.6367D8873DC6@ary.qy>
 <B039C7AE-ED82-406A-B65B-373D58087085@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <ca9cb753-33d4-813b-bde3-bc1b6d14ff22@iecc.com>

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, John Day wrote:

> To some degree, ?back in the day? was pretty recently. ;-) Long after the fundamental problem was solved. As I just noted to Dave, the original problem was the existence and expectation of many heterogenous networks of different technologies, some multi-access, some switched or relayed, some circuit-switched, virtual circuit switched, datagram, etc.
>
> The problem was how to interconnect them.  A solution was arrived at. From what I can tell, somewhere before 1976 or so.
>
> The question is precisely what was it? Or perhaps more to the point, what did people think it was?

i don''t think there was or is a single answer.

One answer was layering, so you can have consistent behavior at upper 
levels while having different lower levels.  We take this for granted now, 
e.g., IP packets in my office are flowing over twisted pair, wifi, 5G, and 
fiber, but I think it's only obvious in retrospect.

The other was gateways, translate traffic from one form to another.  Some 
of the translations are conceptually simple, like turning phone numbers 
from North American en-bloc signalling to CCITT compelled signalling. 
Some is very baroque like the mail gateways Dave worked on.

There may be others but at the moment I can't think of any.

R's,
John

>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 23:11, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>>> My understanding is that the design model then and now is a homogeneous
>>> service, on top a variety of heterogeneous services. Hiding the
>>> differences by providing a common service on top of them.  That the
>>> common service was originally specified as one layer and evolved into
>>> two does not change the meta-design approach.
>>
>> Back in the day we moved a fair amount of mail via UUCP, a store and
>> forward dialup scheme quite different from SMTP. The format of the
>> mail messages was the same, and once we had the uucp mapping project
>> to figure out the routing, the addresses looked pretty much the same,
>> too, e.g. my address was johnl at ima.uucp. The sendmail mail program,
>> which is still widely used today, has a complex internal language to
>> describe how to route various addresses while keeping everything above
>> the same.
>>
>> The ability to use the same higher level software and just futz with the
>> lower levels was and is quite powerful.
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr 15 09:32:51 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:32:51 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <ca9cb753-33d4-813b-bde3-bc1b6d14ff22@iecc.com>
References: <20240415031131.6367D8873DC6@ary.qy>
 <B039C7AE-ED82-406A-B65B-373D58087085@comcast.net>
 <ca9cb753-33d4-813b-bde3-bc1b6d14ff22@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <2ee3287d-5fcb-4737-b392-52f8e4c3f57d@dcrocker.net>

On 4/15/2024 9:27 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> Some is very baroque like the mail gateways Dave worked on. 

OK. I'll take the bait...

Which gateways were extravagant, bizarre or complex, and in what ways?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Apr 15 09:49:02 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:49:02 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <ca9cb753-33d4-813b-bde3-bc1b6d14ff22@iecc.com>
References: <20240415031131.6367D8873DC6@ary.qy>
 <B039C7AE-ED82-406A-B65B-373D58087085@comcast.net>
 <ca9cb753-33d4-813b-bde3-bc1b6d14ff22@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <0dd3636d-48a4-47c9-953c-2b573d2b66e3@3kitty.org>

I agree with JohnL.? There are multiple solutions, many of which have 
been known for millennia, that humans have used to move "stuff" from 
place to place.?? There's even a whole field of academic study and 
business practice dedicated to the problem - "Operations Research" (aka 
OR).? OR is used to make decisions about questions like where to put 
manufacturing plants, warehouses, distributors, and other elements of 
the "supply chain" to optimize the flow of goods.

In the electronic world of networking, we might call such warehouses 
"buffers", "gateways", or "servers" in a "cloud", and they use various 
techniques such as encapsulation, or repackaging as needed for the next 
stage of a journey.

I only learned a tiny bit about OR by taking an undergraduate course 
long ago.? The science has evolved quite a lot since then - e.g., 
https://catalog.mit.edu/interdisciplinary/graduate-programs/operations-research/

OR is used to make analytical decisions for goals such as optimizing 
transportation "networks".?? AFAIK, such analysis was never applied to 
our computer networks back in the 70s/80s or even now.?? Maybe that was 
a mistake.

There's not a single solution.? There's many possible solutions. It's an 
engineering task (likely using OR) to design an appropriate solution for 
each situation.

Jack Haverty


On 4/15/24 09:27, John R. Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, John Day wrote:
>
>> To some degree, ?back in the day? was pretty recently. ;-) Long after 
>> the fundamental problem was solved. As I just noted to Dave, the 
>> original problem was the existence and expectation of many 
>> heterogenous networks of different technologies, some multi-access, 
>> some switched or relayed, some circuit-switched, virtual circuit 
>> switched, datagram, etc.
>>
>> The problem was how to interconnect them.? A solution was arrived at. 
>> From what I can tell, somewhere before 1976 or so.
>>
>> The question is precisely what was it? Or perhaps more to the point, 
>> what did people think it was?
>
> i don''t think there was or is a single answer.
>
> One answer was layering, so you can have consistent behavior at upper 
> levels while having different lower levels.? We take this for granted 
> now, e.g., IP packets in my office are flowing over twisted pair, 
> wifi, 5G, and fiber, but I think it's only obvious in retrospect.
>
> The other was gateways, translate traffic from one form to another.? 
> Some of the translations are conceptually simple, like turning phone 
> numbers from North American en-bloc signalling to CCITT compelled 
> signalling. Some is very baroque like the mail gateways Dave worked on.
>
> There may be others but at the moment I can't think of any.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 23:11, John Levine via Internet-history 
>>> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history 
>>> <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>>>> My understanding is that the design model then and now is a 
>>>> homogeneous
>>>> service, on top a variety of heterogeneous services. Hiding the
>>>> differences by providing a common service on top of them. That the
>>>> common service was originally specified as one layer and evolved into
>>>> two does not change the meta-design approach.
>>>
>>> Back in the day we moved a fair amount of mail via UUCP, a store and
>>> forward dialup scheme quite different from SMTP. The format of the
>>> mail messages was the same, and once we had the uucp mapping project
>>> to figure out the routing, the addresses looked pretty much the same,
>>> too, e.g. my address was johnl at ima.uucp. The sendmail mail program,
>>> which is still widely used today, has a complex internal language to
>>> describe how to route various addresses while keeping everything above
>>> the same.
>>>
>>> The ability to use the same higher level software and just futz with 
>>> the
>>> lower levels was and is quite powerful.
>>>
>>> R's,
>>> John
>>> -- 
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>>
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240415/f773ac33/attachment.asc>

From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Apr 15 09:56:06 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 15 Apr 2024 12:56:06 -0400
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <2ee3287d-5fcb-4737-b392-52f8e4c3f57d@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240415031131.6367D8873DC6@ary.qy>
 <B039C7AE-ED82-406A-B65B-373D58087085@comcast.net>
 <ca9cb753-33d4-813b-bde3-bc1b6d14ff22@iecc.com>
 <2ee3287d-5fcb-4737-b392-52f8e4c3f57d@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <2e5f7792-b970-c2d0-1d96-0d26cb31c872@iecc.com>

>> Some is very baroque like the mail gateways Dave worked on. 
>
> OK. I'll take the bait...
>
> Which gateways were extravagant, bizarre or complex, and in what ways?

I'd say the contortions we went through to get mail between SMTP and X.400 
and other systems in the 1980s and 90s were pretty baroque.  Look at all 
the stuff in RFC 2156, which is 144 pages trying to make X.400 and MIME 
interoperate.

R's,
John

PS: Usenet also had a nice layering system.  The most popular transport layer 
was dialup UUCP, but we hear the NSA got their feed on reels of 1/2" 
magtape.



From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Apr 15 11:28:59 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 15 Apr 2024 14:28:59 -0400
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
Message-ID: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>

Back in the 19th century there were a lot of railroads built in a lot
of incompatible ways. The most obvious incompatibility was track gauge
but there were others including the couplers between the cars and the
ways they did (or sometimes did not) ensure that there was only one
train at a time on each piece of track.

These days most of the world has converged on standard gauge but there
are still places like Spain and Russia that use broader gauges, and
mountain railways and trams that use narrower. When a passenger or
freight train crosses a border there's a variety of approaches, some
of which may seems kind of familiar.

The conceptually simplest approach is a gateway, at the border
everyone gets off one train and gets on another.  The Canfranc
station in the Pyrenees at the France-Spain border was famous
for this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canfranc_International_railway_station

Another approach is layering. At the border, equipment lifts the car
bodies off the bogies of the old gauge and puts them onto bogies of
the new gauge. This is better since passengers don't have to get out
(often from sleepers in the middle of the night) and goods don't have
to be unloaded. This technique was patented in 1876.

Here's the Prague-Moscow train changing gauge in Brest, Belarus.

https://youtu.be/2nI467sc-Eo?si=w783HVwUGXAmQD7_

Yet another approach is parallel operation, dual or triple gauge, with
three or more rails allowing trains of different gauge to run on the
same route. In Japan the Shinkansen are standard gauge but older
railways are mostly 1067mm so there's a fair amount of dual gauge in
and out of cities.

This is a very old solution. The Niagara Falls bridge in 1855 had four
rails for three different gauges, although now it's down to two.

Here's a video of a dual gauge Shinkansen route:

https://youtu.be/0d0XAaqEZ0s?si=ZYo27gNoAAXibtVq

Another approach is switching on the fly. Some trains have variable
bogies that can change gauge as the train is moving, which is pretty
cool.

Here is a Swiss train doing that:

https://youtu.be/H0gj2LWe-SI?si=7zpZFc-jQPTIv8TX

And a tutorial in Spanish:

https://youtu.be/y8N7Ikw87tM?si=bCwrx5ph3SpgrevM

The last approach is a flag day. One of the reasons the south lost the
US Civil War was that they had a fragmented rail network, which
continued to inhibit recovery and development after the war. So over
two days, May 31-Jun 1, 1886, southern railroads regauged 11,500 miles
of track to the Pennsylvania's gauge (1/2" wider than standard but
close enough) and changed the bogies on the rolling stock.

Here's a video about it:

https://youtu.be/4v81Gwu6BTE?si=Yi9JDSU0onABpWju

R's,
John


From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Apr 15 13:18:33 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:18:33 -0700
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
References: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <67595147-6290-4ca1-8ed9-62e0f4869550@3kitty.org>

Good summary!? That's a description of the techniques used and problems 
encountered *within* the "railway networks".?? Perhaps railroad gauge 
diversity in the 19th century was recreated as multiprotocol routers in 
the 20th.?? Both were abandoned as soon as possible.

But rails didn't usually get all the way to the sources and 
destinations.??? In the 1800s, for example there were "team tracks", 
where a railcar could be placed by a platform with a road on the other 
side - where you would park your team of horses and their wagon for the 
next, or previous, leg of the journey over a road or cartpath network.?? 
Today we have container terminals, where cranes lift containers between 
rail cars and trucks.? We might call both of these "gateways"...

I also remember thinking about the economic aspects of rail transport.? 
Cargo was often charged by weight and distance.? But some railroads 
charged different amounts for different cargoes even of the same 
weight.? That practice is even captured in a folk song: 
https://www.johnnycash.com/track/rock-island-line-3/

Of course there were many distinct railroad companies, each with their 
own network, and sometimes cargo had to traverse multiple such 
networks.?? Railroads met at "junctions", often triggering the creation 
of a surrounding town - e.g., Colorado Junction.??? There were rules for 
operation of such junctions, mutually agreed by the railroads 
involved.?? In today's Internet, we call such places IXPs.

There were complex agreements, rules, and regulations developed over 
time.? For example, railroad cars full of goods generated revenue for 
the rails carrying them.?? But empty cars still had to somehow get back 
to their owners.? So such cars were carried "for free" but lower in 
priority.? Similarly, perishable products (such as fruit) got express 
service and special handling such as refrigeration. Fruit spoils much 
more rapidly than coal.? Latency was critical then.? Still is today.

Such thinking was a motivation behind the inclusion of "Type of Service" 
in TCP4.? But today it seems that the only metric for network service on 
the Internet is bandwidth.?? A 100-car train of coal can move a lot of 
weight over a long distance.? But a "Pacific Fruit Express" train could 
get those California fruits to the markets of the East Coast before they 
devolved into garbage.?? The Internet today can readily handle my backup 
needs.?? But it can't always deliver my interactive video.

Networks since ancient times have also experienced "dropped packets".?? 
Right now, archaeologists are exploring newly found parts of Pompeii.?? 
I suspect they'll find amphoras lost centuries ago.? Similarly, cranes 
are working in Baltimore harbor to retrieve containers that fell into 
the ocean just a few weeks ago - more "lost packets".

I still think that there's a lot to be learned by looking at the history 
of such "transport infrastructures" to see how and why they chose 
certain techniques and mechanisms, what the experience was in real use, 
and how the lessons learned can be applied to the Internet infrastructure.

Jack Haverty


On 4/15/24 11:28, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> Back in the 19th century there were a lot of railroads built in a lot
> of incompatible ways. The most obvious incompatibility was track gauge
> but there were others including the couplers between the cars and the
> ways they did (or sometimes did not) ensure that there was only one
> train at a time on each piece of track.
>
> These days most of the world has converged on standard gauge but there
> are still places like Spain and Russia that use broader gauges, and
> mountain railways and trams that use narrower. When a passenger or
> freight train crosses a border there's a variety of approaches, some
> of which may seems kind of familiar.
>
> The conceptually simplest approach is a gateway, at the border
> everyone gets off one train and gets on another.  The Canfranc
> station in the Pyrenees at the France-Spain border was famous
> for this.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canfranc_International_railway_station
>
> Another approach is layering. At the border, equipment lifts the car
> bodies off the bogies of the old gauge and puts them onto bogies of
> the new gauge. This is better since passengers don't have to get out
> (often from sleepers in the middle of the night) and goods don't have
> to be unloaded. This technique was patented in 1876.
>
> Here's the Prague-Moscow train changing gauge in Brest, Belarus.
>
> https://youtu.be/2nI467sc-Eo?si=w783HVwUGXAmQD7_
>
> Yet another approach is parallel operation, dual or triple gauge, with
> three or more rails allowing trains of different gauge to run on the
> same route. In Japan the Shinkansen are standard gauge but older
> railways are mostly 1067mm so there's a fair amount of dual gauge in
> and out of cities.
>
> This is a very old solution. The Niagara Falls bridge in 1855 had four
> rails for three different gauges, although now it's down to two.
>
> Here's a video of a dual gauge Shinkansen route:
>
> https://youtu.be/0d0XAaqEZ0s?si=ZYo27gNoAAXibtVq
>
> Another approach is switching on the fly. Some trains have variable
> bogies that can change gauge as the train is moving, which is pretty
> cool.
>
> Here is a Swiss train doing that:
>
> https://youtu.be/H0gj2LWe-SI?si=7zpZFc-jQPTIv8TX
>
> And a tutorial in Spanish:
>
> https://youtu.be/y8N7Ikw87tM?si=bCwrx5ph3SpgrevM
>
> The last approach is a flag day. One of the reasons the south lost the
> US Civil War was that they had a fragmented rail network, which
> continued to inhibit recovery and development after the war. So over
> two days, May 31-Jun 1, 1886, southern railroads regauged 11,500 miles
> of track to the Pennsylvania's gauge (1/2" wider than standard but
> close enough) and changed the bogies on the rolling stock.
>
> Here's a video about it:
>
> https://youtu.be/4v81Gwu6BTE?si=Yi9JDSU0onABpWju
>
> R's,
> John

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240415/9e36230d/attachment.asc>

From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Mon Apr 15 15:43:56 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:43:56 -0700
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
References: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <3CB59DFF-B03C-4BDD-BEDA-21CC32A3C485@gmail.com>

John,

Very nice article!

I have taken a train  Hamburg to Copenhagen in the early 1980s.    The train cars went onto a ferry from R?dby Sogn to Puttgarden.    The networking analogy is, of course, encapsulation.

Bob

p.s. I see this is no longer running, the current route is a mix of land and bridges.





> On Apr 15, 2024, at 11:28?AM, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Back in the 19th century there were a lot of railroads built in a lot
> of incompatible ways. The most obvious incompatibility was track gauge
> but there were others including the couplers between the cars and the
> ways they did (or sometimes did not) ensure that there was only one
> train at a time on each piece of track.
> 
> These days most of the world has converged on standard gauge but there
> are still places like Spain and Russia that use broader gauges, and
> mountain railways and trams that use narrower. When a passenger or
> freight train crosses a border there's a variety of approaches, some
> of which may seems kind of familiar.
> 
> The conceptually simplest approach is a gateway, at the border
> everyone gets off one train and gets on another.  The Canfranc
> station in the Pyrenees at the France-Spain border was famous
> for this.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canfranc_International_railway_station
> 
> Another approach is layering. At the border, equipment lifts the car
> bodies off the bogies of the old gauge and puts them onto bogies of
> the new gauge. This is better since passengers don't have to get out
> (often from sleepers in the middle of the night) and goods don't have
> to be unloaded. This technique was patented in 1876.
> 
> Here's the Prague-Moscow train changing gauge in Brest, Belarus.
> 
> https://youtu.be/2nI467sc-Eo?si=w783HVwUGXAmQD7_
> 
> Yet another approach is parallel operation, dual or triple gauge, with
> three or more rails allowing trains of different gauge to run on the
> same route. In Japan the Shinkansen are standard gauge but older
> railways are mostly 1067mm so there's a fair amount of dual gauge in
> and out of cities.
> 
> This is a very old solution. The Niagara Falls bridge in 1855 had four
> rails for three different gauges, although now it's down to two.
> 
> Here's a video of a dual gauge Shinkansen route:
> 
> https://youtu.be/0d0XAaqEZ0s?si=ZYo27gNoAAXibtVq
> 
> Another approach is switching on the fly. Some trains have variable
> bogies that can change gauge as the train is moving, which is pretty
> cool.
> 
> Here is a Swiss train doing that:
> 
> https://youtu.be/H0gj2LWe-SI?si=7zpZFc-jQPTIv8TX
> 
> And a tutorial in Spanish:
> 
> https://youtu.be/y8N7Ikw87tM?si=bCwrx5ph3SpgrevM
> 
> The last approach is a flag day. One of the reasons the south lost the
> US Civil War was that they had a fragmented rail network, which
> continued to inhibit recovery and development after the war. So over
> two days, May 31-Jun 1, 1886, southern railroads regauged 11,500 miles
> of track to the Pennsylvania's gauge (1/2" wider than standard but
> close enough) and changed the bogies on the rolling stock.
> 
> Here's a video about it:
> 
> https://youtu.be/4v81Gwu6BTE?si=Yi9JDSU0onABpWju
> 
> R's,
> John
> -- 
> 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  Mon Apr 15 16:11:08 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 23:11:08 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Robustness Principle and End-to-End Principle
References: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>

I am looking into the history of the Robustness Principle and the End-to-End Principle.? I have found 2 significant dates.? One is the mention of the Robustness Principle in RFC 761(DoD TCP Spec) dated 1980, and the paper dated 1981 by Jerry Seltzer, David Reed, and Dave Clark on the End-to-End Principle.? I am trying to go earlier than those dates.? These principles guided the work in the 70s so I am looking for information about that time period (or earlier?) and these principles.? Any thoughts, recollections, or references?, including dates/timeframes, greatly appreciated.
barbara

From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Mon Apr 15 16:38:12 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:38:12 +1200
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <3CB59DFF-B03C-4BDD-BEDA-21CC32A3C485@gmail.com>
References: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
 <3CB59DFF-B03C-4BDD-BEDA-21CC32A3C485@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8318abec-ad1a-4817-a29b-793dfe03b96b@gmail.com>

On 16-Apr-24 10:43, Bob Hinden via Internet-history wrote:
> John,
> 
> Very nice article!
> 
> I have taken a train  Hamburg to Copenhagen in the early 1980s.    The train cars went onto a ferry from R?dby Sogn to Puttgarden.    The networking analogy is, of course, encapsulation.
> 
> Bob
> 
> p.s. I see this is no longer running, the current route is a mix of land and bridges.

Cars and trucks are encapsulated in a train for the Channel Tunnel between England and France. Alternatively, they are encapsulated in boats. Both systems are exposed to head-of-line blocking, are best effort, and implement collision avoidance.

    Brian

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 15, 2024, at 11:28?AM, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Back in the 19th century there were a lot of railroads built in a lot
>> of incompatible ways. The most obvious incompatibility was track gauge
>> but there were others including the couplers between the cars and the
>> ways they did (or sometimes did not) ensure that there was only one
>> train at a time on each piece of track.
>>
>> These days most of the world has converged on standard gauge but there
>> are still places like Spain and Russia that use broader gauges, and
>> mountain railways and trams that use narrower. When a passenger or
>> freight train crosses a border there's a variety of approaches, some
>> of which may seems kind of familiar.
>>
>> The conceptually simplest approach is a gateway, at the border
>> everyone gets off one train and gets on another.  The Canfranc
>> station in the Pyrenees at the France-Spain border was famous
>> for this.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canfranc_International_railway_station
>>
>> Another approach is layering. At the border, equipment lifts the car
>> bodies off the bogies of the old gauge and puts them onto bogies of
>> the new gauge. This is better since passengers don't have to get out
>> (often from sleepers in the middle of the night) and goods don't have
>> to be unloaded. This technique was patented in 1876.
>>
>> Here's the Prague-Moscow train changing gauge in Brest, Belarus.
>>
>> https://youtu.be/2nI467sc-Eo?si=w783HVwUGXAmQD7_
>>
>> Yet another approach is parallel operation, dual or triple gauge, with
>> three or more rails allowing trains of different gauge to run on the
>> same route. In Japan the Shinkansen are standard gauge but older
>> railways are mostly 1067mm so there's a fair amount of dual gauge in
>> and out of cities.
>>
>> This is a very old solution. The Niagara Falls bridge in 1855 had four
>> rails for three different gauges, although now it's down to two.
>>
>> Here's a video of a dual gauge Shinkansen route:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/0d0XAaqEZ0s?si=ZYo27gNoAAXibtVq
>>
>> Another approach is switching on the fly. Some trains have variable
>> bogies that can change gauge as the train is moving, which is pretty
>> cool.
>>
>> Here is a Swiss train doing that:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/H0gj2LWe-SI?si=7zpZFc-jQPTIv8TX
>>
>> And a tutorial in Spanish:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/y8N7Ikw87tM?si=bCwrx5ph3SpgrevM
>>
>> The last approach is a flag day. One of the reasons the south lost the
>> US Civil War was that they had a fragmented rail network, which
>> continued to inhibit recovery and development after the war. So over
>> two days, May 31-Jun 1, 1886, southern railroads regauged 11,500 miles
>> of track to the Pennsylvania's gauge (1/2" wider than standard but
>> close enough) and changed the bogies on the rolling stock.
>>
>> Here's a video about it:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/4v81Gwu6BTE?si=Yi9JDSU0onABpWju
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr 15 16:42:21 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:42:21 -0700
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <8318abec-ad1a-4817-a29b-793dfe03b96b@gmail.com>
References: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
 <3CB59DFF-B03C-4BDD-BEDA-21CC32A3C485@gmail.com>
 <8318abec-ad1a-4817-a29b-793dfe03b96b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4eb8a0a-6d25-4f60-9d0d-b9f9f8ab7a94@dcrocker.net>


> Cars and trucks are encapsulated in a train for the Channel Tunnel 
> between England and France. Alternatively, they are encapsulated in boats.


And since humans can walk, when they are passengers, they are also 
encapsulated.

My question is about a boat on a canal.? Is the boat encapsulated, given 
that the canal is an artificial transport medium?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr 15 16:46:30 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:46:30 -0700
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <a4eb8a0a-6d25-4f60-9d0d-b9f9f8ab7a94@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
 <3CB59DFF-B03C-4BDD-BEDA-21CC32A3C485@gmail.com>
 <8318abec-ad1a-4817-a29b-793dfe03b96b@gmail.com>
 <a4eb8a0a-6d25-4f60-9d0d-b9f9f8ab7a94@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <fda4983b-ebd7-441b-a6c5-3724449772d9@dcrocker.net>

On 4/15/2024 4:42 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> My question is about


It also occurs to me that this thread is highlighting multiple levels of 
encapsulation, which suggests that the ancient view had merit and it 
really is turtles all the way down.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Apr 15 16:51:33 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:51:33 -0700
Subject: [ih] Robustness Principle and End-to-End Principle
In-Reply-To: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ab423e74-8512-4477-bd1f-2d2f082dd58b@3kitty.org>

The End-to-End principle has been an important part of military 
communications -- even back to Greco-Roman times.?? The Internet and 
Arpanet were driven by the US DoD.?? I suggest looking into military 
history for references.?? See also:

https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/cryptology-in-the-military/
and
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/a-brief-history-of-cryptography-and-why-it-matters/

Robustness of course also has mattered a lot in military scenarios for 
centuries.? Roman generals would have slaves (aka scribes) replicate an 
important message and then send each copy by alternate routes, e.g,. 
some by sea and some by land, increasing the odds that the message would 
reach its destination.

When one of your switching nodes gets blown up, the command and control 
still has to go through somehow.?? When one gets captured by an enemy, 
it's important to limit what that enemy can do.

Such scenarios were certainly considered as TCP/IP details were being 
worked out since the customer was the military.

Jack


On 4/15/24 16:11, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> I am looking into the history of the Robustness Principle and the End-to-End Principle.? I have found 2 significant dates.? One is the mention of the Robustness Principle in RFC 761(DoD TCP Spec) dated 1980, and the paper dated 1981 by Jerry Seltzer, David Reed, and Dave Clark on the End-to-End Principle.? I am trying to go earlier than those dates.? These principles guided the work in the 70s so I am looking for information about that time period (or earlier?) and these principles.? Any thoughts, recollections, or references?, including dates/timeframes, greatly appreciated.
> barbara

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240415/cdc4b3a9/attachment.asc>

From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Mon Apr 15 16:57:38 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:57:38 +1200
Subject: [ih] Robustness Principle and End-to-End Principle
In-Reply-To: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <81a95a69-ed16-4271-aa3f-32be8337c255@gmail.com>

Barbara,

Absolutely not answering your question, but you might want to read https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9413. Opinions may vary.

Slightly relevant to your question, when we were drafting https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958, where paragraph 3.9 states the robustness principle, obviously we relied on Jon Postel for the wording. However, I don't recall much detail of the IAB discussions and I'm fairly sure we didn't delve into the history. It was just something we all knew...

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 16-Apr-24 11:11, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> I am looking into the history of the Robustness Principle and the End-to-End Principle.? I have found 2 significant dates.? One is the mention of the Robustness Principle in RFC 761(DoD TCP Spec) dated 1980, and the paper dated 1981 by Jerry Seltzer, David Reed, and Dave Clark on the End-to-End Principle.? I am trying to go earlier than those dates.? These principles guided the work in the 70s so I am looking for information about that time period (or earlier?) and these principles.? Any thoughts, recollections, or references?, including dates/timeframes, greatly appreciated.
> barbara

From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Apr 15 17:34:17 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 15 Apr 2024 20:34:17 -0400
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <8318abec-ad1a-4817-a29b-793dfe03b96b@gmail.com>
References: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
 <3CB59DFF-B03C-4BDD-BEDA-21CC32A3C485@gmail.com>
 <8318abec-ad1a-4817-a29b-793dfe03b96b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bda4aef9-bcae-1165-4a19-6364cd918fe7@iecc.com>

>> Very nice article!

Thanks.  I turned it into a blog post:  https://jl.ly/Internet/gauge.html

> Cars and trucks are encapsulated in a train for the Channel Tunnel 
> between England and France. Alternatively, they are encapsulated in 
> boats. Both systems are exposed to head-of-line blocking, are best 
> effort, and implement collision avoidance.

I'm not sure quite how far I want to push this.

There is one remaining passenger train ferry in Europe, from Italy to 
Sicily.  In the US there are no passenger train ferries, but there is a 
long distance freight rail ferry between Seattle and Alaska, and NYNJ rail 
across NY harbor because the closest rail bridge across the Hudson is 140 
miles north in Selkirk.

R's,
John


From dan at tangledhelix.com  Mon Apr 15 18:13:33 2024
From: dan at tangledhelix.com (Dan Lowe)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:13:33 -0400
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <bda4aef9-bcae-1165-4a19-6364cd918fe7@iecc.com>
References: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
 <3CB59DFF-B03C-4BDD-BEDA-21CC32A3C485@gmail.com>
 <8318abec-ad1a-4817-a29b-793dfe03b96b@gmail.com>
 <bda4aef9-bcae-1165-4a19-6364cd918fe7@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <8aa06632-8aff-4ab2-95fc-fe06bb1d6108@app.fastmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 8:34 PM, John R. Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> There is one remaining passenger train ferry in Europe, from Italy to 
> Sicily.

For now. The planned bridge across the Strait of Messina would include two rail paths, removing the need for that ferry. (You can form your own opinion about whether it will ever be built.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Messina_Bridge

Dan

From apisanty at gmail.com  Mon Apr 15 18:45:49 2024
From: apisanty at gmail.com (Alejandro Pisanty)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:45:49 -0600
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <bda4aef9-bcae-1165-4a19-6364cd918fe7@iecc.com>
References: <20240415182859.42228887CC42@ary.qy>
 <3CB59DFF-B03C-4BDD-BEDA-21CC32A3C485@gmail.com>
 <8318abec-ad1a-4817-a29b-793dfe03b96b@gmail.com>
 <bda4aef9-bcae-1165-4a19-6364cd918fe7@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <CAOxRbV9T5C9x5QA28Y_i_mVTzaoyLzn4TpV_fbK8fWXx7Y8VnA@mail.gmail.com>

John, all,

as you mention rail ferries, you may find useful an additional data point,
there are rail ferries in operation in the southern side of the United
States, connecting Mobile, Alabama, with the port and industrial city of
Coatzacoalcos, in the Gulf of Mexico coast of Mexico. This service is about
to get more interesting because it has been connected to the Pacific Coast
by a revamped rail line called Ferrocarril del Istmo de Tehuantepec, and
the port on the Pacific Side, Salina Cruz, is also being revamped with,
among other things, dredging for depth and an almost two-mile long
breakwater. This is foreseen to provide an alternate to the Panama Canal
for some freights (we do not believe at all that it scales for Panamax and
the like.) To break or challenge all packet analogies, there are two
transductors, one sea-to-land and the other land-to-sea, and the rail
trains are packed in parallel in 6 or 8 rows in the ferries. There's
buffering and delays all over and let's hope for no packet loss on land or
sea.

Quick piece on this in the news,
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-mexican-partnership-to-expand-international-rail-car-ferry-service


Now please continue the interesting discussion!

Alejandro Pisanty

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 6:34?PM John R. Levine via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> >> Very nice article!
>
> Thanks.  I turned it into a blog post:  https://jl.ly/Internet/gauge.html
>
> > Cars and trucks are encapsulated in a train for the Channel Tunnel
> > between England and France. Alternatively, they are encapsulated in
> > boats. Both systems are exposed to head-of-line blocking, are best
> > effort, and implement collision avoidance.
>
> I'm not sure quite how far I want to push this.
>
> There is one remaining passenger train ferry in Europe, from Italy to
> Sicily.  In the US there are no passenger train ferries, but there is a
> long distance freight rail ferry between Seattle and Alaska, and NYNJ rail
> across NY harbor because the closest rail bridge across the Hudson is 140
> miles north in Selkirk.
>
> R's,
> John
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Qu?mica UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Mon Apr 15 19:29:29 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:29:29 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <0dd3636d-48a4-47c9-953c-2b573d2b66e3@3kitty.org>
References: <20240415031131.6367D8873DC6@ary.qy>
 <B039C7AE-ED82-406A-B65B-373D58087085@comcast.net>
 <ca9cb753-33d4-813b-bde3-bc1b6d14ff22@iecc.com>
 <0dd3636d-48a4-47c9-953c-2b573d2b66e3@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <7FE44D4B-1E28-4D68-BE72-E5B232326ADC@icloud.com>

On Apr 15, 2024, at 9:49?AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I only learned a tiny bit about OR by taking an undergraduate course long ago.  The science has evolved quite a lot since then - e.g., https://catalog.mit.edu/interdisciplinary/graduate-programs/operations-research/
> 
> OR is used to make analytical decisions for goals such as optimizing transportation "networks".   AFAIK, such analysis was never applied to our computer networks back in the 70s/80s or even now.   Maybe that was a mistake.
> 
> There's not a single solution.  There's many possible solutions. It's an engineering task (likely using OR) to design an appropriate solution for each situation.
> 
> Jack Haverty

JJ Garcia-Luna Aceves who incorporated concepts from OR into EIGRP (RFC 7868).  Some other SRI people did similar work.  Googling [site:datatracker.ietf.org ?operations research"] and [site:datatracker.ietf.org "combinatorial optimization?] turned up a few RFCs and drafts, including RFC 5614, co-authored by Richard Ogier, also from SRI.

--gregbo



From craig at tereschau.net  Mon Apr 15 19:53:07 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:53:07 -0600
Subject: [ih] Robustness Principle and End-to-End Principle
In-Reply-To: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CeR76C8AeEDUeyefWt4QcaeT8ixyyz_93YF07m6EN3YKQ@mail.gmail.com>

You might try the IENs (RFC Editor keeps them -- they are the notes the TCP
team published while it was working on TCP).
Craig

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 5:13?PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I am looking into the history of the Robustness Principle and the
> End-to-End Principle.  I have found 2 significant dates.  One is the
> mention of the Robustness Principle in RFC 761(DoD TCP Spec) dated 1980,
> and the paper dated 1981 by Jerry Seltzer, David Reed, and Dave Clark on
> the End-to-End Principle.  I am trying to go earlier than those dates.
> These principles guided the work in the 70s so I am looking for information
> about that time period (or earlier?) and these principles.  Any thoughts,
> recollections, or references?, including dates/timeframes, greatly
> appreciated.
> barbara
> --
> 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.


From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Apr 15 20:04:58 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 15 Apr 2024 23:04:58 -0400
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <67595147-6290-4ca1-8ed9-62e0f4869550@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>

It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>Today we have container terminals, where cranes lift containers between 
>rail cars and trucks.? We might call both of these "gateways"...

Containers are a standard size and shape and can be transported in
many ways including ships, trains, and trucks, and moved from one to
the other without looking inside. Seems a like like packets, no?

It is not my impression that there are a lot of loads suitable for
containers but big enough to be be subject to fragmentation and
reassembly.

R's,
John


From touch at strayalpha.com  Mon Apr 15 21:15:52 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:15:52 -0700
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>
References: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <59F6230B-E62B-4B9E-9C1C-DAB174E31C54@strayalpha.com>

> On Apr 15, 2024, at 8:04?PM, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>> Today we have container terminals, where cranes lift containers between 
>> rail cars and trucks.  We might call both of these "gateways"...
> 
> Containers are a standard size and shape and can be transported in
> many ways including ships, trains, and trucks, and moved from one to
> the other without looking inside. Seems a like like packets, no?

More like SONET [fixed size] frames, if you?re referring to ISO intermodal containers.
Although there are fractional sizes (half length, etc.), there?s one fixed dominant size.

> It is not my impression that there are a lot of loads suitable for
> containers but big enough to be be subject to fragmentation and
> reassembly.

Unpacking and repacking happens with pallets or sub-containers inside.

Like SONET frames, the idea is to avoid that step where possible.

Fragmentation and reassembly happens with payloads that don?t fit in a single container, but not with containers themselves.

That?s another reason why the analogy is a lot more like SONET frames than packets, IMO.

Joe



From lk at cs.ucla.edu  Mon Apr 15 21:28:48 2024
From: lk at cs.ucla.edu (Leonard Kleinrock)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <7FE44D4B-1E28-4D68-BE72-E5B232326ADC@icloud.com>
References: <7FE44D4B-1E28-4D68-BE72-E5B232326ADC@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <732782321.70919682.1713241728800.JavaMail.zimbra@mail.cs.ucla.edu>

Actually, OR was in full bloom following World War II in the late 50s and 60s. Optimization of network topology and network link capacity for computer networks was started by a number of us well before the 70s.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 15, 2024, at 7:29?PM, Greg Skinner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?On Apr 15, 2024, at 9:49?AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > I only learned a tiny bit about OR by taking an undergraduate course long ago. The science has evolved quite a lot since then - e.g., https://catalog.mit.edu/interdisciplinary/graduate-programs/operations-research/
> >
> > OR is used to make analytical decisions for goals such as optimizing transportation "networks". AFAIK, such analysis was never applied to our computer networks back in the 70s/80s or even now. Maybe that was a mistake.
> >
> > There's not a single solution. There's many possible solutions. It's an engineering task (likely using OR) to design an appropriate solution for each situation.
> >
> > Jack Haverty
> 
> JJ Garcia-Luna Aceves who incorporated concepts from OR into EIGRP (RFC 7868). Some other SRI people did similar work. Googling [site:datatracker.ietf.org ?operations research"] and [site:datatracker.ietf.org "combinatorial optimization?] turned up a few RFCs and drafts, including RFC 5614, co-authored by Richard Ogier, also from SRI.
> 
> --gregbo
> 
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

From touch at strayalpha.com  Mon Apr 15 21:38:54 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:38:54 -0700
Subject: [ih] early competition and networking
In-Reply-To: <732782321.70919682.1713241728800.JavaMail.zimbra@mail.cs.ucla.edu>
References: <7FE44D4B-1E28-4D68-BE72-E5B232326ADC@icloud.com>
 <732782321.70919682.1713241728800.JavaMail.zimbra@mail.cs.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <9797FF6F-A24E-437B-98C3-DF790D184194@strayalpha.com>

> On Apr 15, 2024, at 9:28?PM, Leonard Kleinrock via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Actually, OR was in full bloom following World War II in the late 50s and 60s. Optimization of network topology and network link capacity for computer networks was started by a number of us well before the 70s.

Indeed - the history goes back to at least WW1 supply chain logistics.

And it originated with some very familiar names - Blaise Pascal and Charles Babbage among them.

The BSTJ was full of OR papers and had a nice overview in 2000 in a 3-part series (sadly paywalled):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/223139?

(Like many aspects of modern CS, there are origins often overlooked; I wish 1% of the papers analyzing web and social media links realized they were rediscovering sociology.)

Joe


> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Apr 15, 2024, at 7:29?PM, Greg Skinner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> ?On Apr 15, 2024, at 9:49?AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I only learned a tiny bit about OR by taking an undergraduate course long ago. The science has evolved quite a lot since then - e.g., https://catalog.mit.edu/interdisciplinary/graduate-programs/operations-research/
>>> 
>>> OR is used to make analytical decisions for goals such as optimizing transportation "networks". AFAIK, such analysis was never applied to our computer networks back in the 70s/80s or even now. Maybe that was a mistake.
>>> 
>>> There's not a single solution. There's many possible solutions. It's an engineering task (likely using OR) to design an appropriate solution for each situation.
>>> 
>>> Jack Haverty
>> 
>> JJ Garcia-Luna Aceves who incorporated concepts from OR into EIGRP (RFC 7868). Some other SRI people did similar work. Googling [site:datatracker.ietf.org ?operations research"] and [site:datatracker.ietf.org "combinatorial optimization?] turned up a few RFCs and drafts, including RFC 5614, co-authored by Richard Ogier, also from SRI.
>> 
>> --gregbo
>> 
>> --
>> 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  Mon Apr 15 22:46:36 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:46:36 +1200
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>
References: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <da81eefd-a197-4e65-b34e-b1e49c80f681@gmail.com>

On 16-Apr-24 15:04, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>> Today we have container terminals, where cranes lift containers between
>> rail cars and trucks.? We might call both of these "gateways"...
> 
> Containers are a standard size and shape and can be transported in
> many ways including ships, trains, and trucks, and moved from one to
> the other without looking inside. Seems a like like packets, no?
> 
> It is not my impression that there are a lot of loads suitable for
> containers but big enough to be be subject to fragmentation and
> reassembly.

Having shipped my household goods intercontinentally several times
since containerization was deployed, I can guarantee that fragmentation
and reassembly are highly undesirable enhancements.

I did move internationally two or three times before containerization,
and some degree of fragmentation and packet loss was unavoidable,
annoying, and costly.

Seriously, the analogies are good fun but cannot be taken too far.
Especially - bits can be duplicated and retransmitted at low cost;
furniture can't.

    Brian

From julf at Julf.com  Tue Apr 16 02:21:17 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:21:17 +0200
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <da81eefd-a197-4e65-b34e-b1e49c80f681@gmail.com>
References: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>
 <da81eefd-a197-4e65-b34e-b1e49c80f681@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bebffaf7-1157-440b-91f2-f0ec0b83b844@Julf.com>

On 16/04/2024 07:46, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> Especially - bits can be duplicated and retransmitted at low cost;
> furniture can't.

In my last home move, a lot of the furniture ended up in bits...

	Julf



From matthias at baerwolff.de  Tue Apr 16 04:31:15 2024
From: matthias at baerwolff.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Matthias_B=C3=A4rwolff?=)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:31:15 +0200
Subject: [ih] Robustness Principle and End-to-End Principle
In-Reply-To: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CABy8LgE9tUCB6QbZp2tpDou4JrQi_vZksg0ejkLmG9+1ZvwMrQ@mail.gmail.com>

Pages 10ff. in http://baerwolff.de/publications/2010-10-PhD-thesis.html
look at the history of the argument prior to the 1981 Satzer et al. paper.
It finds that in the early 1960s with Baran there's already a good deal of
formalization which took a fairly elaborate shape with the literature
surrounding the Arpanet by 1970.

?Matthias

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:13?AM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I am looking into the history of the Robustness Principle and the
> End-to-End Principle.  I have found 2 significant dates.  One is the
> mention of the Robustness Principle in RFC 761(DoD TCP Spec) dated 1980,
> and the paper dated 1981 by Jerry Seltzer, David Reed, and Dave Clark on
> the End-to-End Principle.  I am trying to go earlier than those dates.
> These principles guided the work in the 70s so I am looking for information
> about that time period (or earlier?) and these principles.  Any thoughts,
> recollections, or references?, including dates/timeframes, greatly
> appreciated.
> barbara
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Tue Apr 16 05:28:25 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 05:28:25 -0700
Subject: [ih] Robustness Principle and End-to-End Principle
In-Reply-To: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1408513024.10527655.1713222668624@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <afe98f56-df42-4f0b-bcf8-199d7d5440f9@dcrocker.net>

On 4/15/2024 4:11 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> I am looking into the history of the Robustness Principle and the End-to-End Principle.

Just to add this to the mix:

    A critical review of "End-to-end arguments in system design"
    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/997043

 ?d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From jack at 3kitty.org  Tue Apr 16 12:30:29 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:30:29 -0700
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <bebffaf7-1157-440b-91f2-f0ec0b83b844@Julf.com>
References: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>
 <da81eefd-a197-4e65-b34e-b1e49c80f681@gmail.com>
 <bebffaf7-1157-440b-91f2-f0ec0b83b844@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <301e8873-bfa2-422c-8450-3aff3e877047@3kitty.org>

On 4/16/24 02:21, Johan Helsingius via Internet-history wrote:
> On 16/04/2024 07:46, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>> Especially - bits can be duplicated and retransmitted at low cost;
>> furniture can't.
>
> In my last home move, a lot of the furniture ended up in bits...
>
> ????Julf
>

I agree that analogies have a limit.?? But even "stuff", like furniture, 
can be and is retransmitted.?? Occasionally when I receive a package 
that has been mauled in transit, I report it to the sender, who usually 
promptly sends me another one.? No doubt insurance companies might be 
involved too, who investigate who to blame and allocate costs 
accordingly.?? My "packet drop rate" for packages is very small but 
non-zero, and the "error detection" is done by me at the endpoint.?? If 
the box arrives with a hole in it, extra inspection is warranted.?? I 
suspect also that if a "drop rate" climbs, the sender makes changes to 
its packaging and shipping processes to get the losses back down to an 
acceptable level.

In the Internet universe, it was useful to be able to monitor such 
packet (errr, datagram) behavior.?? SNMP mechanisms were defined long 
ago to glean data from TCP endpoints, where statistics about drops, 
duplicates, retransmissions, checksum failures, and such were accessible.

When I was involved, 30 years ago, in operating a corporate internet 
(intranet), we actually gathered such data especially when trying to 
figure out incidents reported by users' complaints such as "the net is 
really slow today".?? I recall instances where we used that data to 
isolate error-prone, but still functional, circuits. Transpacific 
circuits were especially problematic, at least 30 years ago.?? In other 
cases, we sometimes found bugs in a vendor's TCP implementation.?? You 
can't trust that an implementation actually behaves as the RFC 
specifications dictate.? TCP's robustness is actually a detriment in 
such situations.?? TCP's mechanisms keep data flowing, but also hide 
problems until they become very severe.

I also recall an Internet meeting, back in the 80s, where we debated the 
question "What should be the "normal" drop rate for IP datagrams"??? 
Someone eventually shouted out "One percent", and the group quickly 
reached a consensus.?? No analysis, no OR, no equations or models were 
involved.? It just seemed right to the group.

I'm glad to see that there has been some work to apply science such as 
Operations Research to the Internet world.? I remember from my short 
exposure to OR that it was often used to improve decision-making.? 
Decisions might where to add a new airline route, or whether to expand 
an existing manufacturing plant capacity or build a new plant somewhere, 
and where to build it.? In operating a distributed system, there are 
many such decisions to be made - such as what is a "normal" drop rate 
for IP datagrams.?? Or perhaps "How long can a datagram be in transit 
before the Internet is considered broken for that user?"

During my stint as a network operator, we never could find the "How to 
Operate Your Internet" manual.? Decisions were made largely by instinct 
and intuition rather than scientific analysis.

Some of our decisions were made using economic data, which was the only 
data readily available.? For example, there was considerable demand for 
traffic between our sites in Europe.? In one case, two offices could 
actually almost see each other across a river.?? But they were in 
different countries and cross-boundary circuits were extremely 
expensive.?? At least at the time, it was much cheaper to run a circuit 
from each country (in Europe) to New York City.?? So all traffic, almost 
line-of-sight "across the river" in Europe, actually crossed the 
Atlantic, twice.? That greatly increased latency, but in those days we 
weren't doing things like Zoom so it wasn't an issue.

How are such decisions reached today in the Internet?? What's the 
process for deciding where to put an IXP?? Or where to run a new fiber?? 
Or where to put your equipment to build a cloud??? Or how to select 
which ISP to connect your house or office to the Internet?

Perhaps someone has insight into how such decisions are performed today 
in the Internet, how scientific methods such as OR are used, and how 
such decision processes have changed over the 50 years of Internet 
evolution.? Then compare to how its done in other environments such as 
transportation of goods.? This might make a good topic for some 
university thesis.

Jack Haverty

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240416/43352915/attachment.asc>

From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Tue Apr 16 21:37:19 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:37:19 -0700
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <301e8873-bfa2-422c-8450-3aff3e877047@3kitty.org>
References: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>
 <da81eefd-a197-4e65-b34e-b1e49c80f681@gmail.com>
 <bebffaf7-1157-440b-91f2-f0ec0b83b844@Julf.com>
 <301e8873-bfa2-422c-8450-3aff3e877047@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <57251A54-A68A-4ED0-A33B-94631E2CB81B@icloud.com>

On Apr 16, 2024, at 12:30?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> Perhaps someone has insight into how such decisions are performed today in the Internet, how scientific methods such as OR are used, and how such decision processes have changed over the 50 years of Internet evolution.  Then compare to how its done in other environments such as transportation of goods.  This might make a good topic for some university thesis.
> 
> Jack Haverty

I did a bit more googling, this time for [site:nanog.org ''combinatorial optimization''], which turned up a presentation from NANOG 52 on network planning and traffic engineering. [1]   It mentions a tool called pmacct [2] that can take various types of network data that are usable for further analysis.  Perhaps if you searched more of the network operations and measurement web sites, you?d find more of the OR-related work you?re looking for.  It seems to me that a fair amount of this type of work is being done, but if one is not part of those teams, it?s necessary to seek out the individuals belonging to those teams and places where it?s practiced.

--gregbo

[1] https://archive.nanog.org/meetings/nanog52/presentations/Sunday/maghbouleh-bestpractices-tutorial.pdf
[2] http://www.pmacct.net

From jack at 3kitty.org  Wed Apr 17 20:36:14 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:36:14 -0700
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <57251A54-A68A-4ED0-A33B-94631E2CB81B@icloud.com>
References: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>
 <da81eefd-a197-4e65-b34e-b1e49c80f681@gmail.com>
 <bebffaf7-1157-440b-91f2-f0ec0b83b844@Julf.com>
 <301e8873-bfa2-422c-8450-3aff3e877047@3kitty.org>
 <57251A54-A68A-4ED0-A33B-94631E2CB81B@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <f3756e23-8ac7-43a7-b3af-560552da66a9@3kitty.org>

Thanks, Greg - I agree that there's lots of tools, papers, and 
information within the communities of network operators about today's 
experiences in operating parts of the Internet.? A year or so ago, I 
even gave a keynote talk at one of their conferences - APRICOT2022.

What I was seeking was more of the history of network operations, 
ideally from people who have actually been involved in operating such 
networks.?? Not just today's practices, procedures, tools and 
techniques, but also past practices in operating the Internet, and how 
they might have evolved over the 40+ years on Internet operations.

In the days of the later Arpanet, I was "Chief Network Architect" at 
BBN, where we were not only continuing to operate the Arpanet, but also 
implementing the same technology in the DDN and many other networks.? In 
those days (mid-late 1980s) at BBN there was a fairly large group of 
mathematicians who did extensive collection of data about network 
operations, and used it to make decisions such as where to place a new 
node, what capacity lines to interconnect and where to do so, and what 
changes to internal algorithms would have when fully deployed.? They 
also had techniqus to project traffic changes , such as when a new large 
user or application was to be brought online, in order to get necessary 
equipment and circuit changes in place to accommodate the new traffic.

In contrast, I was personally involved in operating internets, first 
when the research Internet was declared to be operational and later when 
working with an international corporate internet.? As I noted earlier, 
most of our decisions were made by instinct and intuition, using 
whatever tools we could find or build and with no "operating manual" to 
be found.?? The Internet was and is much more complicated than the 
Arpanet, so the earlier tools and techniques didn't readily apply.? We 
knew how to operate and manage the Arpanet and its clones; we didn't 
know how to do the same for the Internet.

So, for the sake of history, I was hoping that perhaps there were other 
people lurking on this list who may have been involved over the last 3 
decades or so in operating some piece of the Internet or corporate net 
using the same technology, and could comment on their experience - how 
they made decisions, how they collected data to inform such decisions, 
what tools were used, etc.

There's been a lot of discussion on this list of the history of the 
technology as captured in things like RFCs, algorithms, and protocols.?? 
But there's often a huge gap between documentations and specifications 
and actual practice in the field.? I haven't seen much discussion of the 
operations aspect of the Internet and how it has changed over the years.

Jack Haverty

On 4/16/24 21:37, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2024, at 12:30?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>> Perhaps someone has insight into how such decisions are performed today in the Internet, how scientific methods such as OR are used, and how such decision processes have changed over the 50 years of Internet evolution.  Then compare to how its done in other environments such as transportation of goods.  This might make a good topic for some university thesis.
>>
>> Jack Haverty
> I did a bit more googling, this time for [site:nanog.org ''combinatorial optimization''], which turned up a presentation from NANOG 52 on network planning and traffic engineering. [1]   It mentions a tool called pmacct [2] that can take various types of network data that are usable for further analysis.  Perhaps if you searched more of the network operations and measurement web sites, you?d find more of the OR-related work you?re looking for.  It seems to me that a fair amount of this type of work is being done, but if one is not part of those teams, it?s necessary to seek out the individuals belonging to those teams and places where it?s practiced.
>
> --gregbo
>
> [1]https://archive.nanog.org/meetings/nanog52/presentations/Sunday/maghbouleh-bestpractices-tutorial.pdf
> [2]http://www.pmacct.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240417/4c47a43e/attachment.asc>

From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Thu Apr 18 17:37:19 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 17:37:19 -0700
Subject: [ih] Speaking of layering and gateways
In-Reply-To: <f3756e23-8ac7-43a7-b3af-560552da66a9@3kitty.org>
References: <20240416030459.234E388842DA@ary.qy>
 <da81eefd-a197-4e65-b34e-b1e49c80f681@gmail.com>
 <bebffaf7-1157-440b-91f2-f0ec0b83b844@Julf.com>
 <301e8873-bfa2-422c-8450-3aff3e877047@3kitty.org>
 <57251A54-A68A-4ED0-A33B-94631E2CB81B@icloud.com>
 <f3756e23-8ac7-43a7-b3af-560552da66a9@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <D5BC653A-F22D-4C3F-9C89-68CAA2735F17@icloud.com>

On Apr 17, 2024, at 8:36?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Greg - I agree that there's lots of tools, papers, and information within the communities of network operators about today's experiences in operating parts of the Internet.  A year or so ago, I even gave a keynote talk at one of their conferences - APRICOT2022.
> 
> What I was seeking was more of the history of network operations, ideally from people who have actually been involved in operating such networks.   Not just today's practices, procedures, tools and techniques, but also past practices in operating the Internet, and how they might have evolved over the 40+ years on Internet operations.

OK ? I did a bit more googling, and came up with a name you (and others) might remember, Charles Eldridge.  At the first post-GADS IETF meeting in 1986, he gave a presentation about applying Multi-Objective Optimization to (Inter)networking. [1] He also gave a presentation at an INARC meeting in 1989 on the pros and cons of stateful gateways. [2] Is he the type of person you?re thinking of, who would be considered a peer of the mathematicians at BBN who employed OR to do network capacity planning, etc.?

You might also look through some of Geoff Huston?s reports from the 1990s.  One, ``The Architecture and Design of the Network??, [3] has a section on network operations that might interest you.

> So, for the sake of history, I was hoping that perhaps there were other people lurking on this list who may have been involved over the last 3 decades or so in operating some piece of the Internet or corporate net using the same technology, and could comment on their experience - how they made decisions, how they collected data to inform such decisions, what tools were used, etc.
> 
> There's been a lot of discussion on this list of the history of the technology as captured in things like RFCs, algorithms, and protocols.   But there's often a huge gap between documentations and specifications and actual practice in the field.  I haven't seen much discussion of the operations aspect of the Internet and how it has changed over the years.
> 
> Jack Haverty

It occurred to me that there are people on the list such as Ross Callon who might also have some input on this topic, but might be having trouble sending mail to the list due to the problems you and others have discussed recently.

--gregbo

[1] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01.pdf 
[2] https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/database/papers/inarc.pdf
[3] https://www.potaroo.net/papers/1994-6-wkshp/wkshp7.html



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Apr 19 18:33:19 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 21:33:19 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>

All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very unusual for this list. ;-)

So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.

Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is that true?

I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course describes the protocol that became TCP.

Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what it was.

Take care,
John

> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
> 
> Take care,
> John
> 
>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>>> 
>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> John, 
>>>> 
>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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
> 



From matt.mathis at gmail.com  Fri Apr 19 20:57:39 2024
From: matt.mathis at gmail.com (Matt Mathis)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:57:39 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>

Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the beginning
of the thread.    What was your precise question?

Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers that
are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long time,
but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up
depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the
same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such
definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical
evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways
connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the
line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.
 That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.

Thanks,
--MM--
Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
apply it to others.
-------------------------------------------
Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.



On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very
> unusual for this list. ;-)
>
> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>
> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if
> had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
> Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is
> that true?
>
> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time
> discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course
> describes the protocol that became TCP.
>
> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what
> it was.
>
> Take care,
> John
>
> > On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an
> honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
> internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
> answer, but I guess I could.
> >
> > Take care,
> > John
> >
> >> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
> >>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> >>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> >>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
> >>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
> switching.
> >>>
> >>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t
> the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What
> was the solution adopted?
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> John,
> >>>>
> >>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
> end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something
> totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams,
> hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to
> the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> >>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
> internetworking?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history
> of the
> >>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that
> US
> >>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching
> euipment
> >>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
> >>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> >>>>>>> Vint Cerf
> >>>>>>> Google, LLC
> >>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> >>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
> >>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> until further notice
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> 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
> >
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Apr 20 04:31:17 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 07:31:17 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>

In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?

I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.

Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?

Take care,
John

> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
> 
> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.   That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
> 
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to apply it to others. 
> -------------------------------------------
> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very unusual for this list. ;-)
>> 
>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>> 
>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is that true?
>> 
>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course describes the protocol that became TCP.
>> 
>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what it was.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>> > On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
>> > 
>> > Take care,
>> > John
>> > 
>> >> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>> >> 
>> >>> Begin forwarded message:
>> >>> 
>> >>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>> >>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>> >>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>> >>> 
>> >>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>> >>> 
>> >>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>> >>> 
>> >>> John
>> >>> 
>> >>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> John, 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>> >>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>> >>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>> >>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>> >>>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>> >>>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>> >>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>> >>>>>>> Google, LLC
>> >>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>> >>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>> >>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>> >>>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>> until further notice
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> -- 
>> >>>>>> 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
>> >>>>> 
>> >>> 
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> 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



From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Sat Apr 20 08:42:28 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 08:42:28 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <27634ED7-0B12-4A8B-AB99-FCB4457FE62A@gmail.com>

John,

> On Apr 20, 2024, at 4:31?AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> 
> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> 
> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?

It?s made more complicated because the terms used have changed.   The devices we used to connect the Arpanet to Satnet, Packet Radio networks, LANs, in the early 80?s were called Gateways.    Today we could call them Routers.  For example:

Hinden, R., Haverty, J., Sheltzer, A., ?The DARPA Internet: Interconnecting Heterogeneous Computer Networks with Gateways?, Computer, Vol. 12, No. 9, September 1983, pages 38-48.

Bob

> 
> Take care,
> John
> 
>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
>> 
>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.   That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --MM--
>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to apply it to others. 
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very unusual for this list. ;-)
>>> 
>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>>> 
>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is that true?
>>> 
>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>> 
>>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what it was.
>>> 
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
>>>> 
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> John, 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Apr 20 10:02:40 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 13:02:40 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <27634ED7-0B12-4A8B-AB99-FCB4457FE62A@gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <27634ED7-0B12-4A8B-AB99-FCB4457FE62A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5C916470-C001-49A8-9E78-2E0EA0C2E3B4@comcast.net>

Yes, I am aware of that. 

What does that have to do with the solution?

What was the view in, say, 1975 or 76?

Are you also suggesting that the solution was protocol translation?

Or are you suggesting that all of the different networks were data link protocols?

Take care,
John


> On Apr 20, 2024, at 11:42, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 4:31?AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>> 
>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>> 
>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
> 
> It?s made more complicated because the terms used have changed.   The devices we used to connect the Arpanet to Satnet, Packet Radio networks, LANs, in the early 80?s were called Gateways.    Today we could call them Routers.  For example:
> 
> Hinden, R., Haverty, J., Sheltzer, A., ?The DARPA Internet: Interconnecting Heterogeneous Computer Networks with Gateways?, Computer, Vol. 12, No. 9, September 1983, pages 38-48.
> 
> Bob
> 
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
>>> 
>>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.   That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --MM--
>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to apply it to others. 
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very unusual for this list. ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>>>> 
>>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is that true?
>>>> 
>>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>>> 
>>>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what it was.
>>>> 
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> John, 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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
> 



From matt.mathis at gmail.com  Sat Apr 20 10:16:04 2024
From: matt.mathis at gmail.com (Matt Mathis)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:16:04 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CA+s1KQE7BkQw_ehx-Eq-tNGMACK11_3pAzyHTqv4fMvnwD0gBA@mail.gmail.com>

I was answering the wrong question, but I stand by my assertion that
"successive approximation" applies to all of the key concepts, and that it
is a false effort to anoint any particular iteration as the start of the
modern Internet.

In my mind the crucial event was to split TCP and IP into
separate protocols, such that there was deep architectural enforcement of
the hourglass and the orthogonality of the upper and lower protocol
layers.   This orthogonality means that the cost of  maintaining M
applications over N link types scales as O(M)+O(N).  Half of the IETF
worked up the stack, and half worked down the stack.  The overlap was
almost entirely about annealing the semantics of TCP/IP itself.

As far as I am aware, all Internet technologies that enable applications to
interact with the lower layers have died, because they introduce costs that
scale O(M*N).   It remains to be seen if L4S introduces a small enough
delta where it can become part of the hourglass,    (IPv6 introduced a
"double neck" ... and still has not fully deployed.   Its costs scale as
O(2M)+O(2N) during the "transition" ).

IMHO The hourglass and orthogonality of upper and lower stacks is the
reason that the big I Internet crushed all competing technologies.

The TCP/IP split happened before my time.   It would be interesting to know
more about that event.

Thanks,
--MM--
Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
apply it to others.
-------------------------------------------
Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.



On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 4:31?AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
> multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was
> arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>
> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in
> hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>
> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol
> translation at the gateways?
>
> Take care,
> John
>
> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
> beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
>
> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers
> that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long
> time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up
> depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the
> same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such
> definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical
> evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways
> connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the
> line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.
>  That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
> to apply it to others.
> -------------------------------------------
> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very
>> unusual for this list. ;-)
>>
>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>>
>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if
>> had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
>> Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is
>> that true?
>>
>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time
>> discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course
>> describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>
>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what
>> it was.
>>
>> Take care,
>> John
>>
>> > On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is
>> an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
>> internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
>> answer, but I guess I could.
>> >
>> > Take care,
>> > John
>> >
>> >> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>> >>
>> >>> Begin forwarded message:
>> >>>
>> >>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>> >>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>> >>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com>
>> >>>
>> >>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
>> switching.
>> >>>
>> >>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t
>> the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What
>> was the solution adopted?
>> >>>
>> >>> John
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> John,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
>> end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something
>> totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams,
>> hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to
>> the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
>> jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> >>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
>> internetworking?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history
>> of the
>> >>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
>> that US
>> >>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching
>> euipment
>> >>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf via Internet-history, <
>> >>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>> >>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>> >>>>>>> Google, LLC
>> >>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>> >>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>> >>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> until further notice
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> 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
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>
>


From lk at cs.ucla.edu  Sat Apr 20 13:40:09 2024
From: lk at cs.ucla.edu (Leonard Kleinrock)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 13:40:09 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CA+s1KQE7BkQw_ehx-Eq-tNGMACK11_3pAzyHTqv4fMvnwD0gBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQE7BkQw_ehx-Eq-tNGMACK11_3pAzyHTqv4fMvnwD0gBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8F45AC88-E225-42EC-996D-ED2292BD7C67@cs.ucla.edu>

Matt,

In response to your excellent query "The TCP/IP split happened before my time.   It would be interesting to know
more about that event.?, I expect you know, but in case not, as far as I recall,  there were folks who were pushing for real-time traffic support and thus to split IP from TCP early on.  In particular, I recall the work of Danny Cohen, et al, and his work on Network Voice Protocol (up and running in 1973) and his promoting the split.  For example, here is a video of Danny discussing the early days and the history of real time voice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4.

Len


> On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:16?AM, Matt Mathis via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I was answering the wrong question, but I stand by my assertion that
> "successive approximation" applies to all of the key concepts, and that it
> is a false effort to anoint any particular iteration as the start of the
> modern Internet.
> 
> In my mind the crucial event was to split TCP and IP into
> separate protocols, such that there was deep architectural enforcement of
> the hourglass and the orthogonality of the upper and lower protocol
> layers.   This orthogonality means that the cost of  maintaining M
> applications over N link types scales as O(M)+O(N).  Half of the IETF
> worked up the stack, and half worked down the stack.  The overlap was
> almost entirely about annealing the semantics of TCP/IP itself.
> 
> As far as I am aware, all Internet technologies that enable applications to
> interact with the lower layers have died, because they introduce costs that
> scale O(M*N).   It remains to be seen if L4S introduces a small enough
> delta where it can become part of the hourglass,    (IPv6 introduced a
> "double neck" ... and still has not fully deployed.   Its costs scale as
> O(2M)+O(2N) during the "transition" ).
> 
> IMHO The hourglass and orthogonality of upper and lower stacks is the
> reason that the big I Internet crushed all competing technologies.
> 
> The TCP/IP split happened before my time.   It would be interesting to know
> more about that event.
> 
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
> apply it to others.
> -------------------------------------------
> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 4:31?AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
>> multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was
>> arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>> 
>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in
>> hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>> 
>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol
>> translation at the gateways?
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
>> beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
>> 
>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers
>> that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long
>> time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up
>> depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the
>> same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such
>> definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical
>> evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways
>> connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the
>> line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.
>> That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --MM--
>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
>> to apply it to others.
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very
>>> unusual for this list. ;-)
>>> 
>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>>> 
>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if
>>> had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
>>> Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is
>>> that true?
>>> 
>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time
>>> discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course
>>> describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>> 
>>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what
>>> it was.
>>> 
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is
>>> an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
>>> internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
>>> answer, but I guess I could.
>>>> 
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
>>> switching.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t
>>> the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What
>>> was the solution adopted?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
>>> end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something
>>> totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams,
>>> hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to
>>> the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:
>>> jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
>>> internetworking?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history
>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
>>> that US
>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching
>>> euipment
>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Apr 20 14:07:47 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:07:47 +1200
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990@gmail.com>

On 20-Apr-24 23:31, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?

It's for Vint to comment, but I have always understood that Pouzin's two 1974 papers were the recipe. If that's not the case, I really don't understand the question. But it's not what they built. IPv4 is one protocol to rule them all.

Of course, we have been exploring a closely related question for 30 years: how to interwork two slightly different technologies. One discussion of that is at this rather alarming URL:
https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4.md .

L. Pouzin, A Proposal for Interconnecting Packet Switching Networks, dated March 1974, presented at Eurocomp, Brunel University, May 1974. (Also INWG60 and Cyclades SCH 527.)

L. Pouzin, Interconnection of Packet Switching Networks, 7th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Supplement, pp. 108-109, 1974.

     Brian

> 
> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> 
> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
> 
> Take care,
> John
> 
>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
>>
>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.   That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --MM--
>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to apply it to others.
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very unusual for this list. ;-)
>>>
>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>>>
>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is that true?
>>>
>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>>
>>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what it was.
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>>>
>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>>>>
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
> 

From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Sat Apr 20 14:39:49 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:39:49 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <5C916470-C001-49A8-9E78-2E0EA0C2E3B4@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <27634ED7-0B12-4A8B-AB99-FCB4457FE62A@gmail.com>
 <5C916470-C001-49A8-9E78-2E0EA0C2E3B4@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4E2DBD77-E19E-4B32-B3B2-881285D1A02A@gmail.com>



> On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:02?AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I am aware of that. 
> 
> What does that have to do with the solution?
> 
> What was the view in, say, 1975 or 76?
> 
> Are you also suggesting that the solution was protocol translation?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that all of the different networks were data link protocols?

No, just that the term Gateway was used differently in the early 1980?s than now.

Bob


> 
> Take care,
> John
> 
> 
>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 11:42, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> John,
>> 
>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 4:31?AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>> 
>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>> 
>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>> 
>> It?s made more complicated because the terms used have changed.   The devices we used to connect the Arpanet to Satnet, Packet Radio networks, LANs, in the early 80?s were called Gateways.    Today we could call them Routers.  For example:
>> 
>> Hinden, R., Haverty, J., Sheltzer, A., ?The DARPA Internet: Interconnecting Heterogeneous Computer Networks with Gateways?, Computer, Vol. 12, No. 9, September 1983, pages 38-48.
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>>> 
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
>>>> 
>>>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.   That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --MM--
>>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to apply it to others. 
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very unusual for this list. ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is that true?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what it was.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> John, 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 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
>> 
> 



From lyman at interisle.net  Sat Apr 20 15:19:54 2024
From: lyman at interisle.net (Lyman Chapin)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:19:54 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990@gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <76069BB2-EB2D-4770-8DD7-D5BFD6574B90@interisle.net>



> On Apr 20, 2024, at 5:07?PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On 20-Apr-24 23:31, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> 
> It's for Vint to comment, but I have always understood that Pouzin's two 1974 papers were the recipe. If that's not the case, I really don't understand the question. But it's not what they built. IPv4 is one protocol to rule them all.

I tried to make a similar point to Brian Berg when he was working on the IEEE TCP/IP Internet Milestone. He didn?t like my comments at all.

> I remain concerned that both the wording of the Plaque Citation and the abstract describing the significance of the technical achievement being proposed attribute to the May 1974 journal paper a concept that it does not in fact include. In that paper Vint and Bob describe the interconnection of multiple packet-switched networks, but they do not introduce the idea that such an interconnection might be considered, architecturally, to be a higher-order entity?a network of networks?with properties different from those of the individual networks interconnected. That concept does appear in INWG 42, in which Louis Pouzin coined the term catenet??an abstract PSN resulting from the juxtaposition of several PSNs.? The phrase ?to form an internet? in the abstract is also misleading, as the 1974 paper does not use the word ?internet? and does not describe the features that an internet might have.
> 


> From: Lyman Chapin <lyman at interisle.net>
> Subject: Re: Ready for Review! - TCP/Internet Milestone Proposal
> Date: November 9, 2023 at 10:50:26?AM EST
> To: Brian Berg <brianberg at gmail.com>
> Cc: Lyman Chapin <lyman at interisle.net>
> 
> Hello Brian -
> 
> A few comments after a first read; maybe more later.
> 
> 1. The following sentence appears in the "abstract describing the significance? section:
> 
> Appearing in May 1974, the paper described the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) that supported the interconnection of multiple packet-switched networks to form an internet.
> 
> A similar sentence appears in the "What is the historical significance of the work? section:
> 
> This paper described the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) that supported the interconnection of multiple packet-switched networks to form an internet.
> 
> Neither the word ?internet? nor the concept of ?an internet? appears in the 1974 paper, which discusses "the interconnection of packet switching networks? but does not consider what that interconnected set of networks might be called, or what it might mean (from the standpoint of network architecture).
> 
> Louis Pouzin used the term ?catenet? to describe what we now call ?an internet? in October 1973:
> 
> In October, Pouzin distributed INWG 42, a tutorial titled ?Interconnection of Packet Switching Networks? that detailed the concepts that were being discussed in INWG. This paper introduced the term catenet (from concatenated network), defined as ?an abstract PSN resulting from the juxtaposition of several PSNs.?
> 
> The first use of the word ?internet? as a shorthand for ?internetwork? is uncertain?the DARPA program was called ?Internetting? and was based on Bob?s concept of "open architecture networking? (1972), but it?s not clear if they used ?internet? to mean what we mean by that word today.
> 
> 2. The citation does not contain the ?...to form an internet? phrase, but it does contain the following:
> 
> This paper described the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) that supported the interconnection of multiple packet-switched networks into a "network of networks.?
> 
> The use of quotation marks implies that the term ?network of networks? appears in the paper referenced. It does not.
> 
> 3. This clause in the ?What is the historical significance of the work? section:
> 
> ...they teamed up to spell out the details of what became TCP/IP.
> 
> ...suggests that TCP, and the description of it in the 1974 paper, arose entirely from the Vint/Bob collaboration. But as we should all know, nothing like this happens in such a neatly delimited vacuum :-) Vint was the editor of the first draft of an International Transmission Protocol (ITP) that was produced at the second INWG meeting (7?8 June 1973) in New York and distributed at the meeting as a set of supplements to INWG 28. Roughly three months after that meeting Vint and Bob distributed INWG 39, which they described as an attempt to collect and integrate the ideas uncovered at the June 1973 INWG meeting, as well as some ideas worked out since then by "various other people? (they specifically named Gary Grossman and G?rard Le Lann). The 1974 paper was an update of INWG 39. While INWG and the other research groups were trying to consolidate and reconcile INWG 39 and INWG 61?leading to INWG 96 in July 1975?DARPA went all in on INWG 39/TCP, and the rest is history...
> 
> I understand that in the ?Milestone? context the nuance that always attends an historical development is hard to convey without enervating the milestone itself, and I do not in any sense disagree with "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Enables the Internet, 1974? as an important milestone. However, it would be unfortunate to promote the already widely-held impression that TCP as a technological achievement was entirely the product of a collaboration between two individuals.
> 
> - Lyman
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3365 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240420/8254659a/attachment.p7s>

From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Apr 20 15:36:41 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 15:36:41 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CA+s1KQE7BkQw_ehx-Eq-tNGMACK11_3pAzyHTqv4fMvnwD0gBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQE7BkQw_ehx-Eq-tNGMACK11_3pAzyHTqv4fMvnwD0gBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ceb9b8a8-46c1-4cc9-9022-ee0f4630dd73@3kitty.org>

On 4/20/24 10:16, Matt Mathis via Internet-history wrote:
> In my mind the crucial event was to split TCP and IP into
> separate protocols, such that there was deep architectural enforcement of
> the hourglass and the orthogonality of the upper and lower protocol
> layers.   This orthogonality means that the cost of  maintaining M
> applications over N link types scales as O(M)+O(N).

Agreed.

FYI, this notion of an "hourglass" with IP at the neck was foreshadowed 
earlier in the design of the basic Arpanet protocols. E.g., the notion 
of a "Network Virtual Terminal" or NVT was the "neck of the hourglass" 
which simplified the MxN problem for connecting all sorts of terminals 
(each with their own characteristics) to all sorts of computers (each 
with its own idea of what a terminal looked like).?? The NVT allowed the 
two groups to work independently to make their components "look like" an 
NVT to the other side of the neck.

That "hourglass" technique became an essential principle of network 
design.?? In the case of terminals, it was a way of interconnecting two 
often disparate worlds, so that, for example, an IBM terminal speaking 
EBCDIC could interact successfully with a TOPS-20 mainframe expecting to 
see terminals using ASCII and RS-232.?? The concept was also used 
elsewhere, e.g., to define various kinds of "network file systems" such 
as NFS.

See, for example, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc318

The introduction of a "neck" also facilitated the creation of other 
"hourglasses", if you could define a way to convert as needed to be 
compatible with the neck's constraints.?? In the case of TCP/IP, that 
enabled the creation of UDP, running directly over IP, as a hopefully 
more appropriate way to carry voice traffic, for which timely delivery 
of as much as possible was more important than getting everything 
delivered.

That diversity also motivated the definition of TOS (Type Of Service), 
anticipating that the underlying IP service might need to handle 
different kinds of traffic in different ways - as soon as someone 
figured out how to do so and there was enough CPU and memory to 
implement it, and metrics within the Internet evolved to use actual 
transit time instead of "hops".

Jack

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240420/394808ce/attachment.asc>

From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sat Apr 20 15:39:41 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 15:39:41 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fwd:  early networking
References: <128036762.1737307.1713652360191@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7B69969A-A82D-45C0-AA19-AF207A3FD534@icloud.com>

Forwarded for Barbara

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Fw: [ih] early networking
> Date: April 20, 2024 at 3:32:40?PM PDT
> To: Greg Skinner <gregskinner0 at icloud.com>
> 
> If this doesn't show up soon on the mailing list, could you send it?  i have tried twice with  mods that i hoped would help
> 
> barbara
> 
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 03:08:24 PM PDT
> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> 
> I haven't quite caught up with all the messages in this thread but if my memory is correct, this work talks about the split.  It used to be available for free if you search at Stanford.  I don't know if the content is different when you buy it from Amazon.
> 
> 
> Gray, Robert M. , "A Survey of Linear Predictive Coding: Part I of Linear Predictive Coding and the Internet Protocol", Foundations and Trends? in Signal Processing: Vol. 3: No. 3, pp 153-202, 2010.
> 
> barbara



From j at shoch.com  Sat Apr 20 16:53:28 2024
From: j at shoch.com (John Shoch)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 16:53:28 -0700
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 53, Issue 28
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1713649218.12360.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
References: <mailman.1.1713649218.12360.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
Message-ID: <CAFrK2dgimv0-JXGXtK6P9ybhsffx_j=TfwtQvkqtYPeMOZEL+A@mail.gmail.com>

Len, et al.,

A few quick comments:

The original TCP, presenting a reliable byte-stream interface, was
certainly an appropriate model for some important early applications:
--Telnet
--FTP (esp. among dissimilar machine or disk architectures)
This was the basis for V.1, V.2, and V.3.

Danny, though, was a passionate advocate that certain real-time
applications (such as voice) did not care about reliable delivery of
out-of-date real-time traffic.
[I can't lay my hands on it now, but he wrote a great parable on this
(maybe called "the butler's dilemma") -- the butler trying to deliver the
daily newspapers to his boss, but they got delayed.  He wanted to deliver
each old paper to be sure the boss read all the news, in sequence;  but he
had to cut out today's weather and paste it on an earlier paper, because he
did not want to deliver old weather forecasts!
Reprinted in Danny's collection of essays, "The World According to
Professor James A. Finnegan: A collection of entertaining essays about
computers, life, the universe, and everything else."  Available at Amazon!]

We ended up aligned with Danny on this question -- formalizing and exposing
the underlying datagram interface -- based on our internetworking
experience implementing Pup at PARC.  There were some important
applications and scenarios which did NOT need a reliable byte-stream, or
which would be penalized by the overhead of establishing a connection and a
byte stream.
A few applications might send one packet and never even expect an answer:
--Bug reports
--Network management reports
--"I'm about to crash or re-start, but here's what I know...."
--Routing table broadcasts
Many specialized applications only needed a simple exchange of a request
and response packet ("connectionless services"):
--What network am I on, and where is the gateway?
--Time and Date server
--Name lookup server
--Mail check
--Authentication server
--Echo test
--Routing table maintenance
--Page-at-a-time disk access (read or write a single page)
Having the datagram interface also made it possible to then build a
reliable *packet*-stream (avoiding the need to process every page into
bytes and back):
--Disk copy among identical machines
--FTP among machines that at least had similar disk architectures

There were many other people who contributed to the discussions that led up
to the split of TCP into IP/TCP (Dave Reed comes to mind), and they all
deserve credit.
Then Vint, Jon P., and hundreds (?) of others pushed V.4 to success.....

John Shoch


On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:40?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. Re: early networking (Leonard Kleinrock)
>    2. Re: early networking (Brian E Carpenter)
>    3. Re: early networking (Bob Hinden)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 13:40:09 -0700
> From: Leonard Kleinrock <lk at cs.ucla.edu>
> To: Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> Cc: Leonard Kleinrock <lk at cs.ucla.edu>, John Day
>         <jeanjour at comcast.net>, Internet-history
>         <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> Message-ID: <8F45AC88-E225-42EC-996D-ED2292BD7C67 at cs.ucla.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
> Matt,
>
> In response to your excellent query "The TCP/IP split happened before my
> time.   It would be interesting to know
> more about that event.?, I expect you know, but in case not, as far as I
> recall,  there were folks who were pushing for real-time traffic support
> and thus to split IP from TCP early on.  In particular, I recall the work
> of Danny Cohen, et al, and his work on Network Voice Protocol (up and
> running in 1973) and his promoting the split.  For example, here is a video
> of Danny discussing the early days and the history of real time voice.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4.
>
> Len
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:16?AM, Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > I was answering the wrong question, but I stand by my assertion that
> > "successive approximation" applies to all of the key concepts, and that
> it
> > is a false effort to anoint any particular iteration as the start of the
> > modern Internet.
> >
> > In my mind the crucial event was to split TCP and IP into
> > separate protocols, such that there was deep architectural enforcement of
> > the hourglass and the orthogonality of the upper and lower protocol
> > layers.   This orthogonality means that the cost of  maintaining M
> > applications over N link types scales as O(M)+O(N).  Half of the IETF
> > worked up the stack, and half worked down the stack.  The overlap was
> > almost entirely about annealing the semantics of TCP/IP itself.
> >
> > As far as I am aware, all Internet technologies that enable applications
> to
> > interact with the lower layers have died, because they introduce costs
> that
> > scale O(M*N).   It remains to be seen if L4S introduces a small enough
> > delta where it can become part of the hourglass,    (IPv6 introduced a
> > "double neck" ... and still has not fully deployed.   Its costs scale as
> > O(2M)+O(2N) during the "transition" ).
> >
> > IMHO The hourglass and orthogonality of upper and lower stacks is the
> > reason that the big I Internet crushed all competing technologies.
> >
> > The TCP/IP split happened before my time.   It would be interesting to
> know
> > more about that event.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --MM--
> > Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
> to
> > apply it to others.
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> > Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 4:31?AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> >
> >> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
> >> multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that
> was
> >> arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> >>
> >> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in
> >> hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> >>
> >> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol
> >> translation at the gateways?
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
> >> beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
> >>
> >> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers
> >> that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a
> long
> >> time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends
> up
> >> depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the
> >> same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such
> >> definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical
> >> evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways
> >> connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing
> the
> >> line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is
> not.
> >> That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --MM--
> >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
> >> to apply it to others.
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
> >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very
> >>> unusual for this list. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no
> facts.
> >>>
> >>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see
> if
> >>> had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
> >>> Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that
> paper. Is
> >>> that true?
> >>>
> >>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time
> >>> discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course
> >>> describes the protocol that became TCP.
> >>>
> >>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand
> what
> >>> it was.
> >>>
> >>> Take care,
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is
> >>> an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
> >>> internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
> >>> answer, but I guess I could.
> >>>>
> >>>> Take care,
> >>>> John
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> >>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
> >>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:
> 6.internet at gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
> >>> switching.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t
> >>> the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem.
> What
> >>> was the solution adopted?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com
> <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
> >>> end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is
> something
> >>> totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and
> telegrams,
> >>> hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of
> Internetworking to
> >>> the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net
> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:
> >>> jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
> >>> internetworking?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history
> <
> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the
> history
> >>> of the
> >>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
> >>> that US
> >>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching
> >>> euipment
> >>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> >>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
> >>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
> >>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> >>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> until further notice
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:07:47 +1200
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> To: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>, Matt Mathis
>         <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> Cc: Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> Message-ID: <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 20-Apr-24 23:31, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
> multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was
> arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>
> It's for Vint to comment, but I have always understood that Pouzin's two
> 1974 papers were the recipe. If that's not the case, I really don't
> understand the question. But it's not what they built. IPv4 is one protocol
> to rule them all.
>
> Of course, we have been exploring a closely related question for 30 years:
> how to interwork two slightly different technologies. One discussion of
> that is at this rather alarming URL:
>
> https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4.md
> .
>
> L. Pouzin, A Proposal for Interconnecting Packet Switching Networks, dated
> March 1974, presented at Eurocomp, Brunel University, May 1974. (Also
> INWG60 and Cyclades SCH 527.)
>
> L. Pouzin, Interconnection of Packet Switching Networks, 7th Hawaii
> International Conference on System Sciences, Supplement, pp. 108-109, 1974.
>
>      Brian
>
> >
> > I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in
> hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> >
> > Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol
> translation at the gateways?
> >
> > Take care,
> > John
> >
> >> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
> beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
> >>
> >> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers
> that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long
> time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up
> depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the
> same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such
> definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical evolution
> of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways connecting
> networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the line between
> between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.   That line
> will move as gateways continue to evolve.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --MM--
> >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> force to apply it to others.
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very
> unusual for this list. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no
> facts.
> >>>
> >>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see
> if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
> Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is
> that true?
> >>>
> >>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends
> time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of
> course describes the protocol that became TCP.
> >>>
> >>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand
> what it was.
> >>>
> >>> Take care,
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is
> an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
> internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
> answer, but I guess I could.
> >>>>
> >>>> Take care,
> >>>> John
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> >>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
> >>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:
> 6.internet at gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
> switching.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t
> the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What
> was the solution adopted?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com
> <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
> end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something
> totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams,
> hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to
> the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net
> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
> internetworking?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the
> history of the
> >>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
> that US
> >>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching
> euipment
> >>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> >>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
> >>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
> >>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> >>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> until further notice
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 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
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:39:49 -0700
> From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com>
> To: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com>, Matt Mathis
>         <matt.mathis at gmail.com>, Internet-history
>         <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> Message-ID: <4E2DBD77-E19E-4B32-B3B2-881285D1A02A at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:02?AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I am aware of that.
> >
> > What does that have to do with the solution?
> >
> > What was the view in, say, 1975 or 76?
> >
> > Are you also suggesting that the solution was protocol translation?
> >
> > Or are you suggesting that all of the different networks were data link
> protocols?
>
> No, just that the term Gateway was used differently in the early 1980?s
> than now.
>
> Bob
>
>
> >
> > Take care,
> > John
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 20, 2024, at 11:42, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> John,
> >>
> >>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 4:31?AM, John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
> multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was
> arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> >>>
> >>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been
> in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> >>>
> >>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence
> protocol translation at the gateways?
> >>
> >> It?s made more complicated because the terms used have changed.   The
> devices we used to connect the Arpanet to Satnet, Packet Radio networks,
> LANs, in the early 80?s were called Gateways.    Today we could call them
> Routers.  For example:
> >>
> >> Hinden, R., Haverty, J., Sheltzer, A., ?The DARPA Internet:
> Interconnecting Heterogeneous Computer Networks with Gateways?, Computer,
> Vol. 12, No. 9, September 1983, pages 38-48.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Take care,
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
> beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
> >>>>
> >>>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have
> answers that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for
> a long time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer
> ends up depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is
> "functionally the same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't
> find such definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical
> evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways
> connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the
> line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.
>  That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> --MM--
> >>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> force to apply it to others.
> >>>> -------------------------------------------
> >>>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> >>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >>>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is
> very unusual for this list. ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no
> facts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to
> see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
> Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is
> that true?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends
> time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of
> course describes the protocol that became TCP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand
> what it was.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Take care,
> >>>>> John
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It
> is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
> internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
> answer, but I guess I could.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Take care,
> >>>>>> John
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> >>>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
> >>>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:
> 6.internet at gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
> switching.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That
> isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem.
> What was the solution adopted?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> John
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <
> 6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
> end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something
> totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams,
> hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to
> the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net
> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
> internetworking?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the
> history of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
> that US
> >>>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph
> switching euipment
> >>>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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 53, Issue 28
> ************************************************
>


From sob at sobco.com  Sat Apr 20 17:01:09 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:01:09 -0400
Subject: [ih] split TCP - (was Re:  early networking)
In-Reply-To: <CAFrK2dgimv0-JXGXtK6P9ybhsffx_j=TfwtQvkqtYPeMOZEL+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1713649218.12360.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <CAFrK2dgimv0-JXGXtK6P9ybhsffx_j=TfwtQvkqtYPeMOZEL+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B6CA966B-AAE1-4C6C-BEEC-8CDBB5FA023E@sobco.com>

this is by "one who was there"

Danny Cohen 

http://www.securitytube.net/video/1978


From cabo at tzi.org  Sat Apr 20 17:09:42 2024
From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 02:09:42 +0200
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <7B69969A-A82D-45C0-AA19-AF207A3FD534@icloud.com>
References: <128036762.1737307.1713652360191@mail.yahoo.com>
 <7B69969A-A82D-45C0-AA19-AF207A3FD534@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <D0349A17-0E78-4612-9310-A994E168BE74@tzi.org>

On 21. Apr 2024, at 00:39, Greg Skinner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> It used to be available for free if you search at Stanford.

Interesting!

https://ee.stanford.edu/~gray/LPCIP-sig-029-ebook.pdf

Chapter 15 (page 99 in PDF, numbered 87 on page), with the discussion of TCP/IP starting in page 109 (97).
A little more in Chapter 16, 20, 24.

Gr??e, Carsten



From gnu at toad.com  Sat Apr 20 17:11:02 2024
From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 17:11:02 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net> 
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>

John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?

Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
their physical medium.  That was TCP/IP.  (It could potentially have been
something else -- but the network effect of early adopters kicked in,
and has been impossible to overcome even today.)

Before TCP/IP got popular, there were protocols that ran on particular
media like PUP (on Ethernet), X.25 (on Euro telco packet networks), RJE
and BITNET (on IBM bisync leased lines), FidoNET (on dialup modems), NCP
(on Arpanet nodes), etc.  If you used that protocol, you were stuck on
that medium forever.  "Protocol translation gateways" could do some dumb
translation, but they always lost the details, because the other end
"knew" what kind of device and medium it thought it was talking to, and
the translated version of some foreign thing never actually matched the
expected model (in the nuances like timing, or support of standardized
but uncommon features).  "The solution" was for customers to learn to
NEVER use those medium-specific protocols.

So by the time I was working on stuff like this at Sun in the 1980s,
nobody serious was designing "Ethernet-only" higher level protocols.
That was too limiting, and was a classic part of the vendor lock-in
strategies that Sun was trying to break (our customers) out of by
adopting standards.  All our stuff ran above IP -- which happened to run
great over Ethernet -- but it also worked over FDDI or over SLIP or PPP
on leased or modem lines.  Or via gateways onto other media, including
radio.  It was "medium-independent".

(Sun made one mistake in that era, designing and using an Ethernet-only
bootstrap protocol called RARP, but the world largely bypassed it and
ended up using BOOTP and DHCP which were based on IP.)

(Ethernet is a great COUNTER-example; the packet format and addressing
structure is unchanged today from the DIX Ethernet standard, though the
physical medium and low level protocol have changed four to six times,
and the communication speeds have increased from 10 Mbit/sec to 800,000
Mbit/sec.  Vendors have pasted over the changes with cheap protocol
translation gateways ("Ethernet switches") that can handle the various
physical speeds and media.  But Ethernet is showing its age around the
edges.  For example, it's hard to keep an 100 Gb/s fiber Ethernet full
of 1500 byte packets, unless you are aggregating thousands of customers'
independent traffic.  Yet trying to use "jumbo frames" or even longer
packets to improve utilization or thruput when squirting terabytes of
scientific data from point A to point B over an Ethernet network is an
exercise fraught with debugging bizarre problems caused by incomplete
and incompatible implementations of this "non-standard extension" of
Ethernet in various vendors' equipment of various generations.)

The standardization of clearly defined interfaces (like IP/TCP) has had
similar cost-reducing and opportunity-enhancing network effects in other
engineering disciplines (like electrical plugs and sockets -- or even
the standardization of weights and measures).  But regional versions
sometimes develop and continue to plague global commerce.  We got lucky
that the whole globe adopted IPv4 unchanged.

	John
	


From sob at sobco.com  Sat Apr 20 17:15:32 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:15:32 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
Message-ID: <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>



> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
> 
> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
> their physical medium. 

and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM 
(or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)

Scott

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Apr 20 17:32:24 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:32:24 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <4E2DBD77-E19E-4B32-B3B2-881285D1A02A@gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <27634ED7-0B12-4A8B-AB99-FCB4457FE62A@gmail.com>
 <5C916470-C001-49A8-9E78-2E0EA0C2E3B4@comcast.net>
 <4E2DBD77-E19E-4B32-B3B2-881285D1A02A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1A06404C-153B-40EB-8F2C-362429D1D992@comcast.net>

No, to which question?

How was it used differently?

> On Apr 20, 2024, at 17:39, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:02?AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, I am aware of that. 
>> 
>> What does that have to do with the solution?
>> 
>> What was the view in, say, 1975 or 76?
>> 
>> Are you also suggesting that the solution was protocol translation?
>> 
>> Or are you suggesting that all of the different networks were data link protocols?
> 
> No, just that the term Gateway was used differently in the early 1980?s than now.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 11:42, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> John,
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 4:31?AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>> 
>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>> 
>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>>> 
>>> It?s made more complicated because the terms used have changed.   The devices we used to connect the Arpanet to Satnet, Packet Radio networks, LANs, in the early 80?s were called Gateways.    Today we could call them Routers.  For example:
>>> 
>>> Hinden, R., Haverty, J., Sheltzer, A., ?The DARPA Internet: Interconnecting Heterogeneous Computer Networks with Gateways?, Computer, Vol. 12, No. 9, September 1983, pages 38-48.
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.   That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> --MM--
>>>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to apply it to others. 
>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>>>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very unusual for this list. ;-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is that true?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what it was.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>>>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>>>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> John, 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>>>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>>>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 



From lk at cs.ucla.edu  Sat Apr 20 20:19:29 2024
From: lk at cs.ucla.edu (Leonard Kleinrock)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 53, Issue 28
In-Reply-To: <CAFrK2dgimv0-JXGXtK6P9ybhsffx_j=TfwtQvkqtYPeMOZEL+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFrK2dgimv0-JXGXtK6P9ybhsffx_j=TfwtQvkqtYPeMOZEL+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <395612884.81646182.1713669569591.JavaMail.zimbra@mail.cs.ucla.edu>

John,
Yes, Danny got it right and always included you and David Reed as champions of real time data transmissions in those early days. 
Best,
Len

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 20, 2024, at 4:53?PM, John Shoch via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?Len, et al.,
> 
> A few quick comments:
> 
> The original TCP, presenting a reliable byte-stream interface, was
> certainly an appropriate model for some important early applications:
> --Telnet
> --FTP (esp. among dissimilar machine or disk architectures)
> This was the basis for V.1, V.2, and V.3.
> 
> Danny, though, was a passionate advocate that certain real-time
> applications (such as voice) did not care about reliable delivery of
> out-of-date real-time traffic.
> [I can't lay my hands on it now, but he wrote a great parable on this
> (maybe called "the butler's dilemma") -- the butler trying to deliver the
> daily newspapers to his boss, but they got delayed. He wanted to deliver
> each old paper to be sure the boss read all the news, in sequence; but he
> had to cut out today's weather and paste it on an earlier paper, because he
> did not want to deliver old weather forecasts!
> Reprinted in Danny's collection of essays, "The World According to
> Professor James A. Finnegan: A collection of entertaining essays about
> computers, life, the universe, and everything else." Available at Amazon!]
> 
> We ended up aligned with Danny on this question -- formalizing and exposing
> the underlying datagram interface -- based on our internetworking
> experience implementing Pup at PARC. There were some important
> applications and scenarios which did NOT need a reliable byte-stream, or
> which would be penalized by the overhead of establishing a connection and a
> byte stream.
> A few applications might send one packet and never even expect an answer:
> --Bug reports
> --Network management reports
> --"I'm about to crash or re-start, but here's what I know...."
> --Routing table broadcasts
> Many specialized applications only needed a simple exchange of a request
> and response packet ("connectionless services"):
> --What network am I on, and where is the gateway?
> --Time and Date server
> --Name lookup server
> --Mail check
> --Authentication server
> --Echo test
> --Routing table maintenance
> --Page-at-a-time disk access (read or write a single page)
> Having the datagram interface also made it possible to then build a
> reliable *packet*-stream (avoiding the need to process every page into
> bytes and back):
> --Disk copy among identical machines
> --FTP among machines that at least had similar disk architectures
> 
> There were many other people who contributed to the discussions that led up
> to the split of TCP into IP/TCP (Dave Reed comes to mind), and they all
> deserve credit.
> Then Vint, Jon P., and hundreds (?) of others pushed V.4 to success.....
> 
> John Shoch
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:40?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. Re: early networking (Leonard Kleinrock)
> > 2. Re: early networking (Brian E Carpenter)
> > 3. Re: early networking (Bob Hinden)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 13:40:09 -0700
> > From: Leonard Kleinrock <lk at cs.ucla.edu>
> > To: Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Leonard Kleinrock <lk at cs.ucla.edu>, John Day
> > <jeanjour at comcast.net>, Internet-history
> > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> > Message-ID: <8F45AC88-E225-42EC-996D-ED2292BD7C67 at cs.ucla.edu>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> > In response to your excellent query "The TCP/IP split happened before my
> > time. It would be interesting to know
> > more about that event.?, I expect you know, but in case not, as far as I
> > recall, there were folks who were pushing for real-time traffic support
> > and thus to split IP from TCP early on. In particular, I recall the work
> > of Danny Cohen, et al, and his work on Network Voice Protocol (up and
> > running in 1973) and his promoting the split. For example, here is a video
> > of Danny discussing the early days and the history of real time voice.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4.
> >
> > Len
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:16?AM, Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was answering the wrong question, but I stand by my assertion that
> > > "successive approximation" applies to all of the key concepts, and that
> > it
> > > is a false effort to anoint any particular iteration as the start of the
> > > modern Internet.
> > >
> > > In my mind the crucial event was to split TCP and IP into
> > > separate protocols, such that there was deep architectural enforcement of
> > > the hourglass and the orthogonality of the upper and lower protocol
> > > layers. This orthogonality means that the cost of maintaining M
> > > applications over N link types scales as O(M)+O(N). Half of the IETF
> > > worked up the stack, and half worked down the stack. The overlap was
> > > almost entirely about annealing the semantics of TCP/IP itself.
> > >
> > > As far as I am aware, all Internet technologies that enable applications
> > to
> > > interact with the lower layers have died, because they introduce costs
> > that
> > > scale O(M*N). It remains to be seen if L4S introduces a small enough
> > > delta where it can become part of the hourglass, (IPv6 introduced a
> > > "double neck" ... and still has not fully deployed. Its costs scale as
> > > O(2M)+O(2N) during the "transition" ).
> > >
> > > IMHO The hourglass and orthogonality of upper and lower stacks is the
> > > reason that the big I Internet crushed all competing technologies.
> > >
> > > The TCP/IP split happened before my time. It would be interesting to
> > know
> > > more about that event.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --MM--
> > > Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
> > to
> > > apply it to others.
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > > Matt Mathis (Email is best)
> > > Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 4:31?AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> > jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
> > >> multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that
> > was
> > >> arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> > >>
> > >> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in
> > >> hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> > >>
> > >> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol
> > >> translation at the gateways?
> > >>
> > >> Take care,
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
> > >> beginning of the thread. What was your precise question?
> > >>
> > >> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers
> > >> that are successive approximations. i.e. The ideas were around for a
> > long
> > >> time, but didn't really work in the early days. The final answer ends
> > up
> > >> depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the
> > >> same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not. I don't find such
> > >> definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical
> > >> evolution of a concept is fascinating. e.g. the evolution of gateways
> > >> connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting. Drawing
> > the
> > >> line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is
> > not.
> > >> That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> --MM--
> > >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
> > >> to apply it to others.
> > >> -------------------------------------------
> > >> Matt Mathis (Email is best)
> > >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
> > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question. That is very
> > >>> unusual for this list. ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no
> > facts.
> > >>>
> > >>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see
> > if
> > >>> had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
> > >>> Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that
> > paper. Is
> > >>> that true?
> > >>>
> > >>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time
> > >>> discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course
> > >>> describes the protocol that became TCP.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is one of these insight to the solution? Just trying to understand
> > what
> > >>> it was.
> > >>>
> > >>> Take care,
> > >>> John
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> > jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this. It is
> > >>> an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
> > >>> internetworking was? I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
> > >>> answer, but I guess I could.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Take care,
> > >>>> John
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
> > >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> > >>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
> > >>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:
> > 6.internet at gmail.com>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
> > >>> switching.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years. That isn?t
> > >>> the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem.
> > What
> > >>> was the solution adopted?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> John
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com
> > <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> John,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
> > >>> end-to-end free, open about telegrams. OUR "InterNetWorks" is
> > something
> > >>> totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and
> > telegrams,
> > >>> hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of
> > Internetworking to
> > >>> the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net
> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:
> > >>> jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
> > >>> internetworking?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via Internet-history
> > <
> > >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > >>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the
> > history
> > >>> of the
> > >>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
> > >>> that US
> > >>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching
> > >>> euipment
> > >>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
> > >>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
> > >>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> > >>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> until further notice
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:07:47 +1200
> > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> > To: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>, Matt Mathis
> > <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> > Message-ID: <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990 at gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> >
> > On 20-Apr-24 23:31, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > > In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
> > multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was
> > arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> >
> > It's for Vint to comment, but I have always understood that Pouzin's two
> > 1974 papers were the recipe. If that's not the case, I really don't
> > understand the question. But it's not what they built. IPv4 is one protocol
> > to rule them all.
> >
> > Of course, we have been exploring a closely related question for 30 years:
> > how to interwork two slightly different technologies. One discussion of
> > that is at this rather alarming URL:
> >
> > https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4.md
> > .
> >
> > L. Pouzin, A Proposal for Interconnecting Packet Switching Networks, dated
> > March 1974, presented at Eurocomp, Brunel University, May 1974. (Also
> > INWG60 and Cyclades SCH 527.)
> >
> > L. Pouzin, Interconnection of Packet Switching Networks, 7th Hawaii
> > International Conference on System Sciences, Supplement, pp. 108-109, 1974.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > >
> > > I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in
> > hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> > >
> > > Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol
> > translation at the gateways?
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > John
> > >
> > >> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
> > beginning of the thread. What was your precise question?
> > >>
> > >> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers
> > that are successive approximations. i.e. The ideas were around for a long
> > time, but didn't really work in the early days. The final answer ends up
> > depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the
> > same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not. I don't find such
> > definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical evolution
> > of a concept is fascinating. e.g. the evolution of gateways connecting
> > networks over thousands of years is interesting. Drawing the line between
> > between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not. That line
> > will move as gateways continue to evolve.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> --MM--
> > >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> > force to apply it to others.
> > >> -------------------------------------------
> > >> Matt Mathis (Email is best)
> > >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> > wrote:
> > >>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question. That is very
> > unusual for this list. ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no
> > facts.
> > >>>
> > >>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see
> > if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
> > Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is
> > that true?
> > >>>
> > >>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends
> > time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of
> > course describes the protocol that became TCP.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is one of these insight to the solution? Just trying to understand
> > what it was.
> > >>>
> > >>> Take care,
> > >>> John
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> > jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this. It is
> > an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
> > internetworking was? I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
> > answer, but I guess I could.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Take care,
> > >>>> John
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> > >>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
> > >>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:
> > 6.internet at gmail.com>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
> > switching.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years. That isn?t
> > the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What
> > was the solution adopted?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> John
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com
> > <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> John,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
> > end-to-end free, open about telegrams. OUR "InterNetWorks" is something
> > totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams,
> > hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to
> > the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net
> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> > jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
> > internetworking?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the
> > history of the
> > >>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
> > that US
> > >>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching
> > euipment
> > >>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
> > >>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
> > >>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> > >>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> until further notice
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> 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
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:39:49 -0700
> > From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com>
> > To: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> > Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com>, Matt Mathis
> > <matt.mathis at gmail.com>, Internet-history
> > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> > Message-ID: <4E2DBD77-E19E-4B32-B3B2-881285D1A02A at gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:02?AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I am aware of that.
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with the solution?
> > >
> > > What was the view in, say, 1975 or 76?
> > >
> > > Are you also suggesting that the solution was protocol translation?
> > >
> > > Or are you suggesting that all of the different networks were data link
> > protocols?
> >
> > No, just that the term Gateway was used differently in the early 1980?s
> > than now.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Apr 20, 2024, at 11:42, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> John,
> > >>
> > >>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 4:31?AM, John Day via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
> > multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was
> > arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> > >>>
> > >>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been
> > in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> > >>>
> > >>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence
> > protocol translation at the gateways?
> > >>
> > >> It?s made more complicated because the terms used have changed. The
> > devices we used to connect the Arpanet to Satnet, Packet Radio networks,
> > LANs, in the early 80?s were called Gateways. Today we could call them
> > Routers. For example:
> > >>
> > >> Hinden, R., Haverty, J., Sheltzer, A., ?The DARPA Internet:
> > Interconnecting Heterogeneous Computer Networks with Gateways?, Computer,
> > Vol. 12, No. 9, September 1983, pages 38-48.
> > >>
> > >> Bob
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Take care,
> > >>> John
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
> > beginning of the thread. What was your precise question?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have
> > answers that are successive approximations. i.e. The ideas were around for
> > a long time, but didn't really work in the early days. The final answer
> > ends up depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is
> > "functionally the same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not. I don't
> > find such definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical
> > evolution of a concept is fascinating. e.g. the evolution of gateways
> > connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting. Drawing the
> > line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.
> > That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> --MM--
> > >>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> > force to apply it to others.
> > >>>> -------------------------------------------
> > >>>> Matt Mathis (Email is best)
> > >>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question. That is
> > very unusual for this list. ;-)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no
> > facts.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to
> > see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
> > Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is
> > that true?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends
> > time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of
> > course describes the protocol that became TCP.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is one of these insight to the solution? Just trying to understand
> > what it was.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Take care,
> > >>>>> John
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> > jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this. It
> > is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
> > internetworking was? I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
> > answer, but I guess I could.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Take care,
> > >>>>>> John
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
> > >>>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
> > >>>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:
> > 6.internet at gmail.com>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
> > switching.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years. That
> > isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem.
> > What was the solution adopted?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> John
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <
> > 6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> John,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
> > end-to-end free, open about telegrams. OUR "InterNetWorks" is something
> > totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams,
> > hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to
> > the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net
> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:
> > jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
> > internetworking?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the
> > history of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
> > that US
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph
> > switching euipment
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> 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
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > 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 53, Issue 28
> > ************************************************
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sat Apr 20 23:10:05 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:10:05 -0700
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 53, Issue 28
In-Reply-To: <CAFrK2dgimv0-JXGXtK6P9ybhsffx_j=TfwtQvkqtYPeMOZEL+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1713649218.12360.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <CAFrK2dgimv0-JXGXtK6P9ybhsffx_j=TfwtQvkqtYPeMOZEL+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AC77652B-59A4-4C55-AA73-799DB99951DA@icloud.com>

On Apr 20, 2024, at 4:53?PM, John Shoch via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> There were many other people who contributed to the discussions that led up
> to the split of TCP into IP/TCP (Dave Reed comes to mind), and they all
> deserve credit.
> Then Vint, Jon P., and hundreds (?) of others pushed V.4 to success.....
> 
> John Shoch

Speaking of Dave Reed, he was part of an email exchange about the separation of TCP and IP that was posted to this list by Ian Peter of nethistory dot info about twenty years ago. [1]

--gregbo

[1] https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2004-September/000428.html



From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sun Apr 21 05:36:15 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 08:36:15 -0400
Subject: [ih] split TCP - (was Re: early networking)
In-Reply-To: <B6CA966B-AAE1-4C6C-BEEC-8CDBB5FA023E@sobco.com>
References: <mailman.1.1713649218.12360.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <CAFrK2dgimv0-JXGXtK6P9ybhsffx_j=TfwtQvkqtYPeMOZEL+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6CA966B-AAE1-4C6C-BEEC-8CDBB5FA023E@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_XuRdo7ok+boV0nnSzO02WNFQAtLvgeNus=B69o8NT1bw@mail.gmail.com>

this is a wonderful speech by Danny in his unique Israeli accent. He must
have been about age 73 when he gave this talk as he was born in 1937. He
developed Parkinson's which eventually took him from us in 2019.

A 3 hour festschrift for Danny can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyt-slBHFJM&t=2s
It will be obvious how much his colleagues loved and honored him if you
take time to watch any of it.

vint

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:01?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> this is by "one who was there"
>
> Danny Cohen
>
> http://www.securitytube.net/video/1978
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From agmalis at gmail.com  Sun Apr 21 06:02:10 2024
From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:02:10 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>

Scott,

ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs
2225, 2492, and 2684.

Cheers,
Andy


On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
> multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was
> arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> >> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in
> hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> >> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol
> translation at the gateways?
> >
> > Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
> > that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
> > their physical medium.
>
> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over
> ATM
> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>
> Scott
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From sob at sobco.com  Sun Apr 21 06:10:18 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:10:18 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>

yes but...

the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and most of IP
i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should assume they were
running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features (e.g., ABR)

ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)

Scott



> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Scott,
> 
> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > 
> > John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> >> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
> >> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
> > 
> > Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
> > that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
> > their physical medium. 
> 
> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM 
> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
> 
> Scott
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From aam3sendonly at gmail.com  Sun Apr 21 10:44:45 2024
From: aam3sendonly at gmail.com (Alexander McKenzie)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:44:45 -0400
Subject: [ih] How to build the Internet
Message-ID: <CAMusaY_e2fJzMsNSnbd5N2HXkrfpgSNtSAdaB-oH=mBm3nn5NA@mail.gmail.com>

On 20-Apr-24 23:31, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was
arrived at that led to the current Internet?

1. Designing a to-be-universally-adopted protocol with the following
features:
universal addressing
specified data unit: Internet chose 8-bit byte
allowed range of data values: Internet chose "all"
method of identifying each data unit: Internet chose sequence numbering
method for separating data from metadata: Internet chose data count

2. Understanding that the protocol so designed would be one of a number of
protocol layers: lower levels to take account of network physical
characteristics, and upper layers to take account of the needs of specific
applications.

3. Anticipating the design of devices at the interfaces between networks
which could
understand the best destination within each of its connected networks to
each universal address
encapsulating the end-to-end data and metadata within a transmission
unit(s) suitable for the network it was entering
properly addressing the transmission unit(s)
implementing enough of the universal protocol to be able to break incoming
transmission units into a size suitable for carriage by the next network

4. Agreeing that no network could be part of the Internet unless it could
carry all metadata plus at least one data unit in one of its own
transmission units and had no restrictions on data values

Cheers,
Alex


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Apr 21 12:00:40 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:00:40 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>

I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols were not built to detect such losses.

Am I dreaming?

John

> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> yes but...
> 
> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and most of IP
> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should assume they were
> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features (e.g., ABR)
> 
> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Scott,
>> 
>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Andy
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>>> 
>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
>>> their physical medium.
>> 
>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM 
>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>> 
>> Scott
>> -- 
>> 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 sob at sobco.com  Sun Apr 21 12:20:10 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20:10 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>

maybe in conjunction with the Pac Bell NAP

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pac-bell-adds-network-access/

https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/1998-March/127113.html

Scott

> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols were not built to detect such losses.
> 
> Am I dreaming?
> 
> John
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> yes but...
>> 
>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and most of IP
>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should assume they were
>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features (e.g., ABR)
>> 
>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Scott,
>>> 
>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684. 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
>>>> their physical medium.
>>> 
>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM 
>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> -- 
>>> 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 touch at strayalpha.com  Sun Apr 21 12:22:35 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:22:35 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>

I think it was this one:
http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/conf/partridge.pdf

Joe

?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Apr 21, 2024, at 12:20?PM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> maybe in conjunction with the Pac Bell NAP
> 
> https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pac-bell-adds-network-access/
> 
> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/1998-March/127113.html
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols were not built to detect such losses.
>> 
>> Am I dreaming?
>> 
>> John
>> 
>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> yes but...
>>> 
>>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and most of IP
>>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should assume they were
>>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features (e.g., ABR)
>>> 
>>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Scott,
>>>> 
>>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684. 
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Andy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
>>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
>>>>> their physical medium.
>>>> 
>>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
>>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM 
>>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 lyman at interisle.net  Sun Apr 21 12:25:43 2024
From: lyman at interisle.net (Lyman Chapin)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:25:43 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5873B1B6-0600-40BF-A395-B35F10A14691@interisle.net>



> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols were not built to detect such losses.

Performance of Checksums and CRCs Over Real Data
Craig Partridge, Jim Hughes, and Jonathan Stone
SIGCOMM ?95
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/217382.217413

- Lyman

> 
> Am I dreaming?
> 
> John
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> yes but...
>> 
>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and most of IP
>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should assume they were
>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features (e.g., ABR)
>> 
>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Scott,
>>> 
>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684. 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
>>>> their physical medium.
>>> 
>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM 
>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> -- 
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3365 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240421/b0ed699e/attachment.p7s>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Apr 21 12:27:06 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:27:06 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>

So I wasn?t dreaming!  ;-)

CRCs also have problems in HDLC if there are a lot of 1s in the data.  (The bit stuffing is not included in the checksum calculation.)

> On Apr 21, 2024, at 15:22, touch at strayalpha.com wrote:
> 
> I think it was this one:
> http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/conf/partridge.pdf
> 
> Joe
> 
> ?
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 12:20?PM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> maybe in conjunction with the Pac Bell NAP
>> 
>> https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pac-bell-adds-network-access/
>> 
>> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/1998-March/127113.html
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols were not built to detect such losses.
>>> 
>>> Am I dreaming?
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> yes but...
>>>> 
>>>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and most of IP
>>>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should assume they were
>>>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features (e.g., ABR)
>>>> 
>>>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Scott,
>>>>> 
>>>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
>>>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
>>>>>> their physical medium.
>>>>> 
>>>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
>>>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM 
>>>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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  Sun Apr 21 13:54:02 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:54:02 +1200
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <ee0c262c-ea47-4fcc-b500-15e888872d7a@gmail.com>

On 22-Apr-24 07:00, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols were not built to detect such losses.

There was also a paper, I think from LBL, showing that in terms of efficient use of the wire for small packets, 48 bytes was just about the worst possible choice, based on observations of actual packet sizes.

I couldn't find that one, but I did find https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/tcp_atm.pdf

    Brian

> 
> Am I dreaming?
> 
> John
> 
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> yes but...
>>
>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and most of IP
>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should assume they were
>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features (e.g., ABR)
>>
>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
>>>> their physical medium.
>>>
>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM
>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>>>
>>> Scott
>>> -- 
>>> 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  Sun Apr 21 15:14:00 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:14:00 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>

Probably not many people know the story behind the IP checksum.?? I 
don't think anyone's ever written it down.? While I still remember...:

The checksum algorithm was selected not for its capabilities to catch 
errors, but rather for its simplicity for our overworked and inadequate 
computing power.? There was significant concern at the time, especially 
in the sites running the big host computers, about the use of scarce 
computing power as "overhead" involved in using the network.? See for 
example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc//rfc425

Besides, at the time all TCP traffic was through the Arpanet, and the 
IMPs did their own checksums so any circuit problems would be caught 
there.? So as we were defining the details of the new TCP4 mechanisms, 
the checksum algorithm was kept intentionally simple, to be replaced in 
some future version of TCP when computers would be more capable and the 
error characteristics of pathways through the Internet were better 
understood by experience.?? The checksum algorithm was a placeholder for 
a future improved version, like many other mechanisms of TCP/IP4.

The actual details of the checksum computation were nailed down on 
January 27, 1979.? That was the date of the first TCP Bakeoff, organized 
by Jon Postel.?? I think of it as possibly the first ever "Hackathon".

The group of TCP implementers assembled on a weekend at USC-ISI and 
commandeered a bunch of offices with terminals that we could use to 
connect to our computers back home.?? At first, we could all talk to 
ourselves fine.?? However, no one could talk to any other 
implementation.? Everybody was getting checksum errors.

Since we could all hear each other, a discussion quickly reach a 
consensus.?? We turned off the checksum verification code in all of our 
implementations, so our TCPs would simply assume every incoming 
message/packet/datagram/segment (you pick your favorite term...) was 
error-free.

It seems strange now, but computing in the 1970s was a lot different 
from today.? In addition to the scarcity of CPU power and memory, there 
was little consensus about how bits were used inside of each computer, 
and how they were transferred onto wires by network interface hardware.? 
Computers didn't agree on the number of bits in a byte, or how bytes 
were ordered into computer words, how arithmetic calculations were 
performed, or how to take the bits in and out of your computer's memory 
and transfer them serially over an I/O interface.? If you think the 
confusion of today's USB connectors is bad, it was much worse 50 years ago!

Danny Cohen later published a great "plea for peace" that reveals some 
of the confusion - see https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien137.txt

So it wasn't a surprise that each TCP implementer had somehow failed in 
translating the specification, simple as it was, into code.

The disabling of checksums enabled us to debug all this and slowly (took 
two days IIRC) got implementations to talk to other implementations.? 
Then we re-enabled checksumming and tried all the tests again.? TCP4 
worked!? Jon Postel took on the task of figuring out how the now working 
checksums actually were doing the computations and revised the 
specifications accordingly.?? Rough consensus and running code had 
failed; instead we had running code and then rough consensus.

My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon 
had set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each 
participant a number of points for passing each test.?? His score rules 
are here: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing

We were all getting tired, and Bill Plummer (Tenex TCP) shouted down the 
hall to Dave Clark (Multics TCP) -- "Hey Dave, can you turn off your 
checksumming again?"? Dave replied "OK, it's off".? Bill hit a key on 
his terminal.? Dave yelled "Hey, Multics just crashed!"? Bill gloated 
"KO! Ten points for me!"

Such was how checksumming made it into TCP/IP4.

Jack Haverty



On 4/21/24 12:27, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> So I wasn?t dreaming!  ;-)
>
> CRCs also have problems in HDLC if there are a lot of 1s in the data.  (The bit stuffing is not included in the checksum calculation.)
>
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 15:22,touch at strayalpha.com  wrote:
>>
>> I think it was this one:
>> http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/conf/partridge.pdf
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> ?
>> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
>> www.strayalpha.com
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 12:20?PM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> maybe in conjunction with the Pac Bell NAP
>>>
>>> https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pac-bell-adds-network-access/
>>>
>>> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/1998-March/127113.html
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day<jeanjour at comcast.net>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols were not built to detect such losses.
>>>>
>>>> Am I dreaming?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> yes but...
>>>>>
>>>>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and most of IP
>>>>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should assume they were
>>>>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features (e.g., ABR)
>>>>>
>>>>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G. Malis<agmalis at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Day via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>>>>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
>>>>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
>>>>>>> their physical medium.
>>>>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
>>>>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM
>>>>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240421/d544a006/attachment.asc>

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Apr 21 15:26:54 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:26:54 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <844b51f8-8aee-4e8a-b6e1-44da7519bdbf@dcrocker.net>

On 4/21/2024 3:14 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> Probably not many people know the story behind the IP checksum.?? I 
> don't think anyone's ever written it down.? While I still remember...: 

wonderful recitation, Jack.? Thanks!

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From karl at iwl.com  Sun Apr 21 16:43:18 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:43:18 -0700
Subject: [ih] Resend::  early networking
In-Reply-To: <0d6f48ff-bc13-498a-b066-62043508a3dd@iwl.com>
References: <0d6f48ff-bc13-498a-b066-62043508a3dd@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <e7ebe883-6715-43b6-94f3-57435519976b@iwl.com>

The original of the following seems to have been eaten an email 
devouring dragon...

 ?(I don't know why, but I have intermittent silent dropping of things 
on pretty much every mailing list hosted by ISOC - I guess my karma is low.)

 ??? --karl--


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [ih] early networking
Date: 	Sat, 20 Apr 2024 16:11:25 -0700
From: 	Karl Auerbach <karl at iwl.com>
To: 	Leonard Kleinrock <lk at cs.ucla.edu>, Matt Mathis 
<matt.mathis at gmail.com>
CC: 	Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>



My sense is that the TCP - IP split idea is a child born at several 
different times and to several different parents.? (As an aside, I do 
kinda wonder about the history of pseudoheaders in checksums for TCP and 
UDP.)

For instance... <insert cheesy, wavy, black-and-white video designating 
start of a flashback> ...

On New Years eve, Dec 31, 1974 some of us were working late at SDC 
(System Development Corp) in Santa Monica.? We were working on a secure 
networking (and OS) project under the direction of Gerry Cole.? Our 
group contained Dave Kaufman, Frank Heinrich, and myself.? We had 
guidance from Vint C, who if I remember correctly was present that 
evening.? Whit Diffie also helped on the project, but this was before 
the conception of public key systems.

Our work was being done somewhere in that vague realm that exists 
between formally US classified work and restricted - which pretty much 
means that we didn't publicly publish much, and that most of our work 
has ben lost into some vast, non-indexed, paper archive somewhere.? (At 
least one of our papers got Hoovered-up by Google in the book scanning 
of the archives at Stanford.)

We wanted to inject a security layer between the then monolithic TCP and 
the carrier underneath.? We conceived of that underlying carrier in 
terms of datagrams, much like what became IP.

Our security layer - below TCP (connections) and above the underlying 
datagrams - would protect those datagrams (via encryption) as they 
flowed over that underlying carrier.? (We ran into the same difficulty 
that would be rediscovered later that the management of crypto keys was 
a larger job than the actual application of the cryptography, although 
at the packet level, with our use of chaining, we kinda made our lives 
difficult.)

In other words, we kinda foreshadowed IPSEC.

The attached image is a photo I took of a blackboard capturing our 
thoughts.? Much of the diagram reflects that we were using a form of 
chaining - what would be called block chaining today. What is less clear 
from the photo is that this was all *below* the TCP protocol state 
machines but above the underlying datagram oriented packet carriage.

https://www.cavebear.com/images/karl/tcp-1974-5782x3946.jpg

We actually got this stuff implemented and working (mostly on PDP-11s on 
top of a formally proven, software capability, operating system that we 
designed and coded.? One of the papers I wrote - a paper now lost - was 
in regard to methods of debugging secure operating systems.)

 ??? --karl--

On 4/20/24 1:40 PM, Leonard Kleinrock via Internet-history wrote:
> Matt,
>
> In response to your excellent query "The TCP/IP split happened before 
> my time. It would be interesting to know
> more about that event.?, I expect you know, but in case not, as far as 
> I recall, there were folks who were pushing for real-time traffic 
> support and thus to split IP from TCP early on. In particular, I 
> recall the work of Danny Cohen, et al, and his work on Network Voice 
> Protocol (up and running in 1973) and his promoting the split. For 
> example, here is a video of Danny discussing the early days and the 
> history of real time voice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4.
>
> Len
>
>
>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:16?AM, Matt Mathis via Internet-history 
>> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> I was answering the wrong question, but I stand by my assertion that
>> "successive approximation" applies to all of the key concepts, and 
>> that it
>> is a false effort to anoint any particular iteration as the start of the
>> modern Internet.
>>
>> In my mind the crucial event was to split TCP and IP into
>> separate protocols, such that there was deep architectural enforcement of
>> the hourglass and the orthogonality of the upper and lower protocol
>> layers. This orthogonality means that the cost of maintaining M
>> applications over N link types scales as O(M)+O(N). Half of the IETF
>> worked up the stack, and half worked down the stack. The overlap was
>> almost entirely about annealing the semantics of TCP/IP itself.
>>
>> As far as I am aware, all Internet technologies that enable 
>> applications to
>> interact with the lower layers have died, because they introduce 
>> costs that
>> scale O(M*N). It remains to be seen if L4S introduces a small enough
>> delta where it can become part of the hourglass, (IPv6 introduced a
>> "double neck" ... and still has not fully deployed. Its costs scale as
>> O(2M)+O(2N) during the "transition" ).
>>
>> IMHO The hourglass and orthogonality of upper and lower stacks is the
>> reason that the big I Internet crushed all competing technologies.
>>
>> The TCP/IP split happened before my time. It would be interesting to know
>> more about that event.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --MM--
>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use 
>> force to
>> apply it to others.
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Matt Mathis (Email is best)
>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 4:31?AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net 
>> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
>>> multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution 
>>> that was
>>> arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>
>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in
>>> hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>
>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol
>>> translation at the gateways?
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
>>> beginning of the thread. What was your precise question?
>>>
>>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers
>>> that are successive approximations. i.e. The ideas were around for a 
>>> long
>>> time, but didn't really work in the early days. The final answer ends up
>>> depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the
>>> same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not. I don't find such
>>> definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical
>>> evolution of a concept is fascinating. e.g. the evolution of gateways
>>> connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting. Drawing the
>>> line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is 
>>> not.
>>> That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --MM--
>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
>>> to apply it to others.
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Matt Mathis (Email is best)
>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
>>> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question. That is very
>>>> unusual for this list. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no 
>>>> facts.
>>>>
>>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to 
>>>> see if
>>>> had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
>>>> Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that 
>>>> paper. Is
>>>> that true?
>>>>
>>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time
>>>> discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course
>>>> describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>>>
>>>> Is one of these insight to the solution? Just trying to understand what
>>>> it was.
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net 
>>>>> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this. It is
>>>> an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to
>>>> internetworking was? I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
>>>> answer, but I guess I could.
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
>>>> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com 
>>>>>>> <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
>>>> switching.
>>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years. That isn?t
>>>> the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this 
>>>> problem. What
>>>> was the solution adopted?
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M 
>>>>>>>> <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
>>>> end-to-end free, open about telegrams. OUR "InterNetWorks" is something
>>>> totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and 
>>>> telegrams,
>>>> hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of 
>>>> Internetworking to
>>>> the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:
>>>> jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
>>>> internetworking?
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via 
>>>>>>>>>> Internet-history <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
>>>> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> 
>>>> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the 
>>>>>>>>>> history
>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
>>>> that US
>>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching
>>>> euipment
>>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> --
>>>> 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

From lk at cs.ucla.edu  Sun Apr 21 16:47:55 2024
From: lk at cs.ucla.edu (Leonard Kleinrock)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:47:55 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <98308890-A270-48D9-BCC5-39D7FFEE2A3A@cs.ucla.edu>

Just a comment:  I recall the intensive work on algebraic error-correcting and error-detecting codes in the late 1950?s and early 1960?s while I was a graduate student at MIT in the presence of folks like Claude Shannon.  Among the most interesting were the Bose?Chaudhuri?Hocquenghem codes (BCH codes, also known as CRC codes) since they dealt with multiple errors. At the time we realized that the BCH codes were extremely effective (and simple) for error detection but were horribly complex for error-correction. It is no surprise that some years later they were incorporated in the early Arpanet for error detection. And here we are today!
Len

> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:14?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Probably not many people know the story behind the IP checksum.   I don't think anyone's ever written it down.  While I still remember...:
> 
> The checksum algorithm was selected not for its capabilities to catch errors, but rather for its simplicity for our overworked and inadequate computing power.  There was significant concern at the time, especially in the sites running the big host computers, about the use of scarce computing power as "overhead" involved in using the network.  See for example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc//rfc425
> 
> Besides, at the time all TCP traffic was through the Arpanet, and the IMPs did their own checksums so any circuit problems would be caught there.  So as we were defining the details of the new TCP4 mechanisms, the checksum algorithm was kept intentionally simple, to be replaced in some future version of TCP when computers would be more capable and the error characteristics of pathways through the Internet were better understood by experience.   The checksum algorithm was a placeholder for a future improved version, like many other mechanisms of TCP/IP4.
> 
> The actual details of the checksum computation were nailed down on January 27, 1979.  That was the date of the first TCP Bakeoff, organized by Jon Postel.   I think of it as possibly the first ever "Hackathon".
> 
> The group of TCP implementers assembled on a weekend at USC-ISI and commandeered a bunch of offices with terminals that we could use to connect to our computers back home.   At first, we could all talk to ourselves fine.   However, no one could talk to any other implementation.  Everybody was getting checksum errors.
> 
> Since we could all hear each other, a discussion quickly reach a consensus.   We turned off the checksum verification code in all of our implementations, so our TCPs would simply assume every incoming message/packet/datagram/segment (you pick your favorite term...) was error-free.
> 
> It seems strange now, but computing in the 1970s was a lot different from today.  In addition to the scarcity of CPU power and memory, there was little consensus about how bits were used inside of each computer, and how they were transferred onto wires by network interface hardware.  Computers didn't agree on the number of bits in a byte, or how bytes were ordered into computer words, how arithmetic calculations were performed, or how to take the bits in and out of your computer's memory and transfer them serially over an I/O interface.  If you think the confusion of today's USB connectors is bad, it was much worse 50 years ago!
> 
> Danny Cohen later published a great "plea for peace" that reveals some of the confusion - see https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien137.txt
> 
> So it wasn't a surprise that each TCP implementer had somehow failed in translating the specification, simple as it was, into code.
> 
> The disabling of checksums enabled us to debug all this and slowly (took two days IIRC) got implementations to talk to other implementations.  Then we re-enabled checksumming and tried all the tests again.  TCP4 worked!  Jon Postel took on the task of figuring out how the now working checksums actually were doing the computations and revised the specifications accordingly.   Rough consensus and running code had failed; instead we had running code and then rough consensus.
> 
> My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon had set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each participant a number of points for passing each test.   His score rules are here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
> 
> We were all getting tired, and Bill Plummer (Tenex TCP) shouted down the hall to Dave Clark (Multics TCP) -- "Hey Dave, can you turn off your checksumming again?"  Dave replied "OK, it's off".  Bill hit a key on his terminal.  Dave yelled "Hey, Multics just crashed!"  Bill gloated "KO! Ten points for me!"
> 
> Such was how checksumming made it into TCP/IP4.
> 
> Jack Haverty
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/21/24 12:27, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> So I wasn?t dreaming!  ;-)
>> 
>> CRCs also have problems in HDLC if there are a lot of 1s in the data.  (The bit stuffing is not included in the checksum calculation.)
>> 
>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 15:22,touch at strayalpha.com  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think it was this one:
>>> http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/conf/partridge.pdf
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
>>> www.strayalpha.com
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 12:20?PM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> maybe in conjunction with the Pac Bell NAP
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pac-bell-adds-network-access/
>>>> 
>>>> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/1998-March/127113.html
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day<jeanjour at comcast.net>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols were not built to detect such losses.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am I dreaming?
>>>>> 
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> yes but...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and most of IP
>>>>>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should assume they were
>>>>>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features (e.g., ABR)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G. Malis<agmalis at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> John Day via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>>>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>>>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>>>>>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution" that I see was
>>>>>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was independent of
>>>>>>>> their physical medium.
>>>>>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol & a network - OK
>>>>>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they were running over ATM
>>>>>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From jack at 3kitty.org  Sun Apr 21 18:12:54 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 18:12:54 -0700
Subject: [ih] Resend:: early networking
In-Reply-To: <e7ebe883-6715-43b6-94f3-57435519976b@iwl.com>
References: <0d6f48ff-bc13-498a-b066-62043508a3dd@iwl.com>
 <e7ebe883-6715-43b6-94f3-57435519976b@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <9f8dce7a-73a7-4def-9306-699e5accbb7d@3kitty.org>

Email loss is probably due to stricter spam protections.? All email 
which passes through some forwarder (such as isoc.org) might be viewed 
by some mail handler as spam and often just discarded. Forwarders also 
tend to break digital signatures.? A new sign is needed on the Map of 
the Internet:? "Here there be dragons!"

Your iwl.com domain seems to be missing some things that the new more 
aggressive spam filters might now care about.?? You might use this to 
check your domain:

https://dmarcian.com/domain-checker/

A few months ago, I had to go through figuring out why my mail was 
sometimes just vanishing.? I ended up switching mail providers for my 
domain to get email to be more reliable again.?? Still not perfect, but 
best I could figure out.

It was nice back in the 70s and 80s when email just worked...

Jack


On 4/21/24 16:43, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> The original of the following seems to have been eaten an email 
> devouring dragon...
>
> ?(I don't know why, but I have intermittent silent dropping of things 
> on pretty much every mailing list hosted by ISOC - I guess my karma is 
> low.)
>
> ??? --karl--
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:???? Re: [ih] early networking
> Date:???? Sat, 20 Apr 2024 16:11:25 -0700
> From:???? Karl Auerbach <karl at iwl.com>
> To:???? Leonard Kleinrock <lk at cs.ucla.edu>, Matt Mathis 
> <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> CC:???? Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>
>
>
> My sense is that the TCP - IP split idea is a child born at several 
> different times and to several different parents.? (As an aside, I do 
> kinda wonder about the history of pseudoheaders in checksums for TCP 
> and UDP.)
>
> For instance... <insert cheesy, wavy, black-and-white video 
> designating start of a flashback> ...
>
> On New Years eve, Dec 31, 1974 some of us were working late at SDC 
> (System Development Corp) in Santa Monica.? We were working on a 
> secure networking (and OS) project under the direction of Gerry Cole.? 
> Our group contained Dave Kaufman, Frank Heinrich, and myself.? We had 
> guidance from Vint C, who if I remember correctly was present that 
> evening.? Whit Diffie also helped on the project, but this was before 
> the conception of public key systems.
>
> Our work was being done somewhere in that vague realm that exists 
> between formally US classified work and restricted - which pretty much 
> means that we didn't publicly publish much, and that most of our work 
> has ben lost into some vast, non-indexed, paper archive somewhere.? 
> (At least one of our papers got Hoovered-up by Google in the book 
> scanning of the archives at Stanford.)
>
> We wanted to inject a security layer between the then monolithic TCP 
> and the carrier underneath.? We conceived of that underlying carrier 
> in terms of datagrams, much like what became IP.
>
> Our security layer - below TCP (connections) and above the underlying 
> datagrams - would protect those datagrams (via encryption) as they 
> flowed over that underlying carrier.? (We ran into the same difficulty 
> that would be rediscovered later that the management of crypto keys 
> was a larger job than the actual application of the cryptography, 
> although at the packet level, with our use of chaining, we kinda made 
> our lives difficult.)
>
> In other words, we kinda foreshadowed IPSEC.
>
> The attached image is a photo I took of a blackboard capturing our 
> thoughts.? Much of the diagram reflects that we were using a form of 
> chaining - what would be called block chaining today. What is less 
> clear from the photo is that this was all *below* the TCP protocol 
> state machines but above the underlying datagram oriented packet 
> carriage.
>
> https://www.cavebear.com/images/karl/tcp-1974-5782x3946.jpg
>
> We actually got this stuff implemented and working (mostly on PDP-11s 
> on top of a formally proven, software capability, operating system 
> that we designed and coded.? One of the papers I wrote - a paper now 
> lost - was in regard to methods of debugging secure operating systems.)
>
> ??? --karl--
>
> On 4/20/24 1:40 PM, Leonard Kleinrock via Internet-history wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> In response to your excellent query "The TCP/IP split happened before 
>> my time. It would be interesting to know
>> more about that event.?, I expect you know, but in case not, as far 
>> as I recall, there were folks who were pushing for real-time traffic 
>> support and thus to split IP from TCP early on. In particular, I 
>> recall the work of Danny Cohen, et al, and his work on Network Voice 
>> Protocol (up and running in 1973) and his promoting the split. For 
>> example, here is a video of Danny discussing the early days and the 
>> history of real time voice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4.
>>
>> Len
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 10:16?AM, Matt Mathis via Internet-history 
>>> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was answering the wrong question, but I stand by my assertion that
>>> "successive approximation" applies to all of the key concepts, and 
>>> that it
>>> is a false effort to anoint any particular iteration as the start of 
>>> the
>>> modern Internet.
>>>
>>> In my mind the crucial event was to split TCP and IP into
>>> separate protocols, such that there was deep architectural 
>>> enforcement of
>>> the hourglass and the orthogonality of the upper and lower protocol
>>> layers. This orthogonality means that the cost of maintaining M
>>> applications over N link types scales as O(M)+O(N). Half of the IETF
>>> worked up the stack, and half worked down the stack. The overlap was
>>> almost entirely about annealing the semantics of TCP/IP itself.
>>>
>>> As far as I am aware, all Internet technologies that enable 
>>> applications to
>>> interact with the lower layers have died, because they introduce 
>>> costs that
>>> scale O(M*N). It remains to be seen if L4S introduces a small enough
>>> delta where it can become part of the hourglass, (IPv6 introduced a
>>> "double neck" ... and still has not fully deployed. Its costs scale as
>>> O(2M)+O(2N) during the "transition" ).
>>>
>>> IMHO The hourglass and orthogonality of upper and lower stacks is the
>>> reason that the big I Internet crushed all competing technologies.
>>>
>>> The TCP/IP split happened before my time. It would be interesting to 
>>> know
>>> more about that event.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --MM--
>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use 
>>> force to
>>> apply it to others.
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Matt Mathis (Email is best)
>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 4:31?AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net 
>>> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork
>>>> multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution 
>>>> that was
>>>> arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>>>>
>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have 
>>>> been in
>>>> hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>>>>
>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence 
>>>> protocol
>>>> translation at the gateways?
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the
>>>> beginning of the thread. What was your precise question?
>>>>
>>>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers
>>>> that are successive approximations. i.e. The ideas were around for 
>>>> a long
>>>> time, but didn't really work in the early days. The final answer 
>>>> ends up
>>>> depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is 
>>>> "functionally the
>>>> same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not. I don't find such
>>>> definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical
>>>> evolution of a concept is fascinating. e.g. the evolution of gateways
>>>> connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting. Drawing 
>>>> the
>>>> line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway 
>>>> is not.
>>>> That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --MM--
>>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use 
>>>> force
>>>> to apply it to others.
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>> Matt Mathis (Email is best)
>>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
>>>> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question. That is very
>>>>> unusual for this list. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but 
>>>>> no facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to 
>>>>> see if
>>>>> had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network
>>>>> Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that 
>>>>> paper. Is
>>>>> that true?
>>>>>
>>>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends 
>>>>> time
>>>>> discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of 
>>>>> course
>>>>> describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is one of these insight to the solution? Just trying to understand 
>>>>> what
>>>>> it was.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net 
>>>>>> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this. It is
>>>>> an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the 
>>>>> solution to
>>>>> internetworking was? I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the
>>>>> answer, but I guess I could.
>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <
>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
>>>>> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet
>>>>> switching.
>>>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years. That isn?t
>>>>> the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this 
>>>>> problem. What
>>>>> was the solution adopted?
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M 
>>>>>>>>> <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised,
>>>>> end-to-end free, open about telegrams. OUR "InterNetWorks" is 
>>>>> something
>>>>> totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and 
>>>>> telegrams,
>>>>> hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of 
>>>>> Internetworking to
>>>>> the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net 
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:
>>>>> jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to
>>>>> internetworking?
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M via 
>>>>>>>>>>> Internet-history <
>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
>>>>> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> 
>>>>> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the 
>>>>>>>>>>> history
>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion
>>>>> that US
>>>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph 
>>>>>>>>>>> switching
>>>>> euipment
>>>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240421/88e93f83/attachment.asc>

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Apr 21 18:22:40 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 18:22:40 -0700
Subject: [ih] Resend:: early networking
In-Reply-To: <9f8dce7a-73a7-4def-9306-699e5accbb7d@3kitty.org>
References: <0d6f48ff-bc13-498a-b066-62043508a3dd@iwl.com>
 <e7ebe883-6715-43b6-94f3-57435519976b@iwl.com>
 <9f8dce7a-73a7-4def-9306-699e5accbb7d@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <62b78245-5efa-4941-90ae-77be5b432078@dcrocker.net>

On 4/21/2024 6:12 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> Your iwl.com domain seems to be missing some things that the new more 
> aggressive spam filters might now care about.?? You might use this to 
> check your domain:
>
> https://dmarcian.com/domain-checker/


Requirement for DMARC is growing but is not universal.? And it does not 
survive going through a mailing list.

That's worse than DKIM's not surviving list transit, since DMARC can 
indicate a preference for handling failures, while DKIM just says to act 
like it wasn't there.

More broadly, receiver email filtering engines are complex analysis 
engines.? There are some simple things that can be dire for delivery, 
but beyond those, each receiving site has their own (complex) set of 
criteria.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From jack at 3kitty.org  Sun Apr 21 23:07:13 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:07:13 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvJcFaL04oMzq88zeRrd=pcSTJ6Nuk=NznBN_z1mWE448A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <CABf5zvJcFaL04oMzq88zeRrd=pcSTJ6Nuk=NznBN_z1mWE448A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f367f79a-bac6-4dcb-8e8d-72d6cf39c0fb@3kitty.org>

Steve,

You were right, and checksum issues did cause troubles in the Arpanet.?? 
The IMPs *did* have errors.? The details have become fuzzy, but IIRC 
there was a routing failure at one point that took down the entire 
Arpanet.?? The cause was traced to a bad memory in some IMP that was 
corrupting packets if they happened to use that memory.?? Some of the 
packets were internal packets disseminating routing information ... and 
the bad data resulted in the net locking up in perpetual routing 
confusion.?? Checksums caught errors on circuits, but not errors inside 
the IMP memory.

Checksums were useful as debugging tools in Internet operation just like 
in the Arpanet.? When we got the task of making the core Internet into a 
24x7 we took the easiest route and applied the same techniques that had 
been developed for the Arpanet NOC.?? One of those techniques was 
"traps", which were essentially error reports from remote switches to 
NOC operators.?? So the core gateways quickly acquired the ability to 
report errors back to our NOC, just like IMPs had been doing for about a 
decade.

Mike Brescia was one of the "Internet gang" and he with Bob Hinden and 
Alan Sheltzer watched over the neonatal Internet core to keep it as 
close as possible to a 24x7 service.? One day Mike noticed that a 
particular router was reporting lots of checksum errors.? He 
investigated and saw that a new host was trying to come up on the 
Internet and apparently someone was debugging their TCP.? The checksum 
reports revealed the problem -- IIRC, the 4 bytes of IP addresses were 
misordered.?? That was easy to do with 16-bit CPUs holding 2 8-bit bytes 
in each word.

So Mike looked up the host information at the NIC, found the email 
address of the likely responsible human, and sent an email, something 
like "FYI, you need to swap the bytes in your IP addresses".?? A short 
while later he got back an answer, something like "Hey, thanks!? That 
was it."?? Not long after that he got another email -- "How the &^&^% 
did you know that???"?? The TCP developer somewhere in the midwest IIRC 
had realized that someone in Boston had been looking over their shoulder 
from a thousand miles away.

Remote debugging.? Checksums were potent debugging tools.? Started in 
the Arpanet (I think), and we just moved it into the Internet.

Fun times.
Jack Haverty

On 4/21/24 15:56, Steve Crocker wrote:
> There was a bit of checksum history earlier.? In our early thinking 
> about protocols for the Arpanet, Jeff Rulifson pointed out the utility 
> of checksums to detect possible errors?in implementations.? By "early 
> thinking" I mean the period between August 1968 and February 1969.? 
> This was well before BBN issues report 1822 with the details of the 
> message format, etc.? We knew the IMPs would accept messages?of 
> roughly 8000 bits, break them into packets of roughly 1000 bits, and 
> then reassemble them at the receiving IMP.? We also knew?the?IMPs 
> would be using very strong checksums to detect transmission errors 
> between the IMPs.
>
> We decided to use a 16 bit checksum that was simply the ones 
> complement?sum of the message, with one added wrinkle of rotating the 
> sum by one bit every thousand bits.? We included this wrinkle to catch 
> the possible error of misordering the packets during reassembly.
>
> On 14 Feb 1969, a few of us in the Network Working Group met with the 
> IMP team at BBN for the?first time.? When we described our thinking 
> about a checksum, Frank Heart hit the roof.? "You'll make my network 
> look slow!" his voice reaching his trademarked high pitch when he was 
> exercised.? He pointed out they had very strong checksums for the 
> transmissions between the IMPs.
>
> I tried to counter him.? "What about the path between the host and the 
> IMP?" I asked.? "As reliable?as your accumulator," he roared.? (For 
> those young enough not to understand what this referred to, in those 
> days the central processing unit of a computer?consisted of separate 
> components.? The accumulator was a separate piece of hardware that 
> held one word of data. It was involved in almost every instruction, so 
> if it broke, the computer was broken.)
>
> To my everlasting embarrassment, I yielded.? We didn't challenge 
> whether the IMPs might ever have an error, and we didn't insist that 
> it wouldn't really cost very much to have a lightweight checksum.? We 
> dropped the idea of including a checksum.
>
> Unlike the Arpanet, the Internet included a wide variety of computing 
> and transmission?environments, so the need for checksums was far more 
> evident.? But we didn't have to wait that long.? When Lincoln Lab 
> connected the TX-2 to the IMP 10 sometime in 1970 or early 1971, they 
> had intermittent errors that took a while to track down.? It turned 
> out when their drum was operating, there was hardware interference 
> with their IMP interface.? A simple checksum might have helped narrow 
> down where to look ;)
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:14?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history 
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>     Probably not many people know the story behind the IP checksum.?? I
>     don't think anyone's ever written it down.? While I still remember...:
>
>     The checksum algorithm was selected not for its capabilities to catch
>     errors, but rather for its simplicity for our overworked and
>     inadequate
>     computing power.? There was significant concern at the time,
>     especially
>     in the sites running the big host computers, about the use of scarce
>     computing power as "overhead" involved in using the network. See for
>     example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc//rfc425
>
>     Besides, at the time all TCP traffic was through the Arpanet, and the
>     IMPs did their own checksums so any circuit problems would be caught
>     there.? So as we were defining the details of the new TCP4
>     mechanisms,
>     the checksum algorithm was kept intentionally simple, to be
>     replaced in
>     some future version of TCP when computers would be more capable
>     and the
>     error characteristics of pathways through the Internet were better
>     understood by experience.?? The checksum algorithm was a
>     placeholder for
>     a future improved version, like many other mechanisms of TCP/IP4.
>
>     The actual details of the checksum computation were nailed down on
>     January 27, 1979.? That was the date of the first TCP Bakeoff,
>     organized
>     by Jon Postel.?? I think of it as possibly the first ever "Hackathon".
>
>     The group of TCP implementers assembled on a weekend at USC-ISI and
>     commandeered a bunch of offices with terminals that we could use to
>     connect to our computers back home.?? At first, we could all talk to
>     ourselves fine.?? However, no one could talk to any other
>     implementation.? Everybody was getting checksum errors.
>
>     Since we could all hear each other, a discussion quickly reach a
>     consensus.?? We turned off the checksum verification code in all
>     of our
>     implementations, so our TCPs would simply assume every incoming
>     message/packet/datagram/segment (you pick your favorite term...) was
>     error-free.
>
>     It seems strange now, but computing in the 1970s was a lot different
>     from today.? In addition to the scarcity of CPU power and memory,
>     there
>     was little consensus about how bits were used inside of each
>     computer,
>     and how they were transferred onto wires by network interface
>     hardware.
>     Computers didn't agree on the number of bits in a byte, or how bytes
>     were ordered into computer words, how arithmetic calculations were
>     performed, or how to take the bits in and out of your computer's
>     memory
>     and transfer them serially over an I/O interface.? If you think the
>     confusion of today's USB connectors is bad, it was much worse 50
>     years ago!
>
>     Danny Cohen later published a great "plea for peace" that reveals
>     some
>     of the confusion - see https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien137.txt
>
>     So it wasn't a surprise that each TCP implementer had somehow
>     failed in
>     translating the specification, simple as it was, into code.
>
>     The disabling of checksums enabled us to debug all this and slowly
>     (took
>     two days IIRC) got implementations to talk to other implementations.
>     Then we re-enabled checksumming and tried all the tests again.? TCP4
>     worked!? Jon Postel took on the task of figuring out how the now
>     working
>     checksums actually were doing the computations and revised the
>     specifications accordingly.?? Rough consensus and running code had
>     failed; instead we had running code and then rough consensus.
>
>     My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday.
>     Jon
>     had set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each
>     participant a number of points for passing each test.?? His score
>     rules
>     are here:
>     https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
>
>     We were all getting tired, and Bill Plummer (Tenex TCP) shouted
>     down the
>     hall to Dave Clark (Multics TCP) -- "Hey Dave, can you turn off your
>     checksumming again?"? Dave replied "OK, it's off".? Bill hit a key on
>     his terminal.? Dave yelled "Hey, Multics just crashed!"? Bill gloated
>     "KO! Ten points for me!"
>
>     Such was how checksumming made it into TCP/IP4.
>
>     Jack Haverty
>
>
>
>     On 4/21/24 12:27, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>     > So I wasn?t dreaming!? ;-)
>     >
>     > CRCs also have problems in HDLC if there are a lot of 1s in the
>     data.? (The bit stuffing is not included in the checksum calculation.)
>     >
>     >> On Apr 21, 2024, at 15:22,touch at strayalpha.com wrote:
>     >>
>     >> I think it was this one:
>     >> http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/conf/partridge.pdf
>     >>
>     >> Joe
>     >>
>     >> ?
>     >> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
>     >> www.strayalpha.com <http://www.strayalpha.com>
>     >>
>     >>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 12:20?PM, Scott Bradner via
>     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> maybe in conjunction with the Pac Bell NAP
>     >>>
>     >>> https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pac-bell-adds-network-access/
>     >>>
>     >>> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/1998-March/127113.html
>     >>>
>     >>> Scott
>     >>>
>     >>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day<jeanjour at comcast.net>
>     wrote:
>     >>>>
>     >>>> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig
>     Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly
>     other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols
>     were not built to detect such losses.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Am I dreaming?
>     >>>>
>     >>>> John
>     >>>>
>     >>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via
>     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> yes but...
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and
>     most of IP
>     >>>>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should
>     assume they were
>     >>>>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features
>     (e.g., ABR)
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Scott
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G.
>     Malis<agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> Scott,
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over
>     Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684.
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> Cheers,
>     >>>>>> Andy
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via
>     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via
>     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> John Day via
>     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>     >>>>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to
>     interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was
>     the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
>     >>>>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution
>     must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their
>     paper.
>     >>>>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and
>     hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>     >>>>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.? But the "solution"
>     that I see was
>     >>>>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was
>     independent of
>     >>>>>>> their physical medium.
>     >>>>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol &
>     a network - OK
>     >>>>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they
>     were running over ATM
>     >>>>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> Scott
>     >>>>>> --
>     >>>>>> 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
>
>     -- 
>     Internet-history mailing list
>     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>
>
> -- 
> Sent by a Verified
> Sent by a Verified sender 
> <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
> sender

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240421/76e14c82/attachment.asc>

From vgcerf at gmail.com  Mon Apr 22 00:01:11 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:01:11 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <f367f79a-bac6-4dcb-8e8d-72d6cf39c0fb@3kitty.org>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <CABf5zvJcFaL04oMzq88zeRrd=pcSTJ6Nuk=NznBN_z1mWE448A@mail.gmail.com>
 <f367f79a-bac6-4dcb-8e8d-72d6cf39c0fb@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_V-AQzV+uB3Qr+C-cBYM-4baXdNfwhp2Uo-CUzWO4mW_g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 2:07?AM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> You were right, and checksum issues did cause troubles in the Arpanet.
> The IMPs *did* have errors.  The details have become fuzzy, but IIRC
> there was a routing failure at one point that took down the entire
> Arpanet.   The cause was traced to a bad memory in some IMP that was
> corrupting packets if they happened to use that memory.   Some of the
> packets were internal packets disseminating routing information ... and
> the bad data resulted in the net locking up in perpetual routing
> confusion.   Checksums caught errors on circuits, but not errors inside
> the IMP memory.
>
there were at least two cases. In one, all the bits of the distance vector
were zeroed making it look like the IMP at Harvard (?) was zero hops from
all other IMPs. In a second case, a flaky memory bit caused a routing
packet to be sent repeatedly everywhere in the network as each successive
packet looked like an "update" and was sent on all circuits between the
IMPs. At least, that's my hazy recollection. The memory of the IMPs was not
error checked in the way current day computers do.

>
> Checksums were useful as debugging tools in Internet operation just like
> in the Arpanet.  When we got the task of making the core Internet into a
> 24x7 we took the easiest route and applied the same techniques that had
> been developed for the Arpanet NOC.   One of those techniques was
> "traps", which were essentially error reports from remote switches to
> NOC operators.   So the core gateways quickly acquired the ability to
> report errors back to our NOC, just like IMPs had been doing for about a
> decade.
>
> Mike Brescia was one of the "Internet gang" and he with Bob Hinden and
> Alan Sheltzer watched over the neonatal Internet core to keep it as
> close as possible to a 24x7 service.  One day Mike noticed that a
> particular router was reporting lots of checksum errors.  He
> investigated and saw that a new host was trying to come up on the
> Internet and apparently someone was debugging their TCP.  The checksum
> reports revealed the problem -- IIRC, the 4 bytes of IP addresses were
> misordered.   That was easy to do with 16-bit CPUs holding 2 8-bit bytes
> in each word.
>
> So Mike looked up the host information at the NIC, found the email
> address of the likely responsible human, and sent an email, something
> like "FYI, you need to swap the bytes in your IP addresses".   A short
> while later he got back an answer, something like "Hey, thanks!  That
> was it."   Not long after that he got another email -- "How the &^&^%
> did you know that???"   The TCP developer somewhere in the midwest IIRC
> had realized that someone in Boston had been looking over their shoulder
> from a thousand miles away.
>
> Remote debugging.  Checksums were potent debugging tools.  Started in
> the Arpanet (I think), and we just moved it into the Internet.
>
> Fun times.
> Jack Haverty
>
> On 4/21/24 15:56, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > There was a bit of checksum history earlier.  In our early thinking
> > about protocols for the Arpanet, Jeff Rulifson pointed out the utility
> > of checksums to detect possible errors in implementations.  By "early
> > thinking" I mean the period between August 1968 and February 1969.
> > This was well before BBN issues report 1822 with the details of the
> > message format, etc.  We knew the IMPs would accept messages of
> > roughly 8000 bits, break them into packets of roughly 1000 bits, and
> > then reassemble them at the receiving IMP.  We also knew the IMPs
> > would be using very strong checksums to detect transmission errors
> > between the IMPs.
> >
> > We decided to use a 16 bit checksum that was simply the ones
> > complement sum of the message, with one added wrinkle of rotating the
> > sum by one bit every thousand bits.  We included this wrinkle to catch
> > the possible error of misordering the packets during reassembly.
> >
> > On 14 Feb 1969, a few of us in the Network Working Group met with the
> > IMP team at BBN for the first time.  When we described our thinking
> > about a checksum, Frank Heart hit the roof.  "You'll make my network
> > look slow!" his voice reaching his trademarked high pitch when he was
> > exercised.  He pointed out they had very strong checksums for the
> > transmissions between the IMPs.
> >
> > I tried to counter him.  "What about the path between the host and the
> > IMP?" I asked.  "As reliable as your accumulator," he roared.  (For
> > those young enough not to understand what this referred to, in those
> > days the central processing unit of a computer consisted of separate
> > components.  The accumulator was a separate piece of hardware that
> > held one word of data. It was involved in almost every instruction, so
> > if it broke, the computer was broken.)
> >
> > To my everlasting embarrassment, I yielded.  We didn't challenge
> > whether the IMPs might ever have an error, and we didn't insist that
> > it wouldn't really cost very much to have a lightweight checksum.  We
> > dropped the idea of including a checksum.
> >
> > Unlike the Arpanet, the Internet included a wide variety of computing
> > and transmission environments, so the need for checksums was far more
> > evident.  But we didn't have to wait that long.  When Lincoln Lab
> > connected the TX-2 to the IMP 10 sometime in 1970 or early 1971, they
> > had intermittent errors that took a while to track down.  It turned
> > out when their drum was operating, there was hardware interference
> > with their IMP interface.  A simple checksum might have helped narrow
> > down where to look ;)
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:14?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history
> > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >     Probably not many people know the story behind the IP checksum.   I
> >     don't think anyone's ever written it down.  While I still
> remember...:
> >
> >     The checksum algorithm was selected not for its capabilities to catch
> >     errors, but rather for its simplicity for our overworked and
> >     inadequate
> >     computing power.  There was significant concern at the time,
> >     especially
> >     in the sites running the big host computers, about the use of scarce
> >     computing power as "overhead" involved in using the network. See for
> >     example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc//rfc425
> >
> >     Besides, at the time all TCP traffic was through the Arpanet, and the
> >     IMPs did their own checksums so any circuit problems would be caught
> >     there.  So as we were defining the details of the new TCP4
> >     mechanisms,
> >     the checksum algorithm was kept intentionally simple, to be
> >     replaced in
> >     some future version of TCP when computers would be more capable
> >     and the
> >     error characteristics of pathways through the Internet were better
> >     understood by experience.   The checksum algorithm was a
> >     placeholder for
> >     a future improved version, like many other mechanisms of TCP/IP4.
> >
> >     The actual details of the checksum computation were nailed down on
> >     January 27, 1979.  That was the date of the first TCP Bakeoff,
> >     organized
> >     by Jon Postel.   I think of it as possibly the first ever
> "Hackathon".
> >
> >     The group of TCP implementers assembled on a weekend at USC-ISI and
> >     commandeered a bunch of offices with terminals that we could use to
> >     connect to our computers back home.   At first, we could all talk to
> >     ourselves fine.   However, no one could talk to any other
> >     implementation.  Everybody was getting checksum errors.
> >
> >     Since we could all hear each other, a discussion quickly reach a
> >     consensus.   We turned off the checksum verification code in all
> >     of our
> >     implementations, so our TCPs would simply assume every incoming
> >     message/packet/datagram/segment (you pick your favorite term...) was
> >     error-free.
> >
> >     It seems strange now, but computing in the 1970s was a lot different
> >     from today.  In addition to the scarcity of CPU power and memory,
> >     there
> >     was little consensus about how bits were used inside of each
> >     computer,
> >     and how they were transferred onto wires by network interface
> >     hardware.
> >     Computers didn't agree on the number of bits in a byte, or how bytes
> >     were ordered into computer words, how arithmetic calculations were
> >     performed, or how to take the bits in and out of your computer's
> >     memory
> >     and transfer them serially over an I/O interface.  If you think the
> >     confusion of today's USB connectors is bad, it was much worse 50
> >     years ago!
> >
> >     Danny Cohen later published a great "plea for peace" that reveals
> >     some
> >     of the confusion - see https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien137.txt
> >
> >     So it wasn't a surprise that each TCP implementer had somehow
> >     failed in
> >     translating the specification, simple as it was, into code.
> >
> >     The disabling of checksums enabled us to debug all this and slowly
> >     (took
> >     two days IIRC) got implementations to talk to other implementations.
> >     Then we re-enabled checksumming and tried all the tests again.  TCP4
> >     worked!  Jon Postel took on the task of figuring out how the now
> >     working
> >     checksums actually were doing the computations and revised the
> >     specifications accordingly.   Rough consensus and running code had
> >     failed; instead we had running code and then rough consensus.
> >
> >     My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday.
> >     Jon
> >     had set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each
> >     participant a number of points for passing each test.   His score
> >     rules
> >     are here:
> >
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
> >
> >     We were all getting tired, and Bill Plummer (Tenex TCP) shouted
> >     down the
> >     hall to Dave Clark (Multics TCP) -- "Hey Dave, can you turn off your
> >     checksumming again?"  Dave replied "OK, it's off".  Bill hit a key on
> >     his terminal.  Dave yelled "Hey, Multics just crashed!"  Bill gloated
> >     "KO! Ten points for me!"
> >
> >     Such was how checksumming made it into TCP/IP4.
> >
> >     Jack Haverty
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 4/21/24 12:27, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> >     > So I wasn?t dreaming!  ;-)
> >     >
> >     > CRCs also have problems in HDLC if there are a lot of 1s in the
> >     data.  (The bit stuffing is not included in the checksum
> calculation.)
> >     >
> >     >> On Apr 21, 2024, at 15:22,touch at strayalpha.com wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >> I think it was this one:
> >     >> http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/conf/partridge.pdf
> >     >>
> >     >> Joe
> >     >>
> >     >> ?
> >     >> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> >     >> www.strayalpha.com <http://www.strayalpha.com>
> >     >>
> >     >>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 12:20?PM, Scott Bradner via
> >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >     >>>
> >     >>> maybe in conjunction with the Pac Bell NAP
> >     >>>
> >     >>> https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pac-bell-adds-network-access/
> >     >>>
> >     >>> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/1998-March/127113.html
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Scott
> >     >>>
> >     >>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day<jeanjour at comcast.net>
> >     wrote:
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig
> >     Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly
> >     other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols
> >     were not built to detect such losses.
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> Am I dreaming?
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> John
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via
> >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >     >>>>>
> >     >>>>> yes but...
> >     >>>>>
> >     >>>>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and
> >     most of IP
> >     >>>>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should
> >     assume they were
> >     >>>>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features
> >     (e.g., ABR)
> >     >>>>>
> >     >>>>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
> >     >>>>>
> >     >>>>> Scott
> >     >>>>>
> >     >>>>>
> >     >>>>>
> >     >>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G.
> >     Malis<agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >     >>>>>>
> >     >>>>>> Scott,
> >     >>>>>>
> >     >>>>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over
> >     Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684.
> >     >>>>>>
> >     >>>>>> Cheers,
> >     >>>>>> Andy
> >     >>>>>>
> >     >>>>>>
> >     >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via
> >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >     >>>>>>
> >     >>>>>>
> >     >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via
> >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >     >>>>>>>
> >     >>>>>>> John Day via
> >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >     >>>>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to
> >     interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was
> >     the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> >     >>>>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution
> >     must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their
> >     paper.
> >     >>>>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and
> >     hence protocol translation at the gateways?
> >     >>>>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution"
> >     that I see was
> >     >>>>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was
> >     independent of
> >     >>>>>>> their physical medium.
> >     >>>>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol &
> >     a network - OK
> >     >>>>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they
> >     were running over ATM
> >     >>>>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
> >     >>>>>>
> >     >>>>>> Scott
> >     >>>>>> --
> >     >>>>>> 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
> >
> >     --
> >     Internet-history mailing list
> >     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent by a Verified
> > Sent by a Verified sender
> > <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
> > sender
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From gnu at toad.com  Mon Apr 22 01:51:40 2024
From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 01:51:40 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking: error checking of main memory
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_V-AQzV+uB3Qr+C-cBYM-4baXdNfwhp2Uo-CUzWO4mW_g@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <CABf5zvJcFaL04oMzq88zeRrd=pcSTJ6Nuk=NznBN_z1mWE448A@mail.gmail.com>
 <f367f79a-bac6-4dcb-8e8d-72d6cf39c0fb@3kitty.org>
 <CAAFtm_V-AQzV+uB3Qr+C-cBYM-4baXdNfwhp2Uo-CUzWO4mW_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21059.1713775900@hop.toad.com>

vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> The memory of the IMPs was not error checked in the way current day
> computers do.

At Sun in the 1980s, we put parity checks on all of our memory, and in
later models, offered ECC main memory.  I was horrified when I moved
from Suns to PC's in the '90s and discovered that the vast majority of
IBM PC clones (up to this day) are shipped with no error checking and no
error correction on main memory.  Just like those 1970s IMPs!

Some of this comes from Intel's mendacious attitude that anybody who
wants error checking should pay them more for a CPU chip -- so they
provide none in their cheaper CPUs, which are of course the ones that
are shipped in the highest volumes.

On AMD chips and motherboards, both parity and full ECC have been
supported for generations.  All you have to do to enable it is to use
SIMM or DIMM memories that are a few bits wider (and thus a few dollars
more expensive).  But the Lenovo laptop I'm typing on has no parity nor
ECC on its memory, despite its AMD Ryzen processor.  (The Linux kernel's
boot messages will include something like "EDAC amd64: Node 0: DRAM ECC
enabled" if it's there and working.)

	John
	


From steve at shinkuro.com  Mon Apr 22 03:08:40 2024
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:08:40 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: error checking of main memory
In-Reply-To: <21059.1713775900@hop.toad.com>
References: <21059.1713775900@hop.toad.com>
Message-ID: <E2EE2E99-6B0B-4080-8243-181DF3CD245B@shinkuro.com>

I believe the Harvard IMP had a memory failure that resulted in it advertising that its distance to all nodes was zero.  Instant popularity :)

Host level checksums would not have caught that particular problem, but other checks would have.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 22, 2024, at 4:52?AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> The memory of the IMPs was not error checked in the way current day
>> computers do.
> 
> At Sun in the 1980s, we put parity checks on all of our memory, and in
> later models, offered ECC main memory.  I was horrified when I moved
> from Suns to PC's in the '90s and discovered that the vast majority of
> IBM PC clones (up to this day) are shipped with no error checking and no
> error correction on main memory.  Just like those 1970s IMPs!
> 
> Some of this comes from Intel's mendacious attitude that anybody who
> wants error checking should pay them more for a CPU chip -- so they
> provide none in their cheaper CPUs, which are of course the ones that
> are shipped in the highest volumes.
> 
> On AMD chips and motherboards, both parity and full ECC have been
> supported for generations.  All you have to do to enable it is to use
> SIMM or DIMM memories that are a few bits wider (and thus a few dollars
> more expensive).  But the Lenovo laptop I'm typing on has no parity nor
> ECC on its memory, despite its AMD Ryzen processor.  (The Linux kernel's
> boot messages will include something like "EDAC amd64: Node 0: DRAM ECC
> enabled" if it's there and working.)
> 
>    John
>    
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history


From york at isoc.org  Mon Apr 22 03:58:42 2024
From: york at isoc.org (Dan York)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 10:58:42 +0000
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>

In the midst of these truly fascinating discussions (which were mostly before my time as I was a CompSci university student in the late 1980s), this one line in Jack?s great recollection gave me pause:

On Apr 21, 2024, at 6:14?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon had set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each participant a number of points for passing each test.   His score rules are here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing

Is this document preserved somewhere else beyond someone?s Google Drive?   (If not, where is a good place for it?)

It seems like the kind of thing that would be useful for future historians or others interested in how this all came to be. (And Jack, your whole message was great - if you haven?t written that down elsewhere we should collectively figure out how to get that story saved somewhere other than in an email archive!)

Just curious,
Dan


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Mon Apr 22 04:03:02 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 07:03:02 -0400
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_WuVkR_gW0eZQbk7i6+VZDBL7-jg4G6+oXEYSjjLuUTdA@mail.gmail.com>

As I recall, for at least one of the bakeoffs, I supplied a significant
bottle of champagne for the winner.

v


On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 6:59?AM Dan York via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> In the midst of these truly fascinating discussions (which were mostly
> before my time as I was a CompSci university student in the late 1980s),
> this one line in Jack?s great recollection gave me pause:
>
> On Apr 21, 2024, at 6:14?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon had
> set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each participant a
> number of points for passing each test.   His score rules are here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
>
> Is this document preserved somewhere else beyond someone?s Google Drive?
>  (If not, where is a good place for it?)
>
> It seems like the kind of thing that would be useful for future historians
> or others interested in how this all came to be. (And Jack, your whole
> message was great - if you haven?t written that down elsewhere we should
> collectively figure out how to get that story saved somewhere other than in
> an email archive!)
>
> Just curious,
> Dan
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From agmalis at gmail.com  Mon Apr 22 06:43:42 2024
From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:43:42 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_V-AQzV+uB3Qr+C-cBYM-4baXdNfwhp2Uo-CUzWO4mW_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <CABf5zvJcFaL04oMzq88zeRrd=pcSTJ6Nuk=NznBN_z1mWE448A@mail.gmail.com>
 <f367f79a-bac6-4dcb-8e8d-72d6cf39c0fb@3kitty.org>
 <CAAFtm_V-AQzV+uB3Qr+C-cBYM-4baXdNfwhp2Uo-CUzWO4mW_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1k4VN7AOQgYYRW+m4QpA5gvvbsZGHaUoHpvCs7qV+rqg@mail.gmail.com>

Vint,

A memory error caused the upper bit of a routing update sequence number to
flip, making the sequence number "greater than" the previously circulating
sequence number by exactly half the sequence number space. Routing updates
half-way through the sequence space kept chasing each other. We fixed it by
instituting a window on the sequence space so that only updates "greater
than" the previous update but within the window were accepted.

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:01?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 2:07?AM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > You were right, and checksum issues did cause troubles in the Arpanet.
> > The IMPs *did* have errors.  The details have become fuzzy, but IIRC
> > there was a routing failure at one point that took down the entire
> > Arpanet.   The cause was traced to a bad memory in some IMP that was
> > corrupting packets if they happened to use that memory.   Some of the
> > packets were internal packets disseminating routing information ... and
> > the bad data resulted in the net locking up in perpetual routing
> > confusion.   Checksums caught errors on circuits, but not errors inside
> > the IMP memory.
> >
> there were at least two cases. In one, all the bits of the distance vector
> were zeroed making it look like the IMP at Harvard (?) was zero hops from
> all other IMPs. In a second case, a flaky memory bit caused a routing
> packet to be sent repeatedly everywhere in the network as each successive
> packet looked like an "update" and was sent on all circuits between the
> IMPs. At least, that's my hazy recollection. The memory of the IMPs was not
> error checked in the way current day computers do.
>
> >
> > Checksums were useful as debugging tools in Internet operation just like
> > in the Arpanet.  When we got the task of making the core Internet into a
> > 24x7 we took the easiest route and applied the same techniques that had
> > been developed for the Arpanet NOC.   One of those techniques was
> > "traps", which were essentially error reports from remote switches to
> > NOC operators.   So the core gateways quickly acquired the ability to
> > report errors back to our NOC, just like IMPs had been doing for about a
> > decade.
> >
> > Mike Brescia was one of the "Internet gang" and he with Bob Hinden and
> > Alan Sheltzer watched over the neonatal Internet core to keep it as
> > close as possible to a 24x7 service.  One day Mike noticed that a
> > particular router was reporting lots of checksum errors.  He
> > investigated and saw that a new host was trying to come up on the
> > Internet and apparently someone was debugging their TCP.  The checksum
> > reports revealed the problem -- IIRC, the 4 bytes of IP addresses were
> > misordered.   That was easy to do with 16-bit CPUs holding 2 8-bit bytes
> > in each word.
> >
> > So Mike looked up the host information at the NIC, found the email
> > address of the likely responsible human, and sent an email, something
> > like "FYI, you need to swap the bytes in your IP addresses".   A short
> > while later he got back an answer, something like "Hey, thanks!  That
> > was it."   Not long after that he got another email -- "How the &^&^%
> > did you know that???"   The TCP developer somewhere in the midwest IIRC
> > had realized that someone in Boston had been looking over their shoulder
> > from a thousand miles away.
> >
> > Remote debugging.  Checksums were potent debugging tools.  Started in
> > the Arpanet (I think), and we just moved it into the Internet.
> >
> > Fun times.
> > Jack Haverty
> >
> > On 4/21/24 15:56, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > > There was a bit of checksum history earlier.  In our early thinking
> > > about protocols for the Arpanet, Jeff Rulifson pointed out the utility
> > > of checksums to detect possible errors in implementations.  By "early
> > > thinking" I mean the period between August 1968 and February 1969.
> > > This was well before BBN issues report 1822 with the details of the
> > > message format, etc.  We knew the IMPs would accept messages of
> > > roughly 8000 bits, break them into packets of roughly 1000 bits, and
> > > then reassemble them at the receiving IMP.  We also knew the IMPs
> > > would be using very strong checksums to detect transmission errors
> > > between the IMPs.
> > >
> > > We decided to use a 16 bit checksum that was simply the ones
> > > complement sum of the message, with one added wrinkle of rotating the
> > > sum by one bit every thousand bits.  We included this wrinkle to catch
> > > the possible error of misordering the packets during reassembly.
> > >
> > > On 14 Feb 1969, a few of us in the Network Working Group met with the
> > > IMP team at BBN for the first time.  When we described our thinking
> > > about a checksum, Frank Heart hit the roof.  "You'll make my network
> > > look slow!" his voice reaching his trademarked high pitch when he was
> > > exercised.  He pointed out they had very strong checksums for the
> > > transmissions between the IMPs.
> > >
> > > I tried to counter him.  "What about the path between the host and the
> > > IMP?" I asked.  "As reliable as your accumulator," he roared.  (For
> > > those young enough not to understand what this referred to, in those
> > > days the central processing unit of a computer consisted of separate
> > > components.  The accumulator was a separate piece of hardware that
> > > held one word of data. It was involved in almost every instruction, so
> > > if it broke, the computer was broken.)
> > >
> > > To my everlasting embarrassment, I yielded.  We didn't challenge
> > > whether the IMPs might ever have an error, and we didn't insist that
> > > it wouldn't really cost very much to have a lightweight checksum.  We
> > > dropped the idea of including a checksum.
> > >
> > > Unlike the Arpanet, the Internet included a wide variety of computing
> > > and transmission environments, so the need for checksums was far more
> > > evident.  But we didn't have to wait that long.  When Lincoln Lab
> > > connected the TX-2 to the IMP 10 sometime in 1970 or early 1971, they
> > > had intermittent errors that took a while to track down.  It turned
> > > out when their drum was operating, there was hardware interference
> > > with their IMP interface.  A simple checksum might have helped narrow
> > > down where to look ;)
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:14?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history
> > > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Probably not many people know the story behind the IP checksum.   I
> > >     don't think anyone's ever written it down.  While I still
> > remember...:
> > >
> > >     The checksum algorithm was selected not for its capabilities to
> catch
> > >     errors, but rather for its simplicity for our overworked and
> > >     inadequate
> > >     computing power.  There was significant concern at the time,
> > >     especially
> > >     in the sites running the big host computers, about the use of
> scarce
> > >     computing power as "overhead" involved in using the network. See
> for
> > >     example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc//rfc425
> > >
> > >     Besides, at the time all TCP traffic was through the Arpanet, and
> the
> > >     IMPs did their own checksums so any circuit problems would be
> caught
> > >     there.  So as we were defining the details of the new TCP4
> > >     mechanisms,
> > >     the checksum algorithm was kept intentionally simple, to be
> > >     replaced in
> > >     some future version of TCP when computers would be more capable
> > >     and the
> > >     error characteristics of pathways through the Internet were better
> > >     understood by experience.   The checksum algorithm was a
> > >     placeholder for
> > >     a future improved version, like many other mechanisms of TCP/IP4.
> > >
> > >     The actual details of the checksum computation were nailed down on
> > >     January 27, 1979.  That was the date of the first TCP Bakeoff,
> > >     organized
> > >     by Jon Postel.   I think of it as possibly the first ever
> > "Hackathon".
> > >
> > >     The group of TCP implementers assembled on a weekend at USC-ISI and
> > >     commandeered a bunch of offices with terminals that we could use to
> > >     connect to our computers back home.   At first, we could all talk
> to
> > >     ourselves fine.   However, no one could talk to any other
> > >     implementation.  Everybody was getting checksum errors.
> > >
> > >     Since we could all hear each other, a discussion quickly reach a
> > >     consensus.   We turned off the checksum verification code in all
> > >     of our
> > >     implementations, so our TCPs would simply assume every incoming
> > >     message/packet/datagram/segment (you pick your favorite term...)
> was
> > >     error-free.
> > >
> > >     It seems strange now, but computing in the 1970s was a lot
> different
> > >     from today.  In addition to the scarcity of CPU power and memory,
> > >     there
> > >     was little consensus about how bits were used inside of each
> > >     computer,
> > >     and how they were transferred onto wires by network interface
> > >     hardware.
> > >     Computers didn't agree on the number of bits in a byte, or how
> bytes
> > >     were ordered into computer words, how arithmetic calculations were
> > >     performed, or how to take the bits in and out of your computer's
> > >     memory
> > >     and transfer them serially over an I/O interface.  If you think the
> > >     confusion of today's USB connectors is bad, it was much worse 50
> > >     years ago!
> > >
> > >     Danny Cohen later published a great "plea for peace" that reveals
> > >     some
> > >     of the confusion - see https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien137.txt
> > >
> > >     So it wasn't a surprise that each TCP implementer had somehow
> > >     failed in
> > >     translating the specification, simple as it was, into code.
> > >
> > >     The disabling of checksums enabled us to debug all this and slowly
> > >     (took
> > >     two days IIRC) got implementations to talk to other
> implementations.
> > >     Then we re-enabled checksumming and tried all the tests again.
> TCP4
> > >     worked!  Jon Postel took on the task of figuring out how the now
> > >     working
> > >     checksums actually were doing the computations and revised the
> > >     specifications accordingly.   Rough consensus and running code had
> > >     failed; instead we had running code and then rough consensus.
> > >
> > >     My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday.
> > >     Jon
> > >     had set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each
> > >     participant a number of points for passing each test.   His score
> > >     rules
> > >     are here:
> > >
> >
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
> > >
> > >     We were all getting tired, and Bill Plummer (Tenex TCP) shouted
> > >     down the
> > >     hall to Dave Clark (Multics TCP) -- "Hey Dave, can you turn off
> your
> > >     checksumming again?"  Dave replied "OK, it's off".  Bill hit a key
> on
> > >     his terminal.  Dave yelled "Hey, Multics just crashed!"  Bill
> gloated
> > >     "KO! Ten points for me!"
> > >
> > >     Such was how checksumming made it into TCP/IP4.
> > >
> > >     Jack Haverty
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     On 4/21/24 12:27, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > >     > So I wasn?t dreaming!  ;-)
> > >     >
> > >     > CRCs also have problems in HDLC if there are a lot of 1s in the
> > >     data.  (The bit stuffing is not included in the checksum
> > calculation.)
> > >     >
> > >     >> On Apr 21, 2024, at 15:22,touch at strayalpha.com wrote:
> > >     >>
> > >     >> I think it was this one:
> > >     >> http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/conf/partridge.pdf
> > >     >>
> > >     >> Joe
> > >     >>
> > >     >> ?
> > >     >> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> > >     >> www.strayalpha.com <http://www.strayalpha.com>
> > >     >>
> > >     >>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 12:20?PM, Scott Bradner via
> > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >     >>>
> > >     >>> maybe in conjunction with the Pac Bell NAP
> > >     >>>
> > >     >>> https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pac-bell-adds-network-access/
> > >     >>>
> > >     >>>
> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/1998-March/127113.html
> > >     >>>
> > >     >>> Scott
> > >     >>>
> > >     >>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day<jeanjour at comcast.net>
> > >     wrote:
> > >     >>>>
> > >     >>>> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig
> > >     Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly
> > >     other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols
> > >     were not built to detect such losses.
> > >     >>>>
> > >     >>>> Am I dreaming?
> > >     >>>>
> > >     >>>> John
> > >     >>>>
> > >     >>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via
> > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>> yes but...
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and
> > >     most of IP
> > >     >>>>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should
> > >     assume they were
> > >     >>>>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features
> > >     (e.g., ABR)
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>> Scott
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>>
> > >     >>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G.
> > >     Malis<agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >     >>>>>>
> > >     >>>>>> Scott,
> > >     >>>>>>
> > >     >>>>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over
> > >     Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684.
> > >     >>>>>>
> > >     >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >     >>>>>> Andy
> > >     >>>>>>
> > >     >>>>>>
> > >     >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via
> > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >     >>>>>>
> > >     >>>>>>
> > >     >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via
> > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >     >>>>>>>
> > >     >>>>>>> John Day via
> > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >     >>>>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to
> > >     interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was
> > >     the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> > >     >>>>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution
> > >     must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their
> > >     paper.
> > >     >>>>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and
> > >     hence protocol translation at the gateways?
> > >     >>>>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution"
> > >     that I see was
> > >     >>>>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was
> > >     independent of
> > >     >>>>>>> their physical medium.
> > >     >>>>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol &
> > >     a network - OK
> > >     >>>>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they
> > >     were running over ATM
> > >     >>>>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
> > >     >>>>>>
> > >     >>>>>> Scott
> > >     >>>>>> --
> > >     >>>>>> 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
> > >
> > >     --
> > >     Internet-history mailing list
> > >     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > >     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent by a Verified
> > > Sent by a Verified sender
> > > <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
> > > sender
> >
> > --
> > 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  Mon Apr 22 06:50:34 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:50:34 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1k4VN7AOQgYYRW+m4QpA5gvvbsZGHaUoHpvCs7qV+rqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <CABf5zvJcFaL04oMzq88zeRrd=pcSTJ6Nuk=NznBN_z1mWE448A@mail.gmail.com>
 <f367f79a-bac6-4dcb-8e8d-72d6cf39c0fb@3kitty.org>
 <CAAFtm_V-AQzV+uB3Qr+C-cBYM-4baXdNfwhp2Uo-CUzWO4mW_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA=duU1k4VN7AOQgYYRW+m4QpA5gvvbsZGHaUoHpvCs7qV+rqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggeA+o6qwi2Kjb2tVr4CMVpkwKfxSBLXn-Pq_kHL+gLwzw@mail.gmail.com>

thanks for that background, Andy!
v


On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 9:44?AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Vint,
>
> A memory error caused the upper bit of a routing update sequence number to
> flip, making the sequence number "greater than" the previously circulating
> sequence number by exactly half the sequence number space. Routing updates
> half-way through the sequence space kept chasing each other. We fixed it by
> instituting a window on the sequence space so that only updates "greater
> than" the previous update but within the window were accepted.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:01?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 2:07?AM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > You were right, and checksum issues did cause troubles in the Arpanet.
> > > The IMPs *did* have errors.  The details have become fuzzy, but IIRC
> > > there was a routing failure at one point that took down the entire
> > > Arpanet.   The cause was traced to a bad memory in some IMP that was
> > > corrupting packets if they happened to use that memory.   Some of the
> > > packets were internal packets disseminating routing information ... and
> > > the bad data resulted in the net locking up in perpetual routing
> > > confusion.   Checksums caught errors on circuits, but not errors inside
> > > the IMP memory.
> > >
> > there were at least two cases. In one, all the bits of the distance
> vector
> > were zeroed making it look like the IMP at Harvard (?) was zero hops from
> > all other IMPs. In a second case, a flaky memory bit caused a routing
> > packet to be sent repeatedly everywhere in the network as each successive
> > packet looked like an "update" and was sent on all circuits between the
> > IMPs. At least, that's my hazy recollection. The memory of the IMPs was
> not
> > error checked in the way current day computers do.
> >
> > >
> > > Checksums were useful as debugging tools in Internet operation just
> like
> > > in the Arpanet.  When we got the task of making the core Internet into
> a
> > > 24x7 we took the easiest route and applied the same techniques that had
> > > been developed for the Arpanet NOC.   One of those techniques was
> > > "traps", which were essentially error reports from remote switches to
> > > NOC operators.   So the core gateways quickly acquired the ability to
> > > report errors back to our NOC, just like IMPs had been doing for about
> a
> > > decade.
> > >
> > > Mike Brescia was one of the "Internet gang" and he with Bob Hinden and
> > > Alan Sheltzer watched over the neonatal Internet core to keep it as
> > > close as possible to a 24x7 service.  One day Mike noticed that a
> > > particular router was reporting lots of checksum errors.  He
> > > investigated and saw that a new host was trying to come up on the
> > > Internet and apparently someone was debugging their TCP.  The checksum
> > > reports revealed the problem -- IIRC, the 4 bytes of IP addresses were
> > > misordered.   That was easy to do with 16-bit CPUs holding 2 8-bit
> bytes
> > > in each word.
> > >
> > > So Mike looked up the host information at the NIC, found the email
> > > address of the likely responsible human, and sent an email, something
> > > like "FYI, you need to swap the bytes in your IP addresses".   A short
> > > while later he got back an answer, something like "Hey, thanks!  That
> > > was it."   Not long after that he got another email -- "How the &^&^%
> > > did you know that???"   The TCP developer somewhere in the midwest IIRC
> > > had realized that someone in Boston had been looking over their
> shoulder
> > > from a thousand miles away.
> > >
> > > Remote debugging.  Checksums were potent debugging tools.  Started in
> > > the Arpanet (I think), and we just moved it into the Internet.
> > >
> > > Fun times.
> > > Jack Haverty
> > >
> > > On 4/21/24 15:56, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > > > There was a bit of checksum history earlier.  In our early thinking
> > > > about protocols for the Arpanet, Jeff Rulifson pointed out the
> utility
> > > > of checksums to detect possible errors in implementations.  By "early
> > > > thinking" I mean the period between August 1968 and February 1969.
> > > > This was well before BBN issues report 1822 with the details of the
> > > > message format, etc.  We knew the IMPs would accept messages of
> > > > roughly 8000 bits, break them into packets of roughly 1000 bits, and
> > > > then reassemble them at the receiving IMP.  We also knew the IMPs
> > > > would be using very strong checksums to detect transmission errors
> > > > between the IMPs.
> > > >
> > > > We decided to use a 16 bit checksum that was simply the ones
> > > > complement sum of the message, with one added wrinkle of rotating the
> > > > sum by one bit every thousand bits.  We included this wrinkle to
> catch
> > > > the possible error of misordering the packets during reassembly.
> > > >
> > > > On 14 Feb 1969, a few of us in the Network Working Group met with the
> > > > IMP team at BBN for the first time.  When we described our thinking
> > > > about a checksum, Frank Heart hit the roof.  "You'll make my network
> > > > look slow!" his voice reaching his trademarked high pitch when he was
> > > > exercised.  He pointed out they had very strong checksums for the
> > > > transmissions between the IMPs.
> > > >
> > > > I tried to counter him.  "What about the path between the host and
> the
> > > > IMP?" I asked.  "As reliable as your accumulator," he roared.  (For
> > > > those young enough not to understand what this referred to, in those
> > > > days the central processing unit of a computer consisted of separate
> > > > components.  The accumulator was a separate piece of hardware that
> > > > held one word of data. It was involved in almost every instruction,
> so
> > > > if it broke, the computer was broken.)
> > > >
> > > > To my everlasting embarrassment, I yielded.  We didn't challenge
> > > > whether the IMPs might ever have an error, and we didn't insist that
> > > > it wouldn't really cost very much to have a lightweight checksum.  We
> > > > dropped the idea of including a checksum.
> > > >
> > > > Unlike the Arpanet, the Internet included a wide variety of computing
> > > > and transmission environments, so the need for checksums was far more
> > > > evident.  But we didn't have to wait that long.  When Lincoln Lab
> > > > connected the TX-2 to the IMP 10 sometime in 1970 or early 1971, they
> > > > had intermittent errors that took a while to track down.  It turned
> > > > out when their drum was operating, there was hardware interference
> > > > with their IMP interface.  A simple checksum might have helped narrow
> > > > down where to look ;)
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:14?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history
> > > > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     Probably not many people know the story behind the IP checksum.
>  I
> > > >     don't think anyone's ever written it down.  While I still
> > > remember...:
> > > >
> > > >     The checksum algorithm was selected not for its capabilities to
> > catch
> > > >     errors, but rather for its simplicity for our overworked and
> > > >     inadequate
> > > >     computing power.  There was significant concern at the time,
> > > >     especially
> > > >     in the sites running the big host computers, about the use of
> > scarce
> > > >     computing power as "overhead" involved in using the network. See
> > for
> > > >     example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc//rfc425
> > > >
> > > >     Besides, at the time all TCP traffic was through the Arpanet, and
> > the
> > > >     IMPs did their own checksums so any circuit problems would be
> > caught
> > > >     there.  So as we were defining the details of the new TCP4
> > > >     mechanisms,
> > > >     the checksum algorithm was kept intentionally simple, to be
> > > >     replaced in
> > > >     some future version of TCP when computers would be more capable
> > > >     and the
> > > >     error characteristics of pathways through the Internet were
> better
> > > >     understood by experience.   The checksum algorithm was a
> > > >     placeholder for
> > > >     a future improved version, like many other mechanisms of TCP/IP4.
> > > >
> > > >     The actual details of the checksum computation were nailed down
> on
> > > >     January 27, 1979.  That was the date of the first TCP Bakeoff,
> > > >     organized
> > > >     by Jon Postel.   I think of it as possibly the first ever
> > > "Hackathon".
> > > >
> > > >     The group of TCP implementers assembled on a weekend at USC-ISI
> and
> > > >     commandeered a bunch of offices with terminals that we could use
> to
> > > >     connect to our computers back home.   At first, we could all talk
> > to
> > > >     ourselves fine.   However, no one could talk to any other
> > > >     implementation.  Everybody was getting checksum errors.
> > > >
> > > >     Since we could all hear each other, a discussion quickly reach a
> > > >     consensus.   We turned off the checksum verification code in all
> > > >     of our
> > > >     implementations, so our TCPs would simply assume every incoming
> > > >     message/packet/datagram/segment (you pick your favorite term...)
> > was
> > > >     error-free.
> > > >
> > > >     It seems strange now, but computing in the 1970s was a lot
> > different
> > > >     from today.  In addition to the scarcity of CPU power and memory,
> > > >     there
> > > >     was little consensus about how bits were used inside of each
> > > >     computer,
> > > >     and how they were transferred onto wires by network interface
> > > >     hardware.
> > > >     Computers didn't agree on the number of bits in a byte, or how
> > bytes
> > > >     were ordered into computer words, how arithmetic calculations
> were
> > > >     performed, or how to take the bits in and out of your computer's
> > > >     memory
> > > >     and transfer them serially over an I/O interface.  If you think
> the
> > > >     confusion of today's USB connectors is bad, it was much worse 50
> > > >     years ago!
> > > >
> > > >     Danny Cohen later published a great "plea for peace" that reveals
> > > >     some
> > > >     of the confusion - see https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien137.txt
> > > >
> > > >     So it wasn't a surprise that each TCP implementer had somehow
> > > >     failed in
> > > >     translating the specification, simple as it was, into code.
> > > >
> > > >     The disabling of checksums enabled us to debug all this and
> slowly
> > > >     (took
> > > >     two days IIRC) got implementations to talk to other
> > implementations.
> > > >     Then we re-enabled checksumming and tried all the tests again.
> > TCP4
> > > >     worked!  Jon Postel took on the task of figuring out how the now
> > > >     working
> > > >     checksums actually were doing the computations and revised the
> > > >     specifications accordingly.   Rough consensus and running code
> had
> > > >     failed; instead we had running code and then rough consensus.
> > > >
> > > >     My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on
> Sunday.
> > > >     Jon
> > > >     had set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each
> > > >     participant a number of points for passing each test.   His score
> > > >     rules
> > > >     are here:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
> > > >
> > > >     We were all getting tired, and Bill Plummer (Tenex TCP) shouted
> > > >     down the
> > > >     hall to Dave Clark (Multics TCP) -- "Hey Dave, can you turn off
> > your
> > > >     checksumming again?"  Dave replied "OK, it's off".  Bill hit a
> key
> > on
> > > >     his terminal.  Dave yelled "Hey, Multics just crashed!"  Bill
> > gloated
> > > >     "KO! Ten points for me!"
> > > >
> > > >     Such was how checksumming made it into TCP/IP4.
> > > >
> > > >     Jack Haverty
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     On 4/21/24 12:27, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > > >     > So I wasn?t dreaming!  ;-)
> > > >     >
> > > >     > CRCs also have problems in HDLC if there are a lot of 1s in the
> > > >     data.  (The bit stuffing is not included in the checksum
> > > calculation.)
> > > >     >
> > > >     >> On Apr 21, 2024, at 15:22,touch at strayalpha.com wrote:
> > > >     >>
> > > >     >> I think it was this one:
> > > >     >> http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/conf/partridge.pdf
> > > >     >>
> > > >     >> Joe
> > > >     >>
> > > >     >> ?
> > > >     >> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> > > >     >> www.strayalpha.com <http://www.strayalpha.com>
> > > >     >>
> > > >     >>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 12:20?PM, Scott Bradner via
> > > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >     >>>
> > > >     >>> maybe in conjunction with the Pac Bell NAP
> > > >     >>>
> > > >     >>>
> https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pac-bell-adds-network-access/
> > > >     >>>
> > > >     >>>
> > https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/1998-March/127113.html
> > > >     >>>
> > > >     >>> Scott
> > > >     >>>
> > > >     >>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 3:00?PM, John Day<jeanjour at comcast.net>
> > > >     wrote:
> > > >     >>>>
> > > >     >>>> I have a vague recollection of a paper (possibly by Craig
> > > >     Partridge) that talked about ATM dropping cells (and possibly
> > > >     other different forms of errors) and how IP and other protocols
> > > >     were not built to detect such losses.
> > > >     >>>>
> > > >     >>>> Am I dreaming?
> > > >     >>>>
> > > >     >>>> John
> > > >     >>>>
> > > >     >>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 09:10, Scott Bradner via
> > > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >     >>>>>
> > > >     >>>>> yes but...
> > > >     >>>>>
> > > >     >>>>> the ATM Forum people felt that ATM should replace TCP and
> > > >     most of IP
> > > >     >>>>> i.e. become the new IP and that new applications should
> > > >     assume they were
> > > >     >>>>> running over ATM and directly make use of ATM features
> > > >     (e.g., ABR)
> > > >     >>>>>
> > > >     >>>>> ATM as yet another wire was just fine (though a bit choppy)
> > > >     >>>>>
> > > >     >>>>> Scott
> > > >     >>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 9:02?AM, Andrew G.
> > > >     Malis<agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >     >>>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>> Scott,
> > > >     >>>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>> ATM could carry any protocol that you could carry over
> > > >     Ethernet, see RFCs 2225, 2492, and 2684.
> > > >     >>>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >     >>>>>> Andy
> > > >     >>>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 8:15?PM Scott Bradner via
> > > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >     >>>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>>> On Apr 20, 2024, at 8:11?PM, John Gilmore via
> > > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >     >>>>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>>> John Day via
> > > >     Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >     >>>>>>>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how
> to
> > > >     interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was
> > > >     the solution that was arrived at that led to the current
> Internet?
> > > >     >>>>>>>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution
> > > >     must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their
> > > >     paper.
> > > >     >>>>>>>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and
> > > >     hence protocol translation at the gateways?
> > > >     >>>>>>> Maybe it's too obvious in retrospect.  But the "solution"
> > > >     that I see was
> > > >     >>>>>>> that everyone had to move to using a protocol that was
> > > >     independent of
> > > >     >>>>>>> their physical medium.
> > > >     >>>>>> and ATM was an example of the reverse - it was a protocol
> &
> > > >     a network - OK
> > > >     >>>>>> as long as you did not build applications that knew they
> > > >     were running over ATM
> > > >     >>>>>> (or if ATM had been the last networking protocol)
> > > >     >>>>>>
> > > >     >>>>>> Scott
> > > >     >>>>>> --
> > > >     >>>>>> 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
> > > >
> > > >     --
> > > >     Internet-history mailing list
> > > >     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > >     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sent by a Verified
> > > > Sent by a Verified sender
> > > > <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
> > > > sender
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4006 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240422/c6bcb58d/attachment.p7s>

From craig at tereschau.net  Mon Apr 22 08:14:38 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:14:38 -0600
Subject: [ih] gateway vs. router
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CeNwUHhBL-8QYknrrSggodiKqdB8SCnCf14AHg15bzvtA@mail.gmail.com>

As I recall, the shift from "gateway" to "router" took place during
the 1980s.  The issue was "gateway" had two meanings: (1) what we
would call a router, which takes packets in a given protocol and maps
those packets onto various lower-layer protocols; and (2) protocol
converters, which translate from protocol A to protocol B.

Because, in the 1980s, we were still in a multi-protocol world, people
were building "gateways" of the second variety.  And they were
distinct from "ships-in-the-night" routers (which were multiprotocol
but didn't do conversion).

Thanks!

Craig
-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
and mailing lists.


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr 22 08:37:45 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:37:45 -0700
Subject: [ih] gateway vs. router
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeNwUHhBL-8QYknrrSggodiKqdB8SCnCf14AHg15bzvtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHQj4CeNwUHhBL-8QYknrrSggodiKqdB8SCnCf14AHg15bzvtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4c28a346-ade5-4ac9-8dad-29093552380e@dcrocker.net>


> Because, in the 1980s, we were still in a multi-protocol world, people
> were building "gateways" of the second variety.  And they were
> distinct from "ships-in-the-night" routers (which were multiprotocol
> but didn't do conversion).

Gateways was also an unsatisfying choice because it did not afford this 
international community an opportunity to debate pronunciation.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 08:39:44 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:39:44 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] gateway vs. router
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeNwUHhBL-8QYknrrSggodiKqdB8SCnCf14AHg15bzvtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHQj4CeNwUHhBL-8QYknrrSggodiKqdB8SCnCf14AHg15bzvtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1678783899.2251414.1713800384078@mail.yahoo.com>

 It took many years for this to happen.? We? did talk about this on the list in the recent past if you want to see more input.
barbara?

    On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 08:15:01 AM PDT, Craig Partridge via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 As I recall, the shift from "gateway" to "router" took place during
the 1980s.? The issue was "gateway" had two meanings: (1) what we
would call a router, which takes packets in a given protocol and maps
those packets onto various lower-layer protocols; and (2) protocol
converters, which translate from protocol A to protocol B.

Because, in the 1980s, we were still in a multi-protocol world, people
were building "gateways" of the second variety.? And they were
distinct from "ships-in-the-night" routers (which were multiprotocol
but didn't do conversion).

Thanks!

Craig  

From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Mon Apr 22 09:21:21 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:21:21 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fwd:  early networking: "the solution"
References: <677346598.2267926.1713802293189@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5084F938-8B96-4732-AA40-AE6B6EEF6545@icloud.com>

trying to forward for Barbara

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
> Date: April 22, 2024 at 9:11:41?AM PDT
> To: Greg Skinner <gregskinner0 at icloud.com>
> Subject: Fw: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
> 
> ?
> Could you send this?  Back to the having trouble state.
> 
> barbara
> 
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 at 09:05:05 AM PDT
> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
> 
> Yeah!!! My last message didn't get blocked so trying this one again.
> 
> I have vague recollections the Internet checksum pointed out a bug in the SINCGARs applique prototype during development.  We were  getting packets that had IP checksum errors  yet had passed all the lower layer checks in the radio portion.  That wasn't supposed to happen.
> 
> barbara
> 
> On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 06:44:12 AM PDT, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Vint,
> 
> A memory error caused the upper bit of a routing update sequence number to
> flip, making the sequence number "greater than" the previously circulating
> sequence number by exactly half the sequence number space. Routing updates
> half-way through the sequence space kept chasing each other. We fixed it by
> instituting a window on the sequence space so that only updates "greater
> than" the previous update but within the window were accepted.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Mon Apr 22 09:24:48 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:24:48 -0700
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
Message-ID: <1D1B0362-378F-4995-AEBE-964414BBA3A1@icloud.com>

?
On Apr 22, 2024, at 3:59?AM, Dan York via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?In the midst of these truly fascinating discussions (which were mostly before my time as I was a CompSci university student in the late 1980s), this one line in Jack?s great recollection gave me pause:
> 
> On Apr 21, 2024, at 6:14?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon had set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each participant a number of points for passing each test.   His score rules are here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
> 
> Is this document preserved somewhere else beyond someone?s Google Drive?   (If not, where is a good place for it?)

There is a bakeoff procedure described in RFC1025, but the point values are different. It references several IENs that report on the bakeoffs that took place earlier.


From bpurvy at gmail.com  Mon Apr 22 09:31:44 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:31:44 -0700
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>

I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly WELL
preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
,
The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews with
founders, all transcribed neatly. I've written three historical novels now
(hint: search Amazon for "Albert Cory," my pen name) and had relatively
little trouble finding the people who knew stuff, or finding the actual
stuff.

You can always say there should be more, and it should all be in one place.
Yeah, and we should all live to age 200, too.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:59?AM Dan York via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> In the midst of these truly fascinating discussions (which were mostly
> before my time as I was a CompSci university student in the late 1980s),
> this one line in Jack?s great recollection gave me pause:
>
> On Apr 21, 2024, at 6:14?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon had
> set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each participant a
> number of points for passing each test.   His score rules are here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
>
> Is this document preserved somewhere else beyond someone?s Google Drive?
>  (If not, where is a good place for it?)
>
> It seems like the kind of thing that would be useful for future historians
> or others interested in how this all came to be. (And Jack, your whole
> message was great - if you haven?t written that down elsewhere we should
> collectively figure out how to get that story saved somewhere other than in
> an email archive!)
>
> Just curious,
> Dan
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From craig at tereschau.net  Mon Apr 22 10:11:01 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:11:01 -0600
Subject: [ih] Fwd: early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <5084F938-8B96-4732-AA40-AE6B6EEF6545@icloud.com>
References: <677346598.2267926.1713802293189@mail.yahoo.com>
 <5084F938-8B96-4732-AA40-AE6B6EEF6545@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CeZGB-ie0Tv-i6cbbcLY6xOKe4BE-PJma+v6Vi6YFSjsQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:21?AM Greg Skinner via Internet-history
<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> >
> > I have vague recollections the Internet checksum pointed out a bug in the SINCGARs applique prototype during development.  We were  getting packets that had IP checksum errors  yet had passed all the lower layer checks in the radio portion.  That wasn't supposed to happen.

A similar, if perhaps more horrifying situation.  Sun's Network File
System (NFS) initially shipped with the UDP checksum turned off -- it
made file system performance over a local Ethernet enough faster that
it mattered competitively.    But this meant, of course, a trashed UDP
packet* could trash your file system.  And, for years, trashed NFS
file systems were a fact of life...

*And there were multiple trashing-capable components of the network
path, ranging from the Ethernet switches, to the network interface
cards, to the system bus.  Indeed, I know one computer vendor who had
a super rare bus error in which bits got trashed -- they couldn't find
it, but knew it existed because their NFS file system would fail every
few months.  So they turned on the UDP checksum in NFS, the problem
"went away", and they could ship their product.

Craig
-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
and mailing lists.


From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Apr 22 10:04:04 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 10:04:04 -0700
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <09AD7B41-5B0B-4496-85E0-4E3CD1849AB5@icloud.com>
References: <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <09AD7B41-5B0B-4496-85E0-4E3CD1849AB5@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <c78ed054-ddd0-46bc-b3bf-dc401dff4522@3kitty.org>

That document I put on Google Drive came out of a box in my basement, 
where it has been for about 45 years now.? I have no idea why I kept 
that particular folder for so long.?? I guess it seemed important.? Or 
maybe it just got stuck in the file cabinet.

AFAIK, the 1979 event was the first "Bakeoff" to test interoperability 
across multiple Arpa projects.? Prior to that, TCP implementations had 
been able to interact, as needed for specific projects.? E.g., the 
Packet Radio project involved several different computers interacting 
with TCP.? My own implementation (PDP-11/40 running Unix V6) was part of 
a Network Security research project, and had successfully interacted 
with Jim Mathis' TCP running on LSI-11s.? Since Jim's code was what I 
started with to create the Unix TCP, it wasn't very surprising that they 
could talk to each other.

At the time, TCP itself was in a state of continuous flux. Everyone's 
probably heard of TCP2 and TCP/IP4.? But at the time we were dealing 
with "specifications" such as "TCP+epsilon" and "TCP+epsilon+2" and 
briefly even "TCP 3".?? That 1979 Bakeoff was an attempt to get a mix of 
Arpa projects "on the same page" with their protocol implementations.?? 
TCP was changing rapidly as experiences and new ideas flowed across the 
'net.

I suspect most of the details of that evolution have been lost since it 
was only captured in email exchanges among the implementers, using 
ascii-art illustrations of header formats.?? Jon suffered as the 
"scribe" for Arpa, capturing snapshots in occasional IENs and RFCs.?? 
RFC 1025 is a good example (thanks Greg!).? There was far more 
discussion, argument, and debate carried out in 1980+-10 using our new 
electronic toy of the 'net.

I think that period of history, roughly between the advent of email on 
the Arpanet (early 1970s?) and the advent of the Web (early 1990s?), was 
an inflection point in history.? In prior eras, discussions were 
captured in traditional forms such as journals and conference 
proceedings.? As the Web proliferated, and sites such as archve.org 
appeared, there was a new mechanism for capturing and publishing.

In between there were few ways to preserve those email discussions.?? 
The NIC at SRI, and the Datacomputer at CCA provided rudimentary new 
ways to store content for posterity.? The Datacomputer had the ability 
to store a massive entire Terabit of stuff people considered important 
to save.? Surely that was enough memory for everyone on the 'net....?? 
But those machines are long gone, and I haven't found any place today 
preserving whatever was on them back then.

To answer Dan's question -- there are lots of such stories, many of 
which I've related on this list.? I've been hoping others would chime in 
with their own stories.?? I try to only relate what I remember, but 
there was lots of the history that I wasn't part of.

The Internet is far more complex, and its history more intricate, than I 
think even today's technology of websites, forums, email, and such can 
handle.?? IMHO, the Web was the "next killer app" that we all spent 
years seeking after the Arpanet triggered the creation of NVTs (Network 
Virtual Terminals), Telnet, FTP, and Email.? The Web changed the world, 
but it's now 30 years old.?? What's next...?

Personally, I've been playing with "Mind Maps", and recently stumbled 
onto Obsidian.? I'm collecting my stories into an Obsidian "vault", 
which seems like it might provide a way to organize what is a very 
complicated history.? But of course my vault will only capture what I 
remember and experienced.

But such a "vault" is just a bunch of files.? Perhaps someone will 
figure out a way to embed such vaults into the Internet, and for people 
to connect their vaults together as an archival quality repository.

Somewhere out there is a hacker who might read this email, say "Yes, we 
can do that" and start writing code.

Perhaps some AI is already working on it.

Jack Haverty


On 4/22/24 08:55, Greg Skinner wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2024, at 3:59?AM, Dan York via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>> ?In the midst of these truly fascinating discussions (which were mostly before my time as I was a CompSci university student in the late 1980s), this one line in Jack?s great recollection gave me pause:
>>
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 6:14?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>
>> My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon had set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each participant a number of points for passing each test.   His score rules are here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> Is this document preserved somewhere else beyond someone?s Google Drive?   (If not, where is a good place for it?)
> There is a bakeoff procedure described in RFC1025, but the point values are different. It references several IENs that report on the bakeoffs that took place earlier.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240422/8c4a8778/attachment.asc>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr 22 11:45:38 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:45:38 -0400
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <26786EE0-8BAD-4C72-888D-21F9400EDD59@comcast.net>

So does the Charles Babbage Institute at the University of Minnesota.

More importantly, CBI has the best archival storage facility I have ever seen:  two 600 foot caves, climate controlled, beneath the library.  They aren?t going anywhere. Each must be about 100? wide and 50? high.

https://www.minnpost.com/stroll/2015/10/subterranean-caverns-protect-us-andersen-library-collections/?
The subterranean caverns that protect the U's Andersen Library collections
minnpost.com

Remember we lost the HP archives in the Camp wildfire a few years ago. CHM does not have a comparable archive facility.

I have material in both CBI and CHM. Most of it at CBI and more will be going there.

The problem isn?t how many interviews or documents they have but how resilient is their archive to natural disasters.

John

> On Apr 22, 2024, at 12:31, Bob Purvy via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly WELL
> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
> ,
> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews with
> founders, all transcribed neatly. I've written three historical novels now
> (hint: search Amazon for "Albert Cory," my pen name) and had relatively
> little trouble finding the people who knew stuff, or finding the actual
> stuff.
> 
> You can always say there should be more, and it should all be in one place.
> Yeah, and we should all live to age 200, too.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:59?AM Dan York via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> In the midst of these truly fascinating discussions (which were mostly
>> before my time as I was a CompSci university student in the late 1980s),
>> this one line in Jack?s great recollection gave me pause:
>> 
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 6:14?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon had
>> set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each participant a
>> number of points for passing each test.   His score rules are here:
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
>> 
>> Is this document preserved somewhere else beyond someone?s Google Drive?
>> (If not, where is a good place for it?)
>> 
>> It seems like the kind of thing that would be useful for future historians
>> or others interested in how this all came to be. (And Jack, your whole
>> message was great - if you haven?t written that down elsewhere we should
>> collectively figure out how to get that story saved somewhere other than in
>> an email archive!)
>> 
>> Just curious,
>> Dan
>> 
>> --
>> 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  Mon Apr 22 11:49:08 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:49:08 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeZGB-ie0Tv-i6cbbcLY6xOKe4BE-PJma+v6Vi6YFSjsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <677346598.2267926.1713802293189@mail.yahoo.com>
 <5084F938-8B96-4732-AA40-AE6B6EEF6545@icloud.com>
 <CAHQj4CeZGB-ie0Tv-i6cbbcLY6xOKe4BE-PJma+v6Vi6YFSjsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46F92A43-6744-410F-A8AB-A316B56E8E6E@comcast.net>

Yee, gads!!!  But OTOH, why am I not surprised.  ;-)

> On Apr 22, 2024, at 13:11, Craig Partridge via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:21?AM Greg Skinner via Internet-history
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> I have vague recollections the Internet checksum pointed out a bug in the SINCGARs applique prototype during development.  We were  getting packets that had IP checksum errors  yet had passed all the lower layer checks in the radio portion.  That wasn't supposed to happen.
> 
> A similar, if perhaps more horrifying situation.  Sun's Network File
> System (NFS) initially shipped with the UDP checksum turned off -- it
> made file system performance over a local Ethernet enough faster that
> it mattered competitively.    But this meant, of course, a trashed UDP
> packet* could trash your file system.  And, for years, trashed NFS
> file systems were a fact of life...
> 
> *And there were multiple trashing-capable components of the network
> path, ranging from the Ethernet switches, to the network interface
> cards, to the system bus.  Indeed, I know one computer vendor who had
> a super rare bus error in which bits got trashed -- they couldn't find
> it, but knew it existed because their NFS file system would fail every
> few months.  So they turned on the UDP checksum in NFS, the problem
> "went away", and they could ship their product.
> 
> 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 jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr 22 11:51:15 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:51:15 -0400
Subject: [ih] gateway vs. router
In-Reply-To: <4c28a346-ade5-4ac9-8dad-29093552380e@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAHQj4CeNwUHhBL-8QYknrrSggodiKqdB8SCnCf14AHg15bzvtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4c28a346-ade5-4ac9-8dad-29093552380e@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <6E7D5A68-2466-4FDC-A1CB-08CE86779367@comcast.net>

The Brits never could get use to the idea that we were just ?improving? the language.  ;-)

> On Apr 22, 2024, at 11:37, Dave Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Because, in the 1980s, we were still in a multi-protocol world, people
>> were building "gateways" of the second variety.  And they were
>> distinct from "ships-in-the-night" routers (which were multiprotocol
>> but didn't do conversion).
> 
> Gateways was also an unsatisfying choice because it did not afford this international community an opportunity to debate pronunciation.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr 22 12:00:42 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:00:42 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fwd: early networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeZGB-ie0Tv-i6cbbcLY6xOKe4BE-PJma+v6Vi6YFSjsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <677346598.2267926.1713802293189@mail.yahoo.com>
 <5084F938-8B96-4732-AA40-AE6B6EEF6545@icloud.com>
 <CAHQj4CeZGB-ie0Tv-i6cbbcLY6xOKe4BE-PJma+v6Vi6YFSjsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b9c3762d-3e0a-4f61-9c97-5a136fe20968@dcrocker.net>

On 4/22/2024 10:11 AM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> And, for years, trashed NFS file systems were a fact of life...

The Ungermann-Bass version of XNS had a similar vulnerability, with 
similar results.? While I was there it took Engineering months to track 
down a bad bit of electronics that was corrupting file data being 
transferred.

I remember a coworking noting that hand they been checksums in UDP or 
TCP, the electronics error would have merely produced an increase in an 
error count, and a retransmission, and no data corruption.

d/

ps.? this assumed that the error was not of the type the IP checksum 
would miss...

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From bpurvy at gmail.com  Mon Apr 22 13:25:39 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:25:39 -0700
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <26786EE0-8BAD-4C72-888D-21F9400EDD59@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <26786EE0-8BAD-4C72-888D-21F9400EDD59@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVEpu7CaM-GqpwGTAJ-xfYHeVwgQ+bh9nh3kFM06OyuuTQ@mail.gmail.com>

good point. Disaster-proofing IS important.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:46?AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> So does the Charles Babbage Institute at the University of Minnesota.
>
> More importantly, CBI has the best archival storage facility I have ever
> seen:  two 600 foot caves, climate controlled, beneath the library.  They
> aren?t going anywhere. Each must be about 100? wide and 50? high.
>
> [image: MinnPostLogo1200x657.png]
>
> The subterranean caverns that protect the U's Andersen Library collections
> <https://www.minnpost.com/stroll/2015/10/subterranean-caverns-protect-us-andersen-library-collections/>
> minnpost.com
> <https://www.minnpost.com/stroll/2015/10/subterranean-caverns-protect-us-andersen-library-collections/>
>
> <https://www.minnpost.com/stroll/2015/10/subterranean-caverns-protect-us-andersen-library-collections/>
>
> Remember we lost the HP archives in the Camp wildfire a few years ago. CHM
> does not have a comparable archive facility.
>
> I have material in both CBI and CHM. Most of it at CBI and more will be
> going there.
>
> The problem isn?t how many interviews or documents they have but how
> resilient is their archive to natural disasters.
>
> John
>
> On Apr 22, 2024, at 12:31, Bob Purvy via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly WELL
> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
> ,
> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews with
> founders, all transcribed neatly. I've written three historical novels now
> (hint: search Amazon for "Albert Cory," my pen name) and had relatively
> little trouble finding the people who knew stuff, or finding the actual
> stuff.
>
> You can always say there should be more, and it should all be in one place.
> Yeah, and we should all live to age 200, too.
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:59?AM Dan York via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> In the midst of these truly fascinating discussions (which were mostly
> before my time as I was a CompSci university student in the late 1980s),
> this one line in Jack?s great recollection gave me pause:
>
> On Apr 21, 2024, at 6:14?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon had
> set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each participant a
> number of points for passing each test.   His score rules are here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
>
> Is this document preserved somewhere else beyond someone?s Google Drive?
> (If not, where is a good place for it?)
>
> It seems like the kind of thing that would be useful for future historians
> or others interested in how this all came to be. (And Jack, your whole
> message was great - if you haven?t written that down elsewhere we should
> collectively figure out how to get that story saved somewhere other than in
> an email archive!)
>
> Just curious,
> Dan
>
> --
> 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 ocl at gih.com  Mon Apr 22 13:40:18 2024
From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond?=)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:40:18 +0100
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <26786EE0-8BAD-4C72-888D-21F9400EDD59@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <26786EE0-8BAD-4C72-888D-21F9400EDD59@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5986eedf-d301-406e-aefe-54ca5c126271@gih.com>

IMHO the question is less about "where" than "how". There are plenty of 
places around the world to store documents and artefacts for a very long 
time, but in what format are you going to store them in? The question's 
been around for so long there are full dissertations about the topic.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 22/04/2024 19:45, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> So does the Charles Babbage Institute at the University of Minnesota.
>
> More importantly, CBI has the best archival storage facility I have ever seen:  two 600 foot caves, climate controlled, beneath the library.  They aren?t going anywhere. Each must be about 100? wide and 50? high.
>
> https://www.minnpost.com/stroll/2015/10/subterranean-caverns-protect-us-andersen-library-collections/?
> The subterranean caverns that protect the U's Andersen Library collections
> minnpost.com
>
> Remember we lost the HP archives in the Camp wildfire a few years ago. CHM does not have a comparable archive facility.
>
> I have material in both CBI and CHM. Most of it at CBI and more will be going there.
>
> The problem isn?t how many interviews or documents they have but how resilient is their archive to natural disasters.
>
> John
>
>> On Apr 22, 2024, at 12:31, Bob Purvy via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>
>> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly WELL
>> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
>> ,
>> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews with
>> founders, all transcribed neatly. I've written three historical novels now
>> (hint: search Amazon for "Albert Cory," my pen name) and had relatively
>> little trouble finding the people who knew stuff, or finding the actual
>> stuff.
>>
>> You can always say there should be more, and it should all be in one place.
>> Yeah, and we should all live to age 200, too.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:59?AM Dan York via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In the midst of these truly fascinating discussions (which were mostly
>>> before my time as I was a CompSci university student in the late 1980s),
>>> this one line in Jack?s great recollection gave me pause:
>>>
>>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 6:14?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> My most memorable recollection of that weekend was late on Sunday. Jon had
>>> set up the Bakeoff with a "scoring scheme" which gave each participant a
>>> number of points for passing each test.   His score rules are here:
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNc9tJTEQsVq-knCCWLeJ3zVrL2Xd25g/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Is this document preserved somewhere else beyond someone?s Google Drive?
>>> (If not, where is a good place for it?)
>>>
>>> It seems like the kind of thing that would be useful for future historians
>>> or others interested in how this all came to be. (And Jack, your whole
>>> message was great - if you haven?t written that down elsewhere we should
>>> collectively figure out how to get that story saved somewhere other than in
>>> an email archive!)
>>>
>>> Just curious,
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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  Mon Apr 22 14:08:00 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:08:00 +1200
Subject: [ih] gateway vs. router
In-Reply-To: <6E7D5A68-2466-4FDC-A1CB-08CE86779367@comcast.net>
References: <CAHQj4CeNwUHhBL-8QYknrrSggodiKqdB8SCnCf14AHg15bzvtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4c28a346-ade5-4ac9-8dad-29093552380e@dcrocker.net>
 <6E7D5A68-2466-4FDC-A1CB-08CE86779367@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <0ef917f6-fe07-4c84-a4c1-442e88ed926b@gmail.com>

When I first taught a networking course in NZ, I was *strongly* advised to forget my British roots and pronounce "router" as "rowter" (?rau?-t?r), because "root" (?r?t) has a very different slang connotation in eng-nz and eng-au, that doesn't exist in eng-us and eng-gb, isn't at all polite, and will amuse many undergraduates.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/router seems a bit confused.

But of course "gateway" is not forgotten, especially in BGP-4.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 23-Apr-24 06:51, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> The Brits never could get use to the idea that we were just ?improving? the language.  ;-)
> 
>> On Apr 22, 2024, at 11:37, Dave Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Because, in the 1980s, we were still in a multi-protocol world, people
>>> were building "gateways" of the second variety.  And they were
>>> distinct from "ships-in-the-night" routers (which were multiprotocol
>>> but didn't do conversion).
>>
>> Gateways was also an unsatisfying choice because it did not afford this international community an opportunity to debate pronunciation.
>>
>> d/
>>
>> -- 
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 

From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Apr 22 14:58:33 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 22 Apr 2024 17:58:33 -0400
Subject: [ih] gateway vs. router
In-Reply-To: <4c28a346-ade5-4ac9-8dad-29093552380e@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <20240422215833.A699989364F9@ary.qy>

It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>> Because, in the 1980s, we were still in a multi-protocol world, people
>> were building "gateways" of the second variety.  And they were
>> distinct from "ships-in-the-night" routers (which were multiprotocol
>> but didn't do conversion).
>
>Gateways was also an unsatisfying choice because it did not afford this 
>international community an opportunity to debate pronunciation.

Good point.  After all, how would you pronounce it other than GATT-WIZE?

Helpfully,
John


From stewart at serissa.com  Mon Apr 22 16:26:27 2024
From: stewart at serissa.com (Larry Stewart)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 19:26:27 -0400
Subject: [ih] Fwd: early networking: "the solution" (Dave Crocker)
Message-ID: <4015F84B-5A3D-4FD6-B814-CF936C47C518@serissa.com>

One of the nicest coding ideas in coding is to never recalculate a checksum, but only to compute a delta to the existing checksum.  This eliminates a substantial number of blind-spots in multihop paths.  This works for IP checksums and for CRCs as well because the algorithms are linear.  It is really part of the end-to-end design principle.

IP has separate IP and TCP checksums, which is good for router performance, but a different design could save 16 bits per packet or use a 32 bit checksum.
-Larry


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Apr 22 16:31:57 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:31:57 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fwd: early networking: "the solution" (Dave Crocker)
In-Reply-To: <4015F84B-5A3D-4FD6-B814-CF936C47C518@serissa.com>
References: <4015F84B-5A3D-4FD6-B814-CF936C47C518@serissa.com>
Message-ID: <6ebfea39-8114-421f-b86d-1ef5f5c6dbcc@dcrocker.net>

On 4/22/2024 4:26 PM, Larry Stewart via Internet-history wrote:
> IP has separate IP and TCP checksums,

IPv6 does not have a checksum. Deering dropped in for the initial 
proposal, to save bits, noting that its utility was redundant with the 
transport-level checksum.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 22 17:47:36 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 00:47:36 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Packet Radio Question
References: <513447075.2518897.1713833256946.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <513447075.2518897.1713833256946@mail.yahoo.com>

I am wondering if anyone knows anything about UPRs (Upgraded Packet Radios?). I thought I had worked with all the different generations (EPRs, IPRs,? VPRs, and LPRs) until I heard that about the UPR fairly recently.? I think I understand? now why I didn't know about it.? ? It had TRANSEC features.? I think it was released after the EPR.? Anybody can let me know whether this information is correct?
barbara


From vint at google.com  Mon Apr 22 19:56:18 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:56:18 -0400
Subject: [ih] Packet Radio Question
In-Reply-To: <513447075.2518897.1713833256946@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <513447075.2518897.1713833256946.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <513447075.2518897.1713833256946@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggcVpC-HtK_p=Ca=FFCwRoNLROJ7jkXnsPo+Tgy397LmYA@mail.gmail.com>

Barry Leiner ran that program after left ARPA in late 1982.
https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fox/summaries/wireless/advances_pr.html
v


On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 8:47?PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I am wondering if anyone knows anything about UPRs (Upgraded Packet
> Radios?). I thought I had worked with all the different generations (EPRs,
> IPRs,  VPRs, and LPRs) until I heard that about the UPR fairly recently.  I
> think I understand  now why I didn't know about it.    It had TRANSEC
> features.  I think it was released after the EPR.  Anybody can let me know
> whether this information is correct?
> barbara
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4006 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240422/217d939f/attachment.p7s>

From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net  Mon Apr 22 20:39:17 2024
From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:39:17 -0500
Subject: [ih] gateway vs. router
In-Reply-To: <0ef917f6-fe07-4c84-a4c1-442e88ed926b@gmail.com>
References: <CAHQj4CeNwUHhBL-8QYknrrSggodiKqdB8SCnCf14AHg15bzvtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4c28a346-ade5-4ac9-8dad-29093552380e@dcrocker.net>
 <6E7D5A68-2466-4FDC-A1CB-08CE86779367@comcast.net>
 <0ef917f6-fe07-4c84-a4c1-442e88ed926b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ac8d1bc5-c496-4295-a165-cd3e5b6a7969@tnetconsulting.net>

On 4/22/24 16:08, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> But of course "gateway" is not forgotten, especially in BGP-4.

"Gateway" isn't forgotten in many places.

  - "default gateway"
  - "gateway" column of `netstat -rn` output

Are just a couple of fairly on the nose examples that are seen, but oft 
overlooked in networking and arguably in the proper context.



-- 
Grant. . . .
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4033 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240422/d491e199/attachment.p7s>

From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 23 11:17:30 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:17:30 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Packet Radio Question
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggcVpC-HtK_p=Ca=FFCwRoNLROJ7jkXnsPo+Tgy397LmYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <513447075.2518897.1713833256946.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <513447075.2518897.1713833256946@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAHxHggcVpC-HtK_p=Ca=FFCwRoNLROJ7jkXnsPo+Tgy397LmYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1540669295.2867709.1713896250756@mail.yahoo.com>

 
Thanks!? I have the 1987 issue but I am not sure I ever read the entire earlier paper (I am certain I didn't get a copy when I started working on the multi-station for packet radio).? It brings back memories. However,? some of the summary doesn't ring quite right so I will try to go back and look at the referenced paper.? It is a long time ago now...
barbara    On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 07:56:33 PM PDT, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:  
 
 Barry Leiner ran that program after left ARPA in late 1982.?https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fox/summaries/wireless/advances_pr.html
v

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 8:47?PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

I am wondering if anyone knows anything about UPRs (Upgraded Packet Radios?). I thought I had worked with all the different generations (EPRs, IPRs,? VPRs, and LPRs) until I heard that about the UPR fairly recently.? I think I understand? now why I didn't know about it.? ? It had TRANSEC features.? I think it was released after the EPR.? Anybody can let me know whether this information is correct?
barbara
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:Vint CerfGoogle, LLC1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th FloorReston, VA 20190+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice


  

From bpurvy at gmail.com  Thu Apr 25 12:13:28 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:13:28 -0700
Subject: [ih] anyone want to be famous?
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVH2WtQDC90q3egrXnRCzPLBibajWYSjx1oCe=usXM4RfA@mail.gmail.com>

OK, not famous-famous ?; just featured on my landing page.

As you may remember, I've written a novel that's set in the 1990-96 period,
as the Internet was just reaching the popular consciousness. Our hero, Len
Saunders, retires from a lifetime of accounting and finance, and slowly
gets into the online world: first Prodigy, then AOL, then Usenet. Here's
the pitch <https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/heres-my-pitch>.

Why a novel? Well, I'm a big fan of Patrick O'Brian books (the *Master and
Commander* movie was based on them). In fiction, you have characters who
don't know how it turns out, and they have dialog and do everyday stuff.
And they're not freaks like Steve Jobs, or the hippies that John Markoff
wrote about. They're normal people you might have known.

Your task, should you accept, will be to give me a blurb I can use. It
would be nice if you yourself are well-known, but it's totally fine if not
-- we'll just describe you as what you are!


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Apr 27 10:49:00 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:49:00 -0700
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>

On 4/22/24 09:31, Bob Purvy wrote:
> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly 
> WELL preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
> ,
> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews 
> with founders, all transcribed neatly.

Sorry, I disagree.? There's a lot of the history that's not captured in 
artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.

Everyone involved in a snippet of history, such as the "Early Internet 
Era" has a different perspective on what they experienced. The situation 
is much like that old story about the blind describing an elephant after 
touching it - one thinks it's a big snake, another concludes it's a big 
bird, a third thinks it's some kind of tree. It all depends on which 
part of the elephant they touched.

How did people competing with the Internet perceive it??? The phone 
companies, the big computer vendors, the startups promoting their own 
alternatives, and many others all had their views of the Internet as it 
destroyed them.

How did people trying to use the Internet technology experience it? I 
was amazed at how many corporations in non-computer industries were 
experimenting with their own internal "intranets" during the 80s and 
90s, as they searched for some solution to their IT needs that could 
actually be deployed.? I recall, for example, helping one of the big 
investment houses in NYC as they tried to use routers to interconnect 
London, New York, and Tokyo, encountering lots of surprises and 
disappointments along the way.? Yet industry all abandoned other schemes 
and adopted TCP/IP for their corporate communications.?? Why?? I've 
never seen any papers, interviews, or other records of any of those 
early experiences as the technology escaped from the research to the 
operational worlds.

How did mere Users experience the Internet??? From the earliest days of 
dial-up, and services such as Compuserve, Lotus Notes, to the World Wide 
Web, what was the Users' experience?

IMHO, all of those perspectives, and more, are parts of Internet 
History, not even captured or well preserved.

Jack Haverty
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240427/97d2eca9/attachment.asc>

From bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Apr 27 11:40:04 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 11:40:04 -0700
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVGnTtynHKJvarwtS1NrLxoKKXEqRnx-4EsoP+8QpnSKiA@mail.gmail.com>

> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.

Clearly, but I'd just say, "compared to what?"

Are all the relevant documents for D-Day available in one place? How about
the WW II docs on Enigma? How about the IBM 360 OS? Sure, we have a lot of
it, but do we have *all* of it?

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:49?AM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:

> On 4/22/24 09:31, Bob Purvy wrote:
>
> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly WELL
> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
> ,
> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews with
> founders, all transcribed neatly.
>
>
> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
>
> Everyone involved in a snippet of history, such as the "Early Internet
> Era" has a different perspective on what they experienced.  The situation
> is much like that old story about the blind describing an elephant after
> touching it - one thinks it's a big snake, another concludes it's a big
> bird, a third thinks it's some kind of tree.  It all depends on which part
> of the elephant they touched.
>
> How did people competing with the Internet perceive it?   The phone
> companies, the big computer vendors, the startups promoting their own
> alternatives, and many others all had their views of the Internet as it
> destroyed them.
>
> How did people trying to use the Internet technology experience it?  I was
> amazed at how many corporations in non-computer industries were
> experimenting with their own internal "intranets" during the 80s and 90s,
> as they searched for some solution to their IT needs that could actually be
> deployed.  I recall, for example, helping one of the big investment houses
> in NYC as they tried to use routers to interconnect London, New York, and
> Tokyo, encountering lots of surprises and disappointments along the way.
> Yet industry all abandoned other schemes and adopted TCP/IP for their
> corporate communications.   Why?  I've never seen any papers, interviews,
> or other records of any of those early experiences as the technology
> escaped from the research to the operational worlds.
>
> How did mere Users experience the Internet?   From the earliest days of
> dial-up, and services such as Compuserve, Lotus Notes, to the World Wide
> Web, what was the Users' experience?
>
> IMHO, all of those perspectives, and more, are parts of Internet History,
> not even captured or well preserved.
>
> Jack Haverty
>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Apr 27 12:43:11 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:43:11 -0400
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVGnTtynHKJvarwtS1NrLxoKKXEqRnx-4EsoP+8QpnSKiA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
 <CAFq6nVGnTtynHKJvarwtS1NrLxoKKXEqRnx-4EsoP+8QpnSKiA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52ACF9AA-8965-46BD-8B23-61BEBDA9C3BA@comcast.net>

History never has all of it. That is the bane of history.

See Arcadia by Tom Stoppard.

> On Apr 27, 2024, at 14:40, Bob Purvy via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
> 
> Clearly, but I'd just say, "compared to what?"
> 
> Are all the relevant documents for D-Day available in one place? How about
> the WW II docs on Enigma? How about the IBM 360 OS? Sure, we have a lot of
> it, but do we have *all* of it?
> 
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:49?AM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/22/24 09:31, Bob Purvy wrote:
>> 
>> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly WELL
>> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
>> ,
>> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews with
>> founders, all transcribed neatly.
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
>> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
>> 
>> Everyone involved in a snippet of history, such as the "Early Internet
>> Era" has a different perspective on what they experienced.  The situation
>> is much like that old story about the blind describing an elephant after
>> touching it - one thinks it's a big snake, another concludes it's a big
>> bird, a third thinks it's some kind of tree.  It all depends on which part
>> of the elephant they touched.
>> 
>> How did people competing with the Internet perceive it?   The phone
>> companies, the big computer vendors, the startups promoting their own
>> alternatives, and many others all had their views of the Internet as it
>> destroyed them.
>> 
>> How did people trying to use the Internet technology experience it?  I was
>> amazed at how many corporations in non-computer industries were
>> experimenting with their own internal "intranets" during the 80s and 90s,
>> as they searched for some solution to their IT needs that could actually be
>> deployed.  I recall, for example, helping one of the big investment houses
>> in NYC as they tried to use routers to interconnect London, New York, and
>> Tokyo, encountering lots of surprises and disappointments along the way.
>> Yet industry all abandoned other schemes and adopted TCP/IP for their
>> corporate communications.   Why?  I've never seen any papers, interviews,
>> or other records of any of those early experiences as the technology
>> escaped from the research to the operational worlds.
>> 
>> How did mere Users experience the Internet?   From the earliest days of
>> dial-up, and services such as Compuserve, Lotus Notes, to the World Wide
>> Web, what was the Users' experience?
>> 
>> IMHO, all of those perspectives, and more, are parts of Internet History,
>> not even captured or well preserved.
>> 
>> 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  Sat Apr 27 13:12:19 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:12:19 -0600
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <52ACF9AA-8965-46BD-8B23-61BEBDA9C3BA@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
 <CAFq6nVGnTtynHKJvarwtS1NrLxoKKXEqRnx-4EsoP+8QpnSKiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52ACF9AA-8965-46BD-8B23-61BEBDA9C3BA@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CfcXDz6B1++dLrUocD1x1_-Rpt0KjgECFXKBzogCRL25w@mail.gmail.com>

Speaking as someone who trained as a historian (as an undergrad), I'd
suggest it is more nuanced.

Once you get past about the 14th century in western Europe (later in
other parts of the world) the central problem is the overwhelming
volume of sources, many of which require specialized expertise to
interpret.  In many cases, when you have a specific research question,
the process feels like dumpster diving -- and figuring out where in
the dumpster the information you want might be hiding.  If you find
information, great!  if you don't there's the nagging question of did
you miss it (look in the wrong place) or is it really an unanswerable
question (e.g. the source didn't survive).  This bears on Jack H's
point about perspectives -- if you ask the question "what was the
experience of social group G in the early days of the Internet", the
material may or may not exist, but your first challenge is figuring
out where it might be hiding.

Even for very modest topics, one sometimes finds that experts develop
detailed and often substantial meta-finding aids (across various
museums and archives).  Just to mention one example: Randy Schoenberg
maintains a finding aid for information on the pre-WWII Jewish
communities of Austria and Bohemia (Czech Republic) that, if memory
serves, now runs over 100 powerpoint slides.

Craig

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 1:43?PM John Day via Internet-history
<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> History never has all of it. That is the bane of history.
>
> See Arcadia by Tom Stoppard.
>
> > On Apr 27, 2024, at 14:40, Bob Purvy via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
> > artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
> >
> > Clearly, but I'd just say, "compared to what?"
> >
> > Are all the relevant documents for D-Day available in one place? How about
> > the WW II docs on Enigma? How about the IBM 360 OS? Sure, we have a lot of
> > it, but do we have *all* of it?
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:49?AM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/22/24 09:31, Bob Purvy wrote:
> >>
> >> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly WELL
> >> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
> >> ,
> >> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews with
> >> founders, all transcribed neatly.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
> >> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
> >>
> >> Everyone involved in a snippet of history, such as the "Early Internet
> >> Era" has a different perspective on what they experienced.  The situation
> >> is much like that old story about the blind describing an elephant after
> >> touching it - one thinks it's a big snake, another concludes it's a big
> >> bird, a third thinks it's some kind of tree.  It all depends on which part
> >> of the elephant they touched.
> >>
> >> How did people competing with the Internet perceive it?   The phone
> >> companies, the big computer vendors, the startups promoting their own
> >> alternatives, and many others all had their views of the Internet as it
> >> destroyed them.
> >>
> >> How did people trying to use the Internet technology experience it?  I was
> >> amazed at how many corporations in non-computer industries were
> >> experimenting with their own internal "intranets" during the 80s and 90s,
> >> as they searched for some solution to their IT needs that could actually be
> >> deployed.  I recall, for example, helping one of the big investment houses
> >> in NYC as they tried to use routers to interconnect London, New York, and
> >> Tokyo, encountering lots of surprises and disappointments along the way.
> >> Yet industry all abandoned other schemes and adopted TCP/IP for their
> >> corporate communications.   Why?  I've never seen any papers, interviews,
> >> or other records of any of those early experiences as the technology
> >> escaped from the research to the operational worlds.
> >>
> >> How did mere Users experience the Internet?   From the earliest days of
> >> dial-up, and services such as Compuserve, Lotus Notes, to the World Wide
> >> Web, what was the Users' experience?
> >>
> >> IMHO, all of those perspectives, and more, are parts of Internet History,
> >> not even captured or well preserved.
> >>
> >> Jack Haverty
> >>
> > --
> > 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



-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
and mailing lists.


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Apr 27 14:18:22 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:18:22 -0400
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CfcXDz6B1++dLrUocD1x1_-Rpt0KjgECFXKBzogCRL25w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
 <CAFq6nVGnTtynHKJvarwtS1NrLxoKKXEqRnx-4EsoP+8QpnSKiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52ACF9AA-8965-46BD-8B23-61BEBDA9C3BA@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CfcXDz6B1++dLrUocD1x1_-Rpt0KjgECFXKBzogCRL25w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0479A046-15C8-41C1-ABBD-905469FDC7F8@comcast.net>

Or just serendipity.

I have ?discovered? unknown 17thC material because of a typo.

Or, in the case of networking, simply because no one asked the question.

You just never know.

> On Apr 27, 2024, at 16:12, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
> 
> Speaking as someone who trained as a historian (as an undergrad), I'd
> suggest it is more nuanced.
> 
> Once you get past about the 14th century in western Europe (later in
> other parts of the world) the central problem is the overwhelming
> volume of sources, many of which require specialized expertise to
> interpret.  In many cases, when you have a specific research question,
> the process feels like dumpster diving -- and figuring out where in
> the dumpster the information you want might be hiding.  If you find
> information, great!  if you don't there's the nagging question of did
> you miss it (look in the wrong place) or is it really an unanswerable
> question (e.g. the source didn't survive).  This bears on Jack H's
> point about perspectives -- if you ask the question "what was the
> experience of social group G in the early days of the Internet", the
> material may or may not exist, but your first challenge is figuring
> out where it might be hiding.
> 
> Even for very modest topics, one sometimes finds that experts develop
> detailed and often substantial meta-finding aids (across various
> museums and archives).  Just to mention one example: Randy Schoenberg
> maintains a finding aid for information on the pre-WWII Jewish
> communities of Austria and Bohemia (Czech Republic) that, if memory
> serves, now runs over 100 powerpoint slides.
> 
> Craig
> 
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 1:43?PM John Day via Internet-history
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> History never has all of it. That is the bane of history.
>> 
>> See Arcadia by Tom Stoppard.
>> 
>>> On Apr 27, 2024, at 14:40, Bob Purvy via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
>>> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
>>> 
>>> Clearly, but I'd just say, "compared to what?"
>>> 
>>> Are all the relevant documents for D-Day available in one place? How about
>>> the WW II docs on Enigma? How about the IBM 360 OS? Sure, we have a lot of
>>> it, but do we have *all* of it?
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:49?AM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 4/22/24 09:31, Bob Purvy wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly WELL
>>>> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
>>>> ,
>>>> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews with
>>>> founders, all transcribed neatly.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
>>>> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
>>>> 
>>>> Everyone involved in a snippet of history, such as the "Early Internet
>>>> Era" has a different perspective on what they experienced.  The situation
>>>> is much like that old story about the blind describing an elephant after
>>>> touching it - one thinks it's a big snake, another concludes it's a big
>>>> bird, a third thinks it's some kind of tree.  It all depends on which part
>>>> of the elephant they touched.
>>>> 
>>>> How did people competing with the Internet perceive it?   The phone
>>>> companies, the big computer vendors, the startups promoting their own
>>>> alternatives, and many others all had their views of the Internet as it
>>>> destroyed them.
>>>> 
>>>> How did people trying to use the Internet technology experience it?  I was
>>>> amazed at how many corporations in non-computer industries were
>>>> experimenting with their own internal "intranets" during the 80s and 90s,
>>>> as they searched for some solution to their IT needs that could actually be
>>>> deployed.  I recall, for example, helping one of the big investment houses
>>>> in NYC as they tried to use routers to interconnect London, New York, and
>>>> Tokyo, encountering lots of surprises and disappointments along the way.
>>>> Yet industry all abandoned other schemes and adopted TCP/IP for their
>>>> corporate communications.   Why?  I've never seen any papers, interviews,
>>>> or other records of any of those early experiences as the technology
>>>> escaped from the research to the operational worlds.
>>>> 
>>>> How did mere Users experience the Internet?   From the earliest days of
>>>> dial-up, and services such as Compuserve, Lotus Notes, to the World Wide
>>>> Web, what was the Users' experience?
>>>> 
>>>> IMHO, all of those perspectives, and more, are parts of Internet History,
>>>> not even captured or well preserved.
>>>> 
>>>> Jack Haverty
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
> and mailing lists.



From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat Apr 27 14:25:18 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:25:18 -0400
Subject: [ih] fuzzballs
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_XOs8i5dC+FKcaHgp7K+=dzRjAMVfxOLDJ4Xqr7jBQ4uA@mail.gmail.com>

see
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FHGOnb33N_iMOF-v05hfEhCAkLkmfCig42nvOZl27c8/edit?usp=sharing

sign in my dry cleaner's store.
v


From bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Apr 27 14:45:08 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:45:08 -0700
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CfcXDz6B1++dLrUocD1x1_-Rpt0KjgECFXKBzogCRL25w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
 <CAFq6nVGnTtynHKJvarwtS1NrLxoKKXEqRnx-4EsoP+8QpnSKiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52ACF9AA-8965-46BD-8B23-61BEBDA9C3BA@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CfcXDz6B1++dLrUocD1x1_-Rpt0KjgECFXKBzogCRL25w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVHTiDwt+=x2WCMS5cRL4bmT6K-y0xyU_JCBN2pHBkaDsA@mail.gmail.com>

Indeed, for a while I was considering a new novel set in the Roman Empire
(who was the *second* Pope? I bet you don't know), but the paucity of
documents was a deal killer.

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 1:12?PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:

> Speaking as someone who trained as a historian (as an undergrad), I'd
> suggest it is more nuanced.
>
> Once you get past about the 14th century in western Europe (later in
> other parts of the world) the central problem is the overwhelming
> volume of sources, many of which require specialized expertise to
> interpret.  In many cases, when you have a specific research question,
> the process feels like dumpster diving -- and figuring out where in
> the dumpster the information you want might be hiding.  If you find
> information, great!  if you don't there's the nagging question of did
> you miss it (look in the wrong place) or is it really an unanswerable
> question (e.g. the source didn't survive).  This bears on Jack H's
> point about perspectives -- if you ask the question "what was the
> experience of social group G in the early days of the Internet", the
> material may or may not exist, but your first challenge is figuring
> out where it might be hiding.
>
> Even for very modest topics, one sometimes finds that experts develop
> detailed and often substantial meta-finding aids (across various
> museums and archives).  Just to mention one example: Randy Schoenberg
> maintains a finding aid for information on the pre-WWII Jewish
> communities of Austria and Bohemia (Czech Republic) that, if memory
> serves, now runs over 100 powerpoint slides.
>
> Craig
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 1:43?PM John Day via Internet-history
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > History never has all of it. That is the bane of history.
> >
> > See Arcadia by Tom Stoppard.
> >
> > > On Apr 27, 2024, at 14:40, Bob Purvy via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured
> in
> > > artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
> > >
> > > Clearly, but I'd just say, "compared to what?"
> > >
> > > Are all the relevant documents for D-Day available in one place? How
> about
> > > the WW II docs on Enigma? How about the IBM 360 OS? Sure, we have a
> lot of
> > > it, but do we have *all* of it?
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:49?AM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 4/22/24 09:31, Bob Purvy wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly
> WELL
> > >> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
> > >> ,
> > >> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews
> with
> > >> founders, all transcribed neatly.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured
> in
> > >> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
> > >>
> > >> Everyone involved in a snippet of history, such as the "Early Internet
> > >> Era" has a different perspective on what they experienced.  The
> situation
> > >> is much like that old story about the blind describing an elephant
> after
> > >> touching it - one thinks it's a big snake, another concludes it's a
> big
> > >> bird, a third thinks it's some kind of tree.  It all depends on which
> part
> > >> of the elephant they touched.
> > >>
> > >> How did people competing with the Internet perceive it?   The phone
> > >> companies, the big computer vendors, the startups promoting their own
> > >> alternatives, and many others all had their views of the Internet as
> it
> > >> destroyed them.
> > >>
> > >> How did people trying to use the Internet technology experience it?
> I was
> > >> amazed at how many corporations in non-computer industries were
> > >> experimenting with their own internal "intranets" during the 80s and
> 90s,
> > >> as they searched for some solution to their IT needs that could
> actually be
> > >> deployed.  I recall, for example, helping one of the big investment
> houses
> > >> in NYC as they tried to use routers to interconnect London, New York,
> and
> > >> Tokyo, encountering lots of surprises and disappointments along the
> way.
> > >> Yet industry all abandoned other schemes and adopted TCP/IP for their
> > >> corporate communications.   Why?  I've never seen any papers,
> interviews,
> > >> or other records of any of those early experiences as the technology
> > >> escaped from the research to the operational worlds.
> > >>
> > >> How did mere Users experience the Internet?   From the earliest days
> of
> > >> dial-up, and services such as Compuserve, Lotus Notes, to the World
> Wide
> > >> Web, what was the Users' experience?
> > >>
> > >> IMHO, all of those perspectives, and more, are parts of Internet
> History,
> > >> not even captured or well preserved.
> > >>
> > >> Jack Haverty
> > >>
> > > --
> > > 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
>
>
>
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
> and mailing lists.
>


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat Apr 27 14:46:31 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:46:31 -0400
Subject: [ih] Fuzzballs
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_UtGOSZTVBETyJO0S9cKX6FWKZ+ywvKF2_Yzb7U6XEk8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VQ-EcM10+nO94ThRroQ_cLjWXP=WzDgB9bxyF9Op1thQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UtGOSZTVBETyJO0S9cKX6FWKZ+ywvKF2_Yzb7U6XEk8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_UU6brmj_-N5hP1VeuLDu__5-6+B9Yb9qdKRUv45soS5w@mail.gmail.com>

duh, trying again

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w3aO4cZgecloEl5tgecTdTdHiqOHdyie/view?usp=sharing

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 5:21?PM vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:

> sign found in my dry cleaning service
>
> :-)
>
> v
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 3:34?PM
> Subject: Fuzzballs
> To: Vint Cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com>
>
>
>


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Apr 27 17:49:37 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:49:37 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fuzzballs
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_UU6brmj_-N5hP1VeuLDu__5-6+B9Yb9qdKRUv45soS5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VQ-EcM10+nO94ThRroQ_cLjWXP=WzDgB9bxyF9Op1thQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UtGOSZTVBETyJO0S9cKX6FWKZ+ywvKF2_Yzb7U6XEk8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UU6brmj_-N5hP1VeuLDu__5-6+B9Yb9qdKRUv45soS5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <06f06fc0-e9d6-41c1-83dc-ece9179c8959@3kitty.org>

Where was that dry cleaner when we needed it...!?

For those who might not know....

Fuzzballs were routers in the early-1980s Internet. ? They were the 
creation of Dave Mills and his crew, and were instrumental in the spread 
of the Internet into NSF projects. ? They were also the nemesis of the 
"core gateways" we were tasked to keep operational at BBN, as a reliable 
24x7 communications service.? Dave's fuzzballs were a vehicle for 
research into new algorithms, techniques, and mechanisms that might 
solve one or more of the outstanding issues at the time.? But his 
experiments could, and did, sometimes bring down the "core" service.? 
That was the prime motivation for our creation of Autonomous Systems and 
the EGP protocol, purely as a temporary mechanism to "firewall" the core 
from the effects of Dave's "Fuzzies", while still maintaining 
interoperability across the entire Internet.?? We needed to do both 
Internet research and reliable service, and ASes were a way to do it.

Later, as the Internet spread into corporate IT environments, I recall 
asking some of the IT managers in such places if they were considering 
just using Dave's Fuzzballs, which had a good reputation. ? The answer 
was usually something like "I want to keep my job.? If I go to the 
executive committee and propose that we base our future IT on something 
called a 'Fuzzball', I will be unemployed the next day."

Yes, Marketing matters...
Jack Haverty

On 4/27/24 14:46, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> duh, trying again
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w3aO4cZgecloEl5tgecTdTdHiqOHdyie/view?usp=sharing
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 5:21?PM vinton cerf<vgcerf at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> sign found in my dry cleaning service
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> v
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: vinton cerf<vgcerf at gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 3:34?PM
>> Subject: Fuzzballs
>> To: Vint Cerf<vgcerf at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240427/763e2d76/attachment.asc>

From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Apr 27 18:27:36 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:27:36 -0700
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVHTiDwt+=x2WCMS5cRL4bmT6K-y0xyU_JCBN2pHBkaDsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
 <CAFq6nVGnTtynHKJvarwtS1NrLxoKKXEqRnx-4EsoP+8QpnSKiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52ACF9AA-8965-46BD-8B23-61BEBDA9C3BA@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CfcXDz6B1++dLrUocD1x1_-Rpt0KjgECFXKBzogCRL25w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFq6nVHTiDwt+=x2WCMS5cRL4bmT6K-y0xyU_JCBN2pHBkaDsA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4915e21d-c28f-412a-8cee-62b01ea4ccba@3kitty.org>

In high school I had a teacher who was very interested in Roman 
history.?? So we read a lot of ancient documents, much of it written by 
philosophers or the like.? My favorite author however was Plautus, who 
was a playwright.?? We even put on some of his plays, mostly comedies, 
all spoken in Latin of course.?? One of Plautus' comedies eventually 
morphed into "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum".

Plautus wrote about Roman life, and his characters included the social 
classes who never wrote a single document.? In the cast and portraying a 
Roman slave or merchant, I got to experience another perspective on 
Roman life quite different from that of philosophers and senators.?? 
Roman life was quite different, depending on your position as a 
philosopher, politician, merchant, or slave.?? Women were, of course, 
irrelevant (don't blame me, I wasn't there!).

Not too many years later, that knowledge of Roman history was still 
quite fresh in my head as we worked on TCP/IP and Internet mechanisms.?? 
The "Roman Internet" had its set of problems and techniques, which I 
suspect influenced how I thought about and argued for features in the 
Internet architecture.

In Roman times, many of the "perspectives" were not recorded, except in 
artifacts like Plautus' plays.? It's too late to ask a Roman slave about 
their experiences.? But the Internet is not that old yet, so there's 
still opportunity to capture more perspectives on the history of the 
Internet.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile, for example, to interview not only 
"founders" but also users, operators, competitors, and anyone else who 
might have a different perspective on Internet History??? It would have 
been interesting to hear about the Roman experience of the slaves who 
had to run through enemy territory while carrying messages between the 
battlefield and Rome - but, like datagrams today, many didn't survive.

BTW, there is quite a lot of surviving documentation from the Roman 
Empire.?? I can't remember where I learned it, but techniques for 
military communications throughout the Empire were written down 
somewhere and have survived the ages.?? I've mentioned some of them in 
other posts here about Internet History.? Of course, to read everything 
you probably need to read ancient Latin.?? I wonder if any of the AI 
translators can do that yet.

I don't know who the second Pope was.?? I guess Plautus didn't think it 
was important or funny.

Jack Haverty



On 4/27/24 14:45, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote:
> Indeed, for a while I was considering a new novel set in the Roman Empire
> (who was the *second* Pope? I bet you don't know), but the paucity of
> documents was a deal killer.
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 1:12?PM Craig Partridge<craig at tereschau.net>  wrote:
>
>> Speaking as someone who trained as a historian (as an undergrad), I'd
>> suggest it is more nuanced.
>>
>> Once you get past about the 14th century in western Europe (later in
>> other parts of the world) the central problem is the overwhelming
>> volume of sources, many of which require specialized expertise to
>> interpret.  In many cases, when you have a specific research question,
>> the process feels like dumpster diving -- and figuring out where in
>> the dumpster the information you want might be hiding.  If you find
>> information, great!  if you don't there's the nagging question of did
>> you miss it (look in the wrong place) or is it really an unanswerable
>> question (e.g. the source didn't survive).  This bears on Jack H's
>> point about perspectives -- if you ask the question "what was the
>> experience of social group G in the early days of the Internet", the
>> material may or may not exist, but your first challenge is figuring
>> out where it might be hiding.
>>
>> Even for very modest topics, one sometimes finds that experts develop
>> detailed and often substantial meta-finding aids (across various
>> museums and archives).  Just to mention one example: Randy Schoenberg
>> maintains a finding aid for information on the pre-WWII Jewish
>> communities of Austria and Bohemia (Czech Republic) that, if memory
>> serves, now runs over 100 powerpoint slides.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 1:43?PM John Day via Internet-history
>> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>> History never has all of it. That is the bane of history.
>>>
>>> See Arcadia by Tom Stoppard.
>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 2024, at 14:40, Bob Purvy via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured
>> in
>>>> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly, but I'd just say, "compared to what?"
>>>>
>>>> Are all the relevant documents for D-Day available in one place? How
>> about
>>>> the WW II docs on Enigma? How about the IBM 360 OS? Sure, we have a
>> lot of
>>>> it, but do we have *all* of it?
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:49?AM Jack Haverty<jack at 3kitty.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/22/24 09:31, Bob Purvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly
>> WELL
>>>>> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
>>>>> ,
>>>>> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews
>> with
>>>>> founders, all transcribed neatly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured
>> in
>>>>> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone involved in a snippet of history, such as the "Early Internet
>>>>> Era" has a different perspective on what they experienced.  The
>> situation
>>>>> is much like that old story about the blind describing an elephant
>> after
>>>>> touching it - one thinks it's a big snake, another concludes it's a
>> big
>>>>> bird, a third thinks it's some kind of tree.  It all depends on which
>> part
>>>>> of the elephant they touched.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did people competing with the Internet perceive it?   The phone
>>>>> companies, the big computer vendors, the startups promoting their own
>>>>> alternatives, and many others all had their views of the Internet as
>> it
>>>>> destroyed them.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did people trying to use the Internet technology experience it?
>> I was
>>>>> amazed at how many corporations in non-computer industries were
>>>>> experimenting with their own internal "intranets" during the 80s and
>> 90s,
>>>>> as they searched for some solution to their IT needs that could
>> actually be
>>>>> deployed.  I recall, for example, helping one of the big investment
>> houses
>>>>> in NYC as they tried to use routers to interconnect London, New York,
>> and
>>>>> Tokyo, encountering lots of surprises and disappointments along the
>> way.
>>>>> Yet industry all abandoned other schemes and adopted TCP/IP for their
>>>>> corporate communications.   Why?  I've never seen any papers,
>> interviews,
>>>>> or other records of any of those early experiences as the technology
>>>>> escaped from the research to the operational worlds.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did mere Users experience the Internet?   From the earliest days
>> of
>>>>> dial-up, and services such as Compuserve, Lotus Notes, to the World
>> Wide
>>>>> Web, what was the Users' experience?
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, all of those perspectives, and more, are parts of Internet
>> History,
>>>>> not even captured or well preserved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack Haverty
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
>> and mailing lists.
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240427/1b15f8dd/attachment.asc>

From craig at tereschau.net  Sat Apr 27 18:38:36 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 19:38:36 -0600
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVHTiDwt+=x2WCMS5cRL4bmT6K-y0xyU_JCBN2pHBkaDsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
 <CAFq6nVGnTtynHKJvarwtS1NrLxoKKXEqRnx-4EsoP+8QpnSKiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52ACF9AA-8965-46BD-8B23-61BEBDA9C3BA@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CfcXDz6B1++dLrUocD1x1_-Rpt0KjgECFXKBzogCRL25w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFq6nVHTiDwt+=x2WCMS5cRL4bmT6K-y0xyU_JCBN2pHBkaDsA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4Cf8HNhoZYFm_0zcZgPFkOPbWfhyxxw-AttaA6S1HkzEDw@mail.gmail.com>

Yep, pre 14th century is tough.

Though the Roman Empire is something of a special case.  We keep
finding new inscriptions, we've started reading the Herculaneum
scrolls, and, in waterlogged sites such as Vindolanda, surviving
correspondence.   There's a good chance we'll double the amount of
surviving Roman Latin sources over the next 30 years or so (much of
that from Herculaneum).*  It will still be wildly distorted -- slaves
remembered only through their graffiti -- but...

Craig

*Why do I say double?  Apparently about 10 million words of (unique)
Latin sources survive from Roman times.  There are nearly 2,000
Herculaneum scrolls and they are believed to be largely unique (not
surprising given the vast majority of material from Roman times is
lost).  So 2,000 scrolls times 5,000 words each (your typical 10 page
single spaced paper length) gets you another 10 million words...  And
there are other villas under Vesuvian lava... perhaps another library
gets found???

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 3:45?PM Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed, for a while I was considering a new novel set in the Roman Empire (who was the second Pope? I bet you don't know), but the paucity of documents was a deal killer.
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 1:12?PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking as someone who trained as a historian (as an undergrad), I'd
>> suggest it is more nuanced.
>>
>> Once you get past about the 14th century in western Europe (later in
>> other parts of the world) the central problem is the overwhelming
>> volume of sources, many of which require specialized expertise to
>> interpret.  In many cases, when you have a specific research question,
>> the process feels like dumpster diving -- and figuring out where in
>> the dumpster the information you want might be hiding.  If you find
>> information, great!  if you don't there's the nagging question of did
>> you miss it (look in the wrong place) or is it really an unanswerable
>> question (e.g. the source didn't survive).  This bears on Jack H's
>> point about perspectives -- if you ask the question "what was the
>> experience of social group G in the early days of the Internet", the
>> material may or may not exist, but your first challenge is figuring
>> out where it might be hiding.
>>
>> Even for very modest topics, one sometimes finds that experts develop
>> detailed and often substantial meta-finding aids (across various
>> museums and archives).  Just to mention one example: Randy Schoenberg
>> maintains a finding aid for information on the pre-WWII Jewish
>> communities of Austria and Bohemia (Czech Republic) that, if memory
>> serves, now runs over 100 powerpoint slides.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 1:43?PM John Day via Internet-history
>> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > History never has all of it. That is the bane of history.
>> >
>> > See Arcadia by Tom Stoppard.
>> >
>> > > On Apr 27, 2024, at 14:40, Bob Purvy via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
>> > > artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
>> > >
>> > > Clearly, but I'd just say, "compared to what?"
>> > >
>> > > Are all the relevant documents for D-Day available in one place? How about
>> > > the WW II docs on Enigma? How about the IBM 360 OS? Sure, we have a lot of
>> > > it, but do we have *all* of it?
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:49?AM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On 4/22/24 09:31, Bob Purvy wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> I think that actually, the early history of the Internet is fairly WELL
>> > >> preserved. Certainly better than a lot of other things.
>> > >> ,
>> > >> The Computer History Museum has a whole bunch of lengthy interviews with
>> > >> founders, all transcribed neatly.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Sorry, I disagree.  There's a lot of the history that's not captured in
>> > >> artifacts such as "founder's interviews" and documents such as RFCs.
>> > >>
>> > >> Everyone involved in a snippet of history, such as the "Early Internet
>> > >> Era" has a different perspective on what they experienced.  The situation
>> > >> is much like that old story about the blind describing an elephant after
>> > >> touching it - one thinks it's a big snake, another concludes it's a big
>> > >> bird, a third thinks it's some kind of tree.  It all depends on which part
>> > >> of the elephant they touched.
>> > >>
>> > >> How did people competing with the Internet perceive it?   The phone
>> > >> companies, the big computer vendors, the startups promoting their own
>> > >> alternatives, and many others all had their views of the Internet as it
>> > >> destroyed them.
>> > >>
>> > >> How did people trying to use the Internet technology experience it?  I was
>> > >> amazed at how many corporations in non-computer industries were
>> > >> experimenting with their own internal "intranets" during the 80s and 90s,
>> > >> as they searched for some solution to their IT needs that could actually be
>> > >> deployed.  I recall, for example, helping one of the big investment houses
>> > >> in NYC as they tried to use routers to interconnect London, New York, and
>> > >> Tokyo, encountering lots of surprises and disappointments along the way.
>> > >> Yet industry all abandoned other schemes and adopted TCP/IP for their
>> > >> corporate communications.   Why?  I've never seen any papers, interviews,
>> > >> or other records of any of those early experiences as the technology
>> > >> escaped from the research to the operational worlds.
>> > >>
>> > >> How did mere Users experience the Internet?   From the earliest days of
>> > >> dial-up, and services such as Compuserve, Lotus Notes, to the World Wide
>> > >> Web, what was the Users' experience?
>> > >>
>> > >> IMHO, all of those perspectives, and more, are parts of Internet History,
>> > >> not even captured or well preserved.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jack Haverty
>> > >>
>> > > --
>> > > 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
>> and mailing lists.



-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
and mailing lists.


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sat Apr 27 20:34:06 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 20:34:06 -0700
Subject: [ih] Where are we preserving these early documents? Re: early
 networking: "the solution"
In-Reply-To: <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <28797.1713658262@hop.toad.com>
 <0B8F41A0-1424-4E61-A5AF-E2F3BD6C2F26@sobco.com>
 <CAA=duU0Nz-qUrGcSgf0P-y2fRNWzeVZOSMnZpL3=CDPSCRxw7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <11CCDD84-E8F5-42E1-88ED-FF7F7CA56141@sobco.com>
 <633FFF2A-59CE-4111-9DC0-749764B6D0EB@comcast.net>
 <591138FA-5973-4D2E-94D3-C2E49B552236@sobco.com>
 <C9D610EA-6E47-4DEA-80DD-5F9EBAFE55A1@strayalpha.com>
 <9C1ED588-ED76-4605-ACD9-D3903BEFD47A@comcast.net>
 <b70de742-80c3-4751-aaac-7baf5fda821f@3kitty.org>
 <A09B06DD-B401-4ACB-8F4A-572C8743DA0F@isoc.org>
 <CAFq6nVEaVa3jy-M6A_R1WK9Xj+njf=0wGi236ECtjkcRY92zHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b4ebe694-cc6d-416c-9a41-5832078a7016@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <B6CCAF7B-0D6E-4E1F-B070-44BB11133603@icloud.com>

On Apr 27, 2024, at 10:49?AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> How did mere Users experience the Internet?   From the earliest days of dial-up, and services such as Compuserve, Lotus Notes, to the World Wide Web, what was the Users' experience?
> 
> IMHO, all of those perspectives, and more, are parts of Internet History, not even captured or well preserved.
> 
> Jack Haverty

I imagine one could get a fairly good sense of how (end) users experienced the Internet by starting with old ARPAnet mailing lists (such as sf-lovers[1]) and Usenet groups (such as net.music[2]).  While the earliest messages are probably US-centric and techie-oriented, as time went on, those groups came to reflect more of the world?s population.

--gregbo

[1] http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/sflovers/
[2] http://gopher.quux.org:70/Archives/usenet-a-news/NET.music

From ocl at gih.com  Mon Apr 29 01:41:18 2024
From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond?=)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 09:41:18 +0100
Subject: [ih] Feature article in this month's IEEE Spectrum
Message-ID: <25a60e28-0b6e-489e-9acb-72c92c1585db@gih.com>

Robert Kahn: The Great Interconnector
The 2024 IEEE Medal of Honor recipient envisioned the network of 
networks that became the Internet

https://spectrum.ieee.org/bob-kahn-2667754905

An excellent article that adds an additional layer of humanity to the 
birth of TCP-IP.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Apr 29 12:57:46 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 15:57:46 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990@gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6798C262-8265-43BC-9F37-04FBCD6236E6@comcast.net>

I apologize for leaving this so long without replying, but end of the semester ha been getting in the way.

Yes, I think Brian hit the nail on the head with these two papers. Actually, there is a precursor to INWG60:

Pouzin, L.  Interconnection of Packet Switched Networks, SCH 523.1, INWG 42, Oct 73.

It is probably worth explaining the differences between the ARPANET and CYCLADES because they are significant. I am going to skim over this. One could write a considerable amount on the subtleties of all of this.

As we all know, the ARPANET was the first major packet switching network. It was built to be a production network to lower the cost of computing for ARPA Projects.  Cyclades was built to be a network to do research on networks. Cyclades was a platform, what today would be called a clean-slate approach having seen the ARPANET. (There was considerable interaction between BBN and CYCLADES: As Dave Walden (who led IMP team) told me, so ?they wouldn?t make the same mistakes we did.? ;-) And Jean-Louis Grang? (led the CIGALE team) spent a fair amount of time at BBN.) 

Because Roberts had gotten considerable resistance from the potential host sites when he proposed just a network of hosts, the IMPs were proposed to ?off-load? the network from the hosts. Hence for the ARPANET, the host used the IMP-Host protocol to allocate a ?connection? to the destination and then the Host-Host Protocol created a connection between processes in the two machines. The applications were built on top of it. (Note NCP did flow control but no retransmissions because the IMP subnet was reliable.) This is when layers were first introduced. (Again, Walden confirmed for me that there were no layer diagrams of the IMP subnet and I wouldn?t have expected them then.) This is when the idea that networking was IPC began. Walden wrote a very early RFC proposing IPC for a resource sharing network.)

Being a network to do research on networks, the Cyclades team tried to adopt the minimal requirements for a network, and then determine what else was needed.  They adopted the concept proposed by Donald Davies at NPL* and called it datagrams. As we know, Cyclades proposed the 5-layers, we have come to use: Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Application. For CYCLADES, the Link Layer was an HDLC-like protocol (which is reliable point-to-point between the CIGALE routers); a 'best-effort' datagram Network Layer, where the sources of loss were congestion and rare memory errors during relaying; and the Transport Layer consisting primarily of a protocol to recover Network Layer losses and flow control between the hosts, which basically provides IPC; and then the applications are built on top of the Transport Layer. (Notice that this first does (at the Data Link Layer) error and flow control over the small scope of point-to-point lines, which limits the errors at the larger scope for the Transport Layer. While for that environment, the Link Layer was reliable, that was not a hard requirement. The requirement was that the Link Layer should keep the error rate well-below that incurred by the Network Layer. (Recovering errors in a larger scope is more expensive than in a smaller scope.) So that here it is possible to say that the Link Layer should have an error-rate much less than the rate expected at the Network Layer, especially since there will be multiple Data Link Layers. But the Data Link Layer doesn?t have to be perfect, it only has to make a ?best-effort? as well. Of course, the classic example of this is Ethernet, which is ?best-effort? at the Link Layer. (This is the common 90/10 rule (or whatever ratio), that it is easy to get most of the errors but the last rare small amount are expensive so they are left to the larger scope, because they don?t really add that much.

*Yes, Paul Baran had proposed the same idea, but it appears Pouzin was unaware of Baran?s work and says in an interview he adopted the idea from Davies.

Another major difference was that in the ARPANET a host had to be within 10m of the IMP. (Yes, later the DH and VDH interfaces were built.) While in Cyclades, it was assumed that the host was not located near the CIGALE switch (router) and a host could be connected to more than one switch, initially by serial lines. Hence in the ARPANET, a host?s address was (initially) its IMP number (and later its IMP port number), i.e., the interface. What BBN did for the addressing was common for the small networks of the time. Simply enumerating the IMPs as they were installed was sufficient. In Cyclades, a host?s address was the address of the host at the Transport Layer. The Transport Layer addresses had greater scope than the CIGALE addresses in the Network Layer. Multihoming was supported in CYCLADES as a consequence of their architecture.

As Vint has related and is covered in the May 74 paper, he and Bob Kahn were looking at the internetworking problem from the point of view of protocol translation at the boundaries (gateways) between networks. This was known to be a messy problem, an n x n problem. The big question was how to avoid it.  Pouzin?s insight proposed in INWG 42 and INWG 60 is to finesse whole the problem, by noticing that all one had to do was change the name of the Transport Layer to the "Internet Transport Layer.? The serial lines connecting the host to the CIGALE router could simply be replaced by a network and nothing changed. Treat the Transport Layer as an overlay. In this approach, network layer addresses belong to the individual networks and have smaller scope. Internet Transport Layer addresses are Internet addresses of greater scope. (This is what Saltzer?s 1982 paper later called point-of-attachment addresses and node addresses.)

This avoids the protocol translation issue entirely because each network independently supports the overlay layer. The only issue then is defining the minimal requirements the supporting networks must meet. The only changes to the Transport Layer would be potentially larger address fields, longer RTT, and fragmentation at the gateways.  

CYCLADES had solved that problem too quite elegantly. Earlier Elie and Zimmermann working on the Transport Protocol had discovered that the protocol naturally cleaves into data transfer and feedback, ack and flow control decoupled through the state vector. (Actually this applies to every data transfer protocol from HDLC to QUIC.) This is contained in INWG 43 and INWG 61 and dates back to a Transport Protocol document in French from Nov. 72. INWG 43 provides the capability during connection establishment to select whether ack and flow control are present. (Think of the two parts as UDP+IP and an Ack/Credit feedback packet with IP.) Besides supporting multihoming, notice that this solution provides UDP and doesn?t break fragmentation at the boundaries between networks, the way IP does. (lThe fragments use the Transport sequence numbers, not a distinct packet-id. so retransmissions of the same data are still recognized by the destination as part of the same packet. Path MTU Discovery is not necessary.)

In a later email in this thread, Vint pointed at IEN48. It contains two errors. One of which caused by the figures they used. They were trying to be abstract to get a general solution (which is good), but diagrams of links and nodes lead one to conclude that a path ends at the boundary with the node. It doesn?t. It ends where all of the links terminating at that node come together. One needs a layer diagram for that to be apparent. In the ARPANET, we saw that when Tinker AFB joined the net and wanted connections to two IMPs. IEN 48 concludes that addresses name the interface, which they do at the network layer, but not at the Internet Transport Layer.

The other error is that IEN 48 proposes that network addresses can be formed by concatenating lower layer address with an upper layer identifier to form an upper layer address. This one is more subtle and definitely seems like a good idea. However, addresses should be location-dependent and route-independent. (The address should be different to get there by different paths.) A careful analysis of a packet moving through the layers shows that this makes the address route-dependent. This was surprising. We do this all the time! We do it for files!  However, remember that Multics called a file name a pathname. It defines a path, which is what we don?t want.  There is a way to do this but it is a long explanation. 

There are many other simplifications that derive from all of this, but I have already written too much and they will have to left for later. I have already taken too long to get this written.

Take care,
John



> On Apr 20, 2024, at 17:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 20-Apr-24 23:31, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> In the early 70s, people were trying to figure out how to interwork multiple networks of different technologies. What was the solution that was arrived at that led to the current Internet?
> 
> It's for Vint to comment, but I have always understood that Pouzin's two 1974 papers were the recipe. If that's not the case, I really don't understand the question. But it's not what they built. IPv4 is one protocol to rule them all.
> 
> Of course, we have been exploring a closely related question for 30 years: how to interwork two slightly different technologies. One discussion of that is at this rather alarming URL:
> https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4.md .
> 
> L. Pouzin, A Proposal for Interconnecting Packet Switching Networks, dated March 1974, presented at Eurocomp, Brunel University, May 1974. (Also INWG60 and Cyclades SCH 527.)
> 
> L. Pouzin, Interconnection of Packet Switching Networks, 7th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Supplement, pp. 108-109, 1974.
> 
>    Brian
> 
>> I conjectured yesterday that the fundamental solution must have been in hand by the time Cerf and Kahn published their paper.
>> Are you conjecturing that the solution was gateways? and hence protocol translation at the gateways?
>> Take care,
>> John
>>> On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:57, Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Due to a missing reply all or something, some of us never saw the beginning of the thread.    What was your precise question?
>>> 
>>> Questions of the form "When was X invented" almost always have answers that are successive approximations.  i.e. The ideas were around for a long time, but didn't really work in the early days.   The final answer ends up depending on splitting hairs on whether version N-k is "functionally the same" and version N, but version N-k-1 is not.   I don't find such definitions very useful, but the thread connecting the historical evolution of a concept is fascinating.  e.g. the evolution of gateways connecting networks over thousands of years is interesting.   Drawing the line between between two and calling one the first modern gateway is not.   That line will move as gateways continue to evolve.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --MM--
>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to apply it to others.
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:33?PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>> All week and still don?t have an answer to my question.  That is very unusual for this list. ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> So far there has been a lot of conjecture, not even hearsay, but no facts.
>>>> 
>>>> Having a few moments, I went back to look at the May 1974 paper to see if had any clues, after all the title is "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication.? I assume the answer was found prior to that paper. Is that true?
>>>> 
>>>> I found two major topics there: the early part of the paper spends time discussing protocol translation between networks and the rest of course describes the protocol that became TCP.
>>>> 
>>>> Is one of these insight to the solution?  Just trying to understand what it was.
>>>> 
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 16:07, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am surprised that there was not a lively discussion of this.  It is an honest question. It is unclear to me what precisely the solution to internetworking was?  I don?t want to suggest anything and affect the answer, but I guess I could.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 06:24, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> sorry forgot to hit reply-all
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] early networking
>>>>>>> Date: April 9, 2024 at 06:22:45 EDT
>>>>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nor was there about virtual circuits and X.25, but it was packet switching.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We have known this was totally different for 50+ years.  That isn?t the question. There are probably lots of ways to solve this problem. What was the solution adopted?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 00:06, Sivasubramanian M <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There was hardly anything redudant, 'multi-path', decentralised, end-to-end free, open about telegrams.  OUR "InterNetWorks"  is something totally and fundamentally different from THEIR telephones and telegrams, hence it is unwise to allow THEM to trace the history of Internetworking to the telegram switches bought by the Army, Navy and Airforce !
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 09:19 John Day, <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I guess this begs the question, what was the solution to internetworking?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2024, at 23:33, Sivasubramanian M 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:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> This history video narrated by an AI-like voice traces the history of the
>>>>>>>>>> Internet to telegraph switching and makes a passing suggestion that US
>>>>>>>>>> Army, Navy and Airforce instituted automated telegraph switching euipment
>>>>>>>>>> ... this was perhaps the first Internetwork. Clever argument.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr, 2024, 03:35 Vint Cerf 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:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting pre-Arpanet/Internet history
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkwWZ6ujy0
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>>>>>>>>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>>>>>>>>> Google, LLC
>>>>>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>>>>>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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



From lars at nocrew.org  Mon Apr 29 22:34:33 2024
From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 05:34:33 +0000
Subject: [ih] Fuzzballs
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_UU6brmj_-N5hP1VeuLDu__5-6+B9Yb9qdKRUv45soS5w@mail.gmail.com>
 (vinton cerf via Internet-history's message of "Sat, 27 Apr 2024
 17:46:31 -0400")
References: <CAAFtm_VQ-EcM10+nO94ThRroQ_cLjWXP=WzDgB9bxyF9Op1thQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UtGOSZTVBETyJO0S9cKX6FWKZ+ywvKF2_Yzb7U6XEk8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UU6brmj_-N5hP1VeuLDu__5-6+B9Yb9qdKRUv45soS5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7w34r32z2u.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>

Fuzzball source code archived here:

https://github.com/pdp11/fuzzball-operating-system/


From detlef.bosau at web.de  Tue Apr 30 00:40:51 2024
From: detlef.bosau at web.de (Detlef Bosau)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:40:51 +0200
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
Message-ID: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>

Dear all,


may I ask this question?

RFC 791 explicitly states that there is NO flow control in IP.

As far as I see, some packet switching networks provide flow control
mechanisms, while others don't. So, I have some rough idea, why this
design decision was taken.

I wonder, whether there was a general discussion of this issue in the
past, particularly as this issue should have been relevant for the
ARPANET as well.

Many thanks for any comments on this one


Detlef



From steve at shinkuro.com  Tue Apr 30 08:27:46 2024
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:27:46 -0400
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>

Detlef,

In the Arpanet, the initial implementation of the IMPs had a flow control
mechanism that attempted to protect the IMP subnet from being overloaded
with too many packets.  This was implemented via an end-to-end protocol
between the sending IMP and the receiving IMP that allowed only one message
per link.

At the host level, the original host-host protocol -- later referred to as
the Network Control Protocol (NCP) -- implemented virtual bitstreams.  It
had a flow control mechanism that gave the receiving host control over how
many bits and messages -- yes, both bits and messages were controlled --
could be in flight over each connection.

For those who do not remember or who have not studied the details of the
Arpanet:

The IMPs were the routers.  A host was connected to an IMP.  The unit of
transmission between a host and an IMP was a "message" of up to about 8,000
bits.  The IMP receiving (Source IMP) the message from the sending host
(Source host) chopped it into packets.  Each packet was up to about 1,000
bits.  The Destination IMP reassembled the packets into a message and
transmitted it to the Destination host.

>From a protocol perspective, there were multiple layers:


   1. The IMP-IMP protocol governed the transmission of a packet from one
   IMP to the next.  It included strong error detection and retransmission if
   the packet was not acknowledged as having been received correctly.

   2. The End-to-End IMP protocol (my terminology) governed the breakdown
   of a message received from a host into packets and the reassembly of those
   packets into a message at the destination IMP.  The End-to-End IMP protocol
   imposed a limit of one message in transit per link.

   3. The Host-IMP protocol governed the interaction between a host and its
   connected IMP, as noted above.  Each message included a link number.  It
   was intended that processes within two communicating hosts would use the
   same link number for successive messages.  Thus, the End-to-End IMP
   protocol limited the flow between two host level processes.  This scheme
   did not limit the overall number of connections, nor did it prevent two
   processes from using multiple connections if they chose to.  (And, as we
   experienced, it was indeed possible to flood the IMPs with enough packets
   to cause a system-wide lockup.)

   4. The host-host protocol, as noted above, implemented virtual
   bitstreams between processes.  It included metering of both the number of
   bits and the number of messages in transit between the processes.  The
   receiving host controlled these quantities to avoid being overrun.

As you can see, there was more than one layer of flow control in the
original Arpanet.  At the same time, there was strong interest in real-time
use of the Arpanet for applications where timeliness was paramount and loss
of a small percentage of packets was tolerable, e.g. speech.  Relatively
early in the Arpanet development, an additional protocol was added to the
IMPs in parallel with the End-to-End IMP protocol that did not impose flow
control but also did not guarantee delivery.  Layers 2, 3 and 4 above were
thus accompanied by parallel layers 2r, 3r and 4r (my terminology invented
for the purpose of this explanation).

By the time IP was being designed, it was fully understood that it would
not be possible to achieve perfect reliability within the packet-routing
layer of the Internet.  Flow control as well as checksums and
retransmission were included in the TCP layer.  Explicit flow control
within the packet-routing layer was dropped, but achieved implicitly with
feedback in the routing protocol via info about queue lengths and dropping
of packets when memory was exceeded.

In the early days, memory was quite limited.  Over time, Moore's law
resulted in a complete reversal.  Memory became inexpensive and plentiful.
Nowadays, the lack of flow control has led to enormously long queues of
messages waiting to be delivered.  The term of art is bufferbloat.

Steve

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:41?AM Detlef Bosau via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
> may I ask this question?
>
> RFC 791 explicitly states that there is NO flow control in IP.
>
> As far as I see, some packet switching networks provide flow control
> mechanisms, while others don't. So, I have some rough idea, why this
> design decision was taken.
>
> I wonder, whether there was a general discussion of this issue in the
> past, particularly as this issue should have been relevant for the
> ARPANET as well.
>
> Many thanks for any comments on this one
>
>
> Detlef
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Sent by a Verified
[image: Sent by a Verified sender]
<https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
sender


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Tue Apr 30 10:45:36 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:45:36 -0400
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <08363EB6-1670-44E3-82DA-E8273551FACE@comcast.net>

For some reason, I didn?t get Detlief?s email, but I am total agreement with Steve?e response  with a few comments.

> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:27, Steve Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Detlef,
> 
> In the Arpanet, the initial implementation of the IMPs had a flow control
> mechanism that attempted to protect the IMP subnet from being overloaded
> with too many packets.  This was implemented via an end-to-end protocol
> between the sending IMP and the receiving IMP that allowed only one message
> per link.

Absolutely, in fact, it was so flow controlled that congestion basically impossible. Also to some extent this was all they could do. If you do the math for 1000 bit packet at 56Kbpss, you will find that with the exception of a couple of lines (like Urbana to Salt Lake), the packet was longer than the distance. So only one packet could be on the line of most links anyway.
> 
> At the host level, the original host-host protocol -- later referred to as
> the Network Control Protocol (NCP) -- implemented virtual bitstreams.  It
> had a flow control mechanism that gave the receiving host control over how
> many bits and messages -- yes, both bits and messages were controlled --
> could be in flight over each connection.

Steve, At the time, I thought NCP was the name of the implementation of the Host-Host Protocol, Network Control Program. Although, you seldom ever heard the Host-Host Protocol mentioned and the distinction was often blurred. More recently, I have seen it referred to as you do. 

There was an early report by Jon Postel called A Survey of ARPANET NCPs, where it was definitely Program. (I remember because while Jon didn?t call it out, it was clear reading the report that there were two categories of NCPs: big ones and little ones. ;-) Big ones were OSs with little or no IPC and small ones were OSs with good IPC.  ;-) An important lesson there.
> 
> For those who do not remember or who have not studied the details of the
> Arpanet:
> 
> The IMPs were the routers.  A host was connected to an IMP.  The unit of
> transmission between a host and an IMP was a "message" of up to about 8,000
> bits.  The IMP receiving (Source IMP) the message from the sending host
> (Source host) chopped it into packets.  Each packet was up to about 1,000
> bits.  The Destination IMP reassembled the packets into a message and
> transmitted it to the Destination host.

Right. For a while, there was a deadlock situation where an IMP could have parts of multi-packet messages received and not enough memory to finish any of them.
> 
> From a protocol perspective, there were multiple layers:
> 
>   1. The IMP-IMP protocol governed the transmission of a packet from one
>   IMP to the next.  It included strong error detection and retransmission if
>   the packet was not acknowledged as having been received correctly.
> 
>   2. The End-to-End IMP protocol (my terminology) governegd the breakdown
>   of a message received from a host into packets and the reassembly of those
>   packets into a message at the destination IMP.  The End-to-End IMP protocol
>   imposed a limit of one message in transit per link.

Yes, in retrospect these were different layers. But as I said in my recent post, when I asked Dave Walden whether layers entered into their thinking when building the IMP subnet, he said no.  Which given their task doing the first packet switch network using what they could from existing datacomm (they didn?t have time to reinvent everything!), this makes sense to me. Layers in either of the senses we think of them today weren?t really important at that point.  (I have also read papers by Davies in the same time period (actually earlier ?66-67) working on the NPL network, where you can see him talking about what they were doing that were layers but they didn?t call them that.)

I still think that the introduction of layers was precipitated by Dijskstra?s THE paper (?68). It is hard to imagine the influence of CACM, when it was the only computer journal. (Did IEEE Trans, on Computers exist yet? It would have been the only other one.) So it was natural that layer first really appear with the problem of writing a device driver for the OSs of the hosts. For the hosts, it was very much into structuring things with layers and calling them that.

> 
>   3. The Host-IMP protocol governed the interaction between a host and its
>   connected IMP, as noted above.  Each message included a link number.  It
>   was intended that processes within two communicating hosts would use the
>   same link number for successive messages.  Thus, the End-to-Eund IMP
>   protocol limited the flow between two host level processes.  This scheme
>   did not limit the overall number of connections, nor did it prevent two
>   processes from using multiple connections if they chose to.  (And, as we
>   experienced, it was indeed possible to flood the IMPs with enough packets
>   to cause a system-wide lockup.)

Steve, one question:  Was IMP-Host a separate feedback loop and the end-to-end IMP-IMP protocol was a separate feedback loop? Although, they would have been clearly linked by the available memory. Or was the linkage tighter than that?

In my conversations with Walden, he was aware that they were over-controlling the subnet to some degree, but he was adamant then (and at the time) that the subnet did not lose data. I remember an early 70s meeting at BBN where he was *very emphatic* about that.  ;-)
> 
>   4. The host-host protocol, as noted above, implemented virtual
>   bitstreams between processes.  It included metering of both the number of
>   bits and the number of messages in transit between the processes.  The
>   receiving host controlled these quantities to avoid being overrun.
> 
> As you can see, there was more than one layer of flow control in the
> original Arpanet.  At the same time, there was strong interest in real-time
> use of the Arpanet for applications where timeliness was paramount and loss
> of a small percentage of packets was tolerable, e.g. speech.  Relatively
> early in the Arpanet development, an additional protocol was added to the
> IMPs in parallel with the End-to-End IMP protocol that did not impose flow
> control but also did not guarantee delivery.

Yes, those were Type 3 messages. When were they added? Was it around 1973. There were previous discussions on this list about how tightly controlled there use was.

>  Layers 2, 3 and 4 above were
> thus accompanied by parallel layers 2r, 3r and 4r (my terminology invented
> for the purpose of this explanation).
> 
> By the time IP was being designed, it was fully understood that it would
> not be possible to achieve perfect reliability within the packet-routing
> layer of the Internet.  Flow control as well as checksums and
> retransmission were included in the TCP layer.  Explicit flow control
> within the packet-routing layer was dropped, but achieved implicitly with
> feedback in the routing protocol via info about queue lengths and dropping
> of packets when memory was exceeded.
69
Correct. Some degree of error and flow control was provided by the IMP-IMP protocol (Data Link Layer) point-to-point. This reduced the error-rate seen by the Transport Layer sufficiently that end-to-end retransmission and flow control were cost-effective. In fact, IEN#1 proposes that ingress flow control was looking like a reasonable congestion control method. (It is for small diameter networks.) It should be noted here that everyone saw congestion as an issue: Davies in 1966, BBN with the design of the IMP subnet, Cyclades in 1972 when they adopted datagrams, etc. CYCLADES lucked out in that Eric Manning of the Univ of Waterloo was visiting IRIA about that time and they gave Waterloo a contract to work on it. They had a brilliant, doomed grad student named Merek Irland, who did some very good work.
> 
> In the early days, memory was quite limited.  

Boy, was it ever!! ;-) There is a very unknown 1968 paper by Denning showing that pooled buffers were orders of magnitude better than static buffers. One of the few no-brainers in this field.  When I recently mentioned this, I was reminded that we did pooled buffers in our first PDP-11 OS, not because we were so smart, but because we didn?t have enough memory to do anything else! ;-) That OS could support a lot of stuff going on at the same time without crashing, because of pooled buffers.

> Over time, Moore's law
> resulted in a complete reversal.  Memory became inexpensive and plentiful.
> Nowadays, the lack of flow control has led to enormously long queues of
> messages waiting to be delivered.  The term of art is bufferbloat.

Taking a lesson from the above and that early on bufferbloat wasn?t a problem because when one ran out of memory the processed blocked, I have suggested that the solution would be static buffers!! ;-) Increase the probability of running out so it isn?t a problem! ;-)

As for the flow control problem in CYCLADES, remember as I said yesterday, CYCLADES was built for a very different purpose than the ARPANET. It was a research platform and this was one of the questions to be considered. It should be said that one of the themes at the time was decentralized, stochastic solutions. Kind of structure the system so that it just worked. There was end-to-end flow control at the Transport Layer and sufficient error control at the Link Layer. The question then what else was needed. To that end, the work CYCLADES gave to Waterloo was exploring that question, and INRIA sponsored a conference on the topic in 1979 by which time Merek Irland had died.

Also, keep in mind that starting around 1975 X.25 was being pushed heavily by the phone companies and it did hop-by-hop flow control in the Network Layer. This was clearly too much and impaired the elasticity of the network. They were also using it as an argument that a Transport Layer was unnecessary, which we opposed strongly. This was directly opposite of what CYCLADES had introduced in 1972, i.e., best-effort datagram network with end-to-end Transport Protocol in the hosts.

Take care,
John

> 
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:41?AM Detlef Bosau via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> 
>> may I ask this question?
>> 
>> RFC 791 explicitly states that there is NO flow control in IP.
>> 
>> As far as I see, some packet switching networks provide flow control
>> mechanisms, while others don't. So, I have some rough idea, why this
>> design decision was taken.
>> 
>> I wonder, whether there was a general discussion of this issue in the
>> past, particularly as this issue should have been relevant for the
>> ARPANET as well.
>> 
>> Many thanks for any comments on this one
>> 
>> 
>> Detlef
>> 
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent by a Verified
> [image: Sent by a Verified sender]
> <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
> sender
> -- 
> 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 Apr 30 11:01:36 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:01:36 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Fw:  Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <1366345803.5560648.1714498954021@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <1366345803.5560648.1714498954021@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1251224764.5575239.1714500096907@mail.yahoo.com>

just trying again to see if this will go through this time.

barbara
 
   ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 10:42:34 AM PDTSubject: Re: [ih] Flow Control in IP
  I don't know how much flow control at the IP level was discussed at the time. From the viewpoint of someone who worked on packet radio including flow control at the IP level would not be desirable.? ?
Some background, if? I remember correctly,? the ideal was to have the smallest? amount of state in the routers/gateways. Of course you needed routing and neighbor table information but I think that could be reconstructed rather quickly in case of failure. The model was a thin hourglass with IP at the waist. Packet radio and SATnet were the networks that were used in the original demonstrations of the Internet besides the ARPAnet.?
Packet radios could? dynamically adjust the bit rate? (either 100 or 400 kbits/second if my memory is correct) depending on conditions (link quality). The mac layer was csma-like (don't remember the details to map into all the flavors defined today).? ?When the radio could actually transmit (i.e broadcast ) depends on what the traffic is in your 2 hop neighborhood? to try to avoid a collision? due to hidden terminal problem(or potentially larger depending? on the capture capacity of the radio. You might be able to receive a packet and not decode it).? The packet radio would not try to transmit the next packet until it heard an ack for the packet if the next node was the destination? or it heard the next hop radio transmitting the packet on to its destination.? Also remember packet radio nodes were mobile.? 

As I think you can see,? trying to do flow control across? a multihop packet radio network at the IP level might not work out very well. Unfortunately, the size of the deployed networks in testbeds and demonstrations as far as I know were small so I didn't get to do much experimenting here.? Rockwell was the developer of the radios and? implemented the protocols in the radio at this point in time.? I don't recall hearing how much work they did? in this area.? 

barbara

    On Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:41:04 AM PDT, Detlef Bosau via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 Dear all,


may I ask this question?

RFC 791 explicitly states that there is NO flow control in IP.

As far as I see, some packet switching networks provide flow control
mechanisms, while others don't. So, I have some rough idea, why this
design decision was taken.

I wonder, whether there was a general discussion of this issue in the
past, particularly as this issue should have been relevant for the
ARPANET as well.

Many thanks for any comments on this one


Detlef


    

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Tue Apr 30 11:17:48 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 14:17:48 -0400
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <1251224764.5575239.1714500096907@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <1366345803.5560648.1714498954021@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1251224764.5575239.1714500096907@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FD551A29-1AD5-43B8-94C8-A3A4F02A64F1@comcast.net>

;-) It doesn?t work well over a wired network! as X.25 showed. ;-)

John


> On Apr 30, 2024, at 14:01, Barbara Denny via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> just trying again to see if this will go through this time.
> 
> barbara
> 
>   ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 10:42:34 AM PDTSubject: Re: [ih] Flow Control in IP
>  I don't know how much flow control at the IP level was discussed at the time. From the viewpoint of someone who worked on packet radio including flow control at the IP level would not be desirable.   
> Some background, if  I remember correctly,  the ideal was to have the smallest  amount of state in the routers/gateways. Of course you needed routing and neighbor table information but I think that could be reconstructed rather quickly in case of failure. The model was a thin hourglass with IP at the waist. Packet radio and SATnet were the networks that were used in the original demonstrations of the Internet besides the ARPAnet. 
> Packet radios could  dynamically adjust the bit rate  (either 100 or 400 kbits/second if my memory is correct) depending on conditions (link quality). The mac layer was csma-like (don't remember the details to map into all the flavors defined today).   When the radio could actually transmit (i.e broadcast ) depends on what the traffic is in your 2 hop neighborhood  to try to avoid a collision  due to hidden terminal problem(or potentially larger depending  on the capture capacity of the radio. You might be able to receive a packet and not decode it).  The packet radio would not try to transmit the next packet until it heard an ack for the packet if the next node was the destination  or it heard the next hop radio transmitting the packet on to its destination.  Also remember packet radio nodes were mobile.  
> 
> As I think you can see,  trying to do flow control across  a multihop packet radio network at the IP level might not work out very well. Unfortunately, the size of the deployed networks in testbeds and demonstrations as far as I know were small so I didn't get to do much experimenting here.  Rockwell was the developer of the radios and  implemented the protocols in the radio at this point in time.  I don't recall hearing how much work they did  in this area.  
> 
> barbara
> 
>    On Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:41:04 AM PDT, Detlef Bosau via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> may I ask this question?
> 
> RFC 791 explicitly states that there is NO flow control in IP.
> 
> As far as I see, some packet switching networks provide flow control
> mechanisms, while others don't. So, I have some rough idea, why this
> design decision was taken.
> 
> I wonder, whether there was a general discussion of this issue in the
> past, particularly as this issue should have been relevant for the
> ARPANET as well.
> 
> Many thanks for any comments on this one
> 
> 
> Detlef
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From karl at iwl.com  Tue Apr 30 11:50:58 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:50:58 -0700
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5b25baac-21f3-4f18-a15c-deee7dbcead2@iwl.com>


In our early security work at SDC (circa 1972-4) we were trying to 
interpose an end-to-end encryption into ARPAnet protocols.  One aspect 
kept getting our technical goats - RFNM - Request For Next Message.  The 
reason was that this message was generated by elements (destination 
IMPS) below our encryption but needed to be delivered to elements above 
our encryption.

(I know that RFNM was supposed to from destination IMP to source IMP, 
but for reasons that I no longer remember, it ended up crossing our 
security/cryptography barrier.)

RFNM became a pejorative, or rather, was the subject of many pejorative 
outbursts by our group (Dave Kaufman, Frank Heinrich, Marv Schaeffer, 
Jerry Cole, Carl Switzky, Jerry Simon, Josie Althous, Val Schorre, John 
Scheid, Hillary X <can never remember her last name>, Jay Egglestun, 
Dave Golber, and myself.)

We had to engineer a trusted (mathematical specifications of security, 
formal verification of code against that security spec) 
hardware/software bypass around our cryptographic layer (much of which 
was in very expensive Tempest grade hardware) to deal this this.

(As our work progressed, TCP came along and we moved our work over to 
that approach, using the evolving split of an IP-like layer from the 
bottom of TCP, as a wedge into which to insert our security protocols. 
This was a much better design for our purposes when measured by Wirth's 
definitions of modularity (minimal information flow between modules). 
Our designs got easier and less Rube Goldberg - except that along the 
way we had begun to use much more complex modes of encryption (we'd call 
it blockchain today) and key management.

Apropos Hamlet's line that ?There are more things in Heaven and Earth, 
Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.? the Internet grew from 
a soil rich with pranks, strange events, and  not a little romance. 
Such as this:

As that happened our network security work got moved behind multiple 
layers of guards and locked doors (and special RF containment rooms). 
That had the effect of isolating us from company management who lacked 
the clearances to come into our area.  It was at that time what some of 
us wanted to make our offices nicer - in violation of SDCs rather strict 
organizational hierarchy.  So one evening we (Carl Switzky and myself) 
found a large spool of rather nice, essentially new, white wool carpet 
that was being discarded by a super high end shop on San Vicente and I 
had an International Harvester truck large enough to carry that spool. 
It was also at that time we discovered that while the SDC guards had 
instructions not to allow things to be carried out from the buildings 
that they had no instructions about carrying things in.  And through a 
strange coincidence of the dark forces of the universe one of our group 
was working late and also had a carpet knife attached to his belt.  So 
the next day we all had really nice white wool carpet in our offices, 
inside the high security zone (we did all the offices in order to create 
plausible deniability about our role.)

	--karl--


From steve at shinkuro.com  Tue Apr 30 12:23:09 2024
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:23:09 -0400
Subject: [ih] Network Control Program vs Network Control Protocol
In-Reply-To: <08363EB6-1670-44E3-82DA-E8273551FACE@comcast.net>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <08363EB6-1670-44E3-82DA-E8273551FACE@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvL0D95r86-VMRvAsOP4ti-kuHU1=7yRvB0sHiJW=Wm_2A@mail.gmail.com>

John,

You're absolutely correct.  In fact, it was I who coined the term Network
Control Program (NCP) and used it in our early RFCs and published papers.

I wanted to emphasize that in addition to a hardware interface, one also
needed software incisions into the operating system.  Moreover, the IMP
wasn't similar enough to existing peripherals -- tape, disk, terminals,
printer, etc. -- to be dealt with as just a minor variation of one of those.

At the same time, I chose the very bland name "Host-Host protocol" for the
protocol.  Over time, people started to refer to the protocol as the
Network Control Protocol, and "NCP" became repurposed.

I've had in mind to write this up in Wikipedia, but I haven't gotten around
to it.  In my response to Detlef, I had the sense that "NCP" as the name of
the protocol was more likely to be familiar.

Steve

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 1:46?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> Steve, At the time, I thought NCP was the name of the implementation of
> the Host-Host Protocol, Network Control *Program*. Although, you seldom
> ever heard the Host-Host Protocol mentioned and the distinction was often
> blurred. More recently, I have seen it referred to as you do.
>
> There was an early report by Jon Postel called A Survey of ARPANET NCPs,
> where it was definitely Program. (I remember because while Jon didn?t call
> it out, it was clear reading the report that there were two categories of
> NCPs: big ones and little ones. ;-) Big ones were OSs with little or no IPC
> and small ones were OSs with good IPC.  ;-) An important lesson there.
>
>
sender


From steve at shinkuro.com  Tue Apr 30 12:27:19 2024
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:27:19 -0400
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <5b25baac-21f3-4f18-a15c-deee7dbcead2@iwl.com>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5b25baac-21f3-4f18-a15c-deee7dbcead2@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvJ1fH53pfnckkOJv+HVy4G6Ve56QHJRX1b1SXVERyA2kQ@mail.gmail.com>

Delightful story!  Thanks!

I believe "RFNM" was "*Ready* For Next Message" not "Request."  And it was
necessary to pass it along to the Source host because the Source host
wasn't allowed to send another message on the same link until the RFNM came
back from the Destination IMP.

Steve

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:51?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
> In our early security work at SDC (circa 1972-4) we were trying to
> interpose an end-to-end encryption into ARPAnet protocols.  One aspect
> kept getting our technical goats - RFNM - Request For Next Message.  The
> reason was that this message was generated by elements (destination
> IMPS) below our encryption but needed to be delivered to elements above
> our encryption.
>
> (I know that RFNM was supposed to from destination IMP to source IMP,
> but for reasons that I no longer remember, it ended up crossing our
> security/cryptography barrier.)
>
> RFNM became a pejorative, or rather, was the subject of many pejorative
> outbursts by our group (Dave Kaufman, Frank Heinrich, Marv Schaeffer,
> Jerry Cole, Carl Switzky, Jerry Simon, Josie Althous, Val Schorre, John
> Scheid, Hillary X <can never remember her last name>, Jay Egglestun,
> Dave Golber, and myself.)
>
> We had to engineer a trusted (mathematical specifications of security,
> formal verification of code against that security spec)
> hardware/software bypass around our cryptographic layer (much of which
> was in very expensive Tempest grade hardware) to deal this this.
>
> (As our work progressed, TCP came along and we moved our work over to
> that approach, using the evolving split of an IP-like layer from the
> bottom of TCP, as a wedge into which to insert our security protocols.
> This was a much better design for our purposes when measured by Wirth's
> definitions of modularity (minimal information flow between modules).
> Our designs got easier and less Rube Goldberg - except that along the
> way we had begun to use much more complex modes of encryption (we'd call
> it blockchain today) and key management.
>
> Apropos Hamlet's line that ?There are more things in Heaven and Earth,
> Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.? the Internet grew from
> a soil rich with pranks, strange events, and  not a little romance.
> Such as this:
>
> As that happened our network security work got moved behind multiple
> layers of guards and locked doors (and special RF containment rooms).
> That had the effect of isolating us from company management who lacked
> the clearances to come into our area.  It was at that time what some of
> us wanted to make our offices nicer - in violation of SDCs rather strict
> organizational hierarchy.  So one evening we (Carl Switzky and myself)
> found a large spool of rather nice, essentially new, white wool carpet
> that was being discarded by a super high end shop on San Vicente and I
> had an International Harvester truck large enough to carry that spool.
> It was also at that time we discovered that while the SDC guards had
> instructions not to allow things to be carried out from the buildings
> that they had no instructions about carrying things in.  And through a
> strange coincidence of the dark forces of the universe one of our group
> was working late and also had a carpet knife attached to his belt.  So
> the next day we all had really nice white wool carpet in our offices,
> inside the high security zone (we did all the offices in order to create
> plausible deniability about our role.)
>
>         --karl--
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Sent by a Verified
[image: Sent by a Verified sender]
<https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
sender


From detlef.bosau at web.de  Tue Apr 30 13:20:22 2024
From: detlef.bosau at web.de (Detlef Bosau)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:20:22 +0200
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a1388ce7-818a-4eb7-ab05-2065456ce05f@web.de>

Steve,


first of all, let me thank you for these comments. I don't have any
first hand experience with the ARPAnet ? and it is somewhat arduous to
find the details. Moreover, it is always helpful to get the ideas behind
the standards etc. by getting in touch with the guys who build the ARPAnet.

One question for my understanding. How were the IMP and Hosts
interconnected? Did you use P t P connections? And where these
synchronous lines as we are used to from WAN? Or "asynchronous" networks
like, e.g., Ethernet? (Hopefully I will survive the answers. I've seen
flamewars dealing with the question whether Ethernet is synchronous or
not....)

I just want to understand your way of thinking in that time.


Detlef

On 30.04.24 17:27, Steve Crocker wrote:
> Detlef,
>
> In the Arpanet, the initial implementation of the IMPs had a flow
> control mechanism that attempted to protect the IMP subnet from being
> overloaded with too many packets.? This was implemented?via an
> end-to-end protocol between the sending IMP and the receiving IMP that
> allowed only one message per link.
>
> At the host level, the original host-host protocol?-- later referred
> to as the Network Control Protocol (NCP) -- implemented virtual
> bitstreams. It had a flow control mechanism that gave the receiving
> host control over how many bits and messages -- yes, both bits and
> messages were controlled -- could be in flight over each connection.
>
> For those who do not remember or who have not studied the details of
> the Arpanet:
>
>     The IMPs were the routers.? A host was connected to an IMP.? The
>     unit of transmission between?a host and an IMP was a "message" of
>     up to about 8,000 bits.? The IMP receiving (Source IMP) the
>     message from the sending host (Source host) chopped it into
>     packets.? Each packet was up to about 1,000 bits.? The Destination
>     IMP reassembled the packets into a message and transmitted it to
>     the Destination host.
>
>     From a protocol perspective, there were multiple layers:
>
>      1. The IMP-IMP protocol governed the transmission of a packet
>         from one IMP to the next.? It included strong error detection
>         and retransmission if the packet was not acknowledged as
>         having been received correctly.
>
>      2. The End-to-End IMP protocol (my terminology) governed the
>         breakdown of a message received from a host into packets and
>         the reassembly of those packets into a message at the
>         destination IMP.? The End-to-End IMP protocol imposed a limit
>         of one message in transit per link.
>
>      3. The Host-IMP protocol governed the interaction between a host
>         and its connected IMP, as noted above. Each message included a
>         link number.? It was intended that processes within two
>         communicating hosts would use the same link number for
>         successive messages. Thus, the End-to-End IMP protocol limited
>         the flow between two host level processes.? This scheme did
>         not limit the overall number of connections, nor did it
>         prevent two processes from using multiple connections if they
>         chose to.? (And, as we experienced, it was indeed possible to
>         flood the IMPs with enough packets to cause a system-wide lockup.)
>
>      4. The host-host protocol, as noted above, implemented virtual
>         bitstreams between processes.? It included metering of both
>         the number of bits and the number of messages in transit
>         between the processes.? The receiving host controlled these
>         quantities?to avoid being overrun.
>
> As you can see, there was more than one layer of flow control in the
> original Arpanet.? At the same time, there was strong interest in
> real-time use of the Arpanet for applications where timeliness was
> paramount and loss of a small percentage of packets was tolerable,
> e.g. speech.? Relatively early in the Arpanet development, an
> additional protocol was added to the IMPs in parallel with the
> End-to-End IMP protocol that did not impose flow control but also did
> not guarantee delivery.? Layers 2, 3 and 4 above were thus accompanied
> by parallel layers 2r, 3r and 4r (my terminology invented for the
> purpose of this explanation).
>
> By the time IP was being designed, it was fully understood that it
> would not be possible to achieve perfect reliability within the
> packet-routing layer of the Internet.? Flow control as well as
> checksums and retransmission were included in the TCP layer.?
> Explicit?flow control within the packet-routing layer was dropped, but
> achieved implicitly with feedback in the routing protocol via info
> about queue lengths and dropping of packets when memory was exceeded.
>
> In the early days, memory was quite limited.? Over time, Moore's law
> resulted in a complete reversal.? Memory became inexpensive and
> plentiful.? Nowadays, the lack of flow control has led to enormously
> long queues of messages waiting to be delivered. The term of art is
> bufferbloat.
>
> Steve
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:41?AM Detlef Bosau via Internet-history
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>
>     may I ask this question?
>
>     RFC 791 explicitly states that there is NO flow control in IP.
>
>     As far as I see, some packet switching networks provide flow control
>     mechanisms, while others don't. So, I have some rough idea, why this
>     design decision was taken.
>
>     I wonder, whether there was a general discussion of this issue in the
>     past, particularly as this issue should have been relevant for the
>     ARPANET as well.
>
>     Many thanks for any comments on this one
>
>
>     Detlef
>
>     --
>     Internet-history mailing list
>     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>
>
> --
> Sent by a Verified
> Sent by a Verified sender
> <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
> sender


From vint at google.com  Tue Apr 30 13:40:04 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:04 -0400
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <a1388ce7-818a-4eb7-ab05-2065456ce05f@web.de>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1388ce7-818a-4eb7-ab05-2065456ce05f@web.de>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdh0xnLKTr0wMdoV1cA8EdR31Drb64O5gaV6r8bmEjqRg@mail.gmail.com>

dedicated connections per BBN 1822 specifications - not counting Distant
Host and Very Distant Host which were pt-pti but more elaborate than direct
bit by bit signaling.
v


On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 4:20?PM Detlef Bosau via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Steve,
>
>
> first of all, let me thank you for these comments. I don't have any
> first hand experience with the ARPAnet   and it is somewhat arduous to
> find the details. Moreover, it is always helpful to get the ideas behind
> the standards etc. by getting in touch with the guys who build the ARPAnet.
>
> One question for my understanding. How were the IMP and Hosts
> interconnected? Did you use P t P connections? And where these
> synchronous lines as we are used to from WAN? Or "asynchronous" networks
> like, e.g., Ethernet? (Hopefully I will survive the answers. I've seen
> flamewars dealing with the question whether Ethernet is synchronous or
> not....)
>
> I just want to understand your way of thinking in that time.
>
>
> Detlef
>
> On 30.04.24 17:27, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > Detlef,
> >
> > In the Arpanet, the initial implementation of the IMPs had a flow
> > control mechanism that attempted to protect the IMP subnet from being
> > overloaded with too many packets.  This was implemented via an
> > end-to-end protocol between the sending IMP and the receiving IMP that
> > allowed only one message per link.
> >
> > At the host level, the original host-host protocol -- later referred
> > to as the Network Control Protocol (NCP) -- implemented virtual
> > bitstreams. It had a flow control mechanism that gave the receiving
> > host control over how many bits and messages -- yes, both bits and
> > messages were controlled -- could be in flight over each connection.
> >
> > For those who do not remember or who have not studied the details of
> > the Arpanet:
> >
> >     The IMPs were the routers.  A host was connected to an IMP.  The
> >     unit of transmission between a host and an IMP was a "message" of
> >     up to about 8,000 bits.  The IMP receiving (Source IMP) the
> >     message from the sending host (Source host) chopped it into
> >     packets.  Each packet was up to about 1,000 bits.  The Destination
> >     IMP reassembled the packets into a message and transmitted it to
> >     the Destination host.
> >
> >     From a protocol perspective, there were multiple layers:
> >
> >      1. The IMP-IMP protocol governed the transmission of a packet
> >         from one IMP to the next.  It included strong error detection
> >         and retransmission if the packet was not acknowledged as
> >         having been received correctly.
> >
> >      2. The End-to-End IMP protocol (my terminology) governed the
> >         breakdown of a message received from a host into packets and
> >         the reassembly of those packets into a message at the
> >         destination IMP.  The End-to-End IMP protocol imposed a limit
> >         of one message in transit per link.
> >
> >      3. The Host-IMP protocol governed the interaction between a host
> >         and its connected IMP, as noted above. Each message included a
> >         link number.  It was intended that processes within two
> >         communicating hosts would use the same link number for
> >         successive messages. Thus, the End-to-End IMP protocol limited
> >         the flow between two host level processes.  This scheme did
> >         not limit the overall number of connections, nor did it
> >         prevent two processes from using multiple connections if they
> >         chose to.  (And, as we experienced, it was indeed possible to
> >         flood the IMPs with enough packets to cause a system-wide
> lockup.)
> >
> >      4. The host-host protocol, as noted above, implemented virtual
> >         bitstreams between processes.  It included metering of both
> >         the number of bits and the number of messages in transit
> >         between the processes.  The receiving host controlled these
> >         quantities to avoid being overrun.
> >
> > As you can see, there was more than one layer of flow control in the
> > original Arpanet.  At the same time, there was strong interest in
> > real-time use of the Arpanet for applications where timeliness was
> > paramount and loss of a small percentage of packets was tolerable,
> > e.g. speech.  Relatively early in the Arpanet development, an
> > additional protocol was added to the IMPs in parallel with the
> > End-to-End IMP protocol that did not impose flow control but also did
> > not guarantee delivery.  Layers 2, 3 and 4 above were thus accompanied
> > by parallel layers 2r, 3r and 4r (my terminology invented for the
> > purpose of this explanation).
> >
> > By the time IP was being designed, it was fully understood that it
> > would not be possible to achieve perfect reliability within the
> > packet-routing layer of the Internet.  Flow control as well as
> > checksums and retransmission were included in the TCP layer.
> > Explicit flow control within the packet-routing layer was dropped, but
> > achieved implicitly with feedback in the routing protocol via info
> > about queue lengths and dropping of packets when memory was exceeded.
> >
> > In the early days, memory was quite limited.  Over time, Moore's law
> > resulted in a complete reversal.  Memory became inexpensive and
> > plentiful.  Nowadays, the lack of flow control has led to enormously
> > long queues of messages waiting to be delivered. The term of art is
> > bufferbloat.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:41?AM Detlef Bosau via Internet-history
> > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear all,
> >
> >
> >     may I ask this question?
> >
> >     RFC 791 explicitly states that there is NO flow control in IP.
> >
> >     As far as I see, some packet switching networks provide flow control
> >     mechanisms, while others don't. So, I have some rough idea, why this
> >     design decision was taken.
> >
> >     I wonder, whether there was a general discussion of this issue in the
> >     past, particularly as this issue should have been relevant for the
> >     ARPANET as well.
> >
> >     Many thanks for any comments on this one
> >
> >
> >     Detlef
> >
> >     --
> >     Internet-history mailing list
> >     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent by a Verified
> > Sent by a Verified sender
> > <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
> > sender
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4006 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240430/41e7c18d/attachment.p7s>

From steve at shinkuro.com  Tue Apr 30 14:07:05 2024
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:07:05 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <6798C262-8265-43BC-9F37-04FBCD6236E6@comcast.net>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990@gmail.com>
 <6798C262-8265-43BC-9F37-04FBCD6236E6@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CABf5zv+F38uwJtdNjw9Wj8oE61mST8cbqwcJ-c7n9C9k+M_7bA@mail.gmail.com>

John,

My understanding re the idea for the IMPs is slightly different.  Yes,
there was pushback from some of the sites, but I have understood the
introduction of the IMP idea came from Wes Clark.  (See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_A._Clark)  He was deeply involved with
small computers.  The introduction of  the IMPs into the design provided a
clean separation between the subnet and the hosts.  The reliability of
the overall system was dependent only on the IMPs and the lines.  In those
days, it was fairly rare for an operating system to have 24 hours of
continuous operation.

Re the protocol, the few of us who were involved at the outset of the host
level protocol design focused on connections as the basic building block.
I'll take the blame for this narrow focus if we need someone to blame.  (On
the other hand, if it's a matter of giving credit, there were several of
us.)  Walden's IPC concept came along after we were far down the path of
designing the host-host protocol.  That said, general interprocess
communication was part of our thinking from the start.

John White from UCSB also pushed for remote procedure calls as a basic
building block.  It was a powerful idea but didn't dissuade us from
choosing a virtual bitstream as the building block.  Maybe it should have.

Along a separate path, Danny Cohen was interested in real-time
applications, particularly voice and flight simulation.  His work, among
others, led to using messages that were not subject to flow control.

In all cases, the notion of layers was fundamental and an intrinsic part of
everyone's thinking coming out of the August 1968 meeting.

Steve


On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 3:58?PM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
> As we all know, the ARPANET was the first major packet switching network.
> It was built to be a production network to lower the cost of computing for
> ARPA Projects.  Cyclades was built to be a network to do research on
> networks. Cyclades was a platform, what today would be called a clean-slate
> approach having seen the ARPANET. (There was considerable interaction
> between BBN and CYCLADES: As Dave Walden (who led IMP team) told me, so
> ?they wouldn?t make the same mistakes we did.? ;-) And Jean-Louis Grang?
> (led the CIGALE team) spent a fair amount of time at BBN.)
>
> Because Roberts had gotten considerable resistance from the potential host
> sites when he proposed just a network of hosts, the IMPs were proposed to
> ?off-load? the network from the hosts. Hence for the ARPANET, the host used
> the IMP-Host protocol to allocate a ?connection? to the destination and
> then the Host-Host Protocol created a connection between processes in the
> two machines. The applications were built on top of it. (Note NCP did flow
> control but no retransmissions because the IMP subnet was reliable.) This
> is when layers were first introduced. (Again, Walden confirmed for me that
> there were no layer diagrams of the IMP subnet and I wouldn?t have expected
> them then.) This is when the idea that networking was IPC began. Walden
> wrote a very early RFC proposing IPC for a resource sharing network.)
>
> sender


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Tue Apr 30 14:16:10 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:16:10 -0400
Subject: [ih] Network Control Program vs Network Control Protocol
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvL0D95r86-VMRvAsOP4ti-kuHU1=7yRvB0sHiJW=Wm_2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <08363EB6-1670-44E3-82DA-E8273551FACE@comcast.net>
 <CABf5zvL0D95r86-VMRvAsOP4ti-kuHU1=7yRvB0sHiJW=Wm_2A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A1737DC7-4ECA-47E8-BD14-5CB41016613B@comcast.net>

Thanks for confirming that.

To your other point, the standing ?half-joke? around our place was, how do you interface to an IMP?  Make it look like a tape drive!  ;-)

Yea, by the 2nd generation the confusion between NCP (Program and Protocol) was in full swing. Somehow HHP just doesn?t roll off the tongue as well. ;-)

You should write it up.

Take care,
John

> On Apr 30, 2024, at 15:23, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
> You're absolutely correct.  In fact, it was I who coined the term Network Control Program (NCP) and used it in our early RFCs and published papers.
> 
> I wanted to emphasize that in addition to a hardware interface, one also needed software incisions into the operating system.  Moreover, the IMP wasn't similar enough to existing peripherals -- tape, disk, terminals, printer, etc. -- to be dealt with as just a minor variation of one of those.
> 
> At the same time, I chose the very bland name "Host-Host protocol" for the protocol.  Over time, people started to refer to the protocol as the Network Control Protocol, and "NCP" became repurposed.
> 
> I've had in mind to write this up in Wikipedia, but I haven't gotten around to it.  In my response to Detlef, I had the sense that "NCP" as the name of the protocol was more likely to be familiar.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 1:46?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> Steve, At the time, I thought NCP was the name of the implementation of the Host-Host Protocol, Network Control Program. Although, you seldom ever heard the Host-Host Protocol mentioned and the distinction was often blurred. More recently, I have seen it referred to as you do. 
>> 
>> There was an early report by Jon Postel called A Survey of ARPANET NCPs, where it was definitely Program. (I remember because while Jon didn?t call it out, it was clear reading the report that there were two categories of NCPs: big ones and little ones. ;-) Big ones were OSs with little or no IPC and small ones were OSs with good IPC.  ;-) An important lesson there.
> 
> 



From lk at cs.ucla.edu  Tue Apr 30 14:17:20 2024
From: lk at cs.ucla.edu (Leonard Kleinrock)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 14:17:20 -0700
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zv+F38uwJtdNjw9Wj8oE61mST8cbqwcJ-c7n9C9k+M_7bA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990@gmail.com>
 <6798C262-8265-43BC-9F37-04FBCD6236E6@comcast.net>
 <CABf5zv+F38uwJtdNjw9Wj8oE61mST8cbqwcJ-c7n9C9k+M_7bA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F2417231-3741-4C3B-BB3D-707B2D50B357@cs.ucla.edu>

Steve,

Right on re Wes and the IMP idea.  It is notable that Wes (and Charles Molnar) created the LINC minicomputer in 1961/1962 and this probably influenced Wes in championing the idea of offloading functionality to small special purpose computers.  Side note: Wes was my supervisor at Lincoln Lab when I was a grad student at MIT and was an amazing leader and innovator.
Len


> On Apr 30, 2024, at 2:07?PM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
> My understanding re the idea for the IMPs is slightly different.  Yes,
> there was pushback from some of the sites, but I have understood the
> introduction of the IMP idea came from Wes Clark.  (See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_A._Clark)  He was deeply involved with
> small computers.  The introduction of  the IMPs into the design provided a
> clean separation between the subnet and the hosts.  The reliability of
> the overall system was dependent only on the IMPs and the lines.  In those
> days, it was fairly rare for an operating system to have 24 hours of
> continuous operation.
> 
> Re the protocol, the few of us who were involved at the outset of the host
> level protocol design focused on connections as the basic building block.
> I'll take the blame for this narrow focus if we need someone to blame.  (On
> the other hand, if it's a matter of giving credit, there were several of
> us.)  Walden's IPC concept came along after we were far down the path of
> designing the host-host protocol.  That said, general interprocess
> communication was part of our thinking from the start.
> 
> John White from UCSB also pushed for remote procedure calls as a basic
> building block.  It was a powerful idea but didn't dissuade us from
> choosing a virtual bitstream as the building block.  Maybe it should have.
> 
> Along a separate path, Danny Cohen was interested in real-time
> applications, particularly voice and flight simulation.  His work, among
> others, led to using messages that were not subject to flow control.
> 
> In all cases, the notion of layers was fundamental and an intrinsic part of
> everyone's thinking coming out of the August 1968 meeting.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 3:58?PM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> As we all know, the ARPANET was the first major packet switching network.
>> It was built to be a production network to lower the cost of computing for
>> ARPA Projects.  Cyclades was built to be a network to do research on
>> networks. Cyclades was a platform, what today would be called a clean-slate
>> approach having seen the ARPANET. (There was considerable interaction
>> between BBN and CYCLADES: As Dave Walden (who led IMP team) told me, so
>> ?they wouldn?t make the same mistakes we did.? ;-) And Jean-Louis Grang?
>> (led the CIGALE team) spent a fair amount of time at BBN.)
>> 
>> Because Roberts had gotten considerable resistance from the potential host
>> sites when he proposed just a network of hosts, the IMPs were proposed to
>> ?off-load? the network from the hosts. Hence for the ARPANET, the host used
>> the IMP-Host protocol to allocate a ?connection? to the destination and
>> then the Host-Host Protocol created a connection between processes in the
>> two machines. The applications were built on top of it. (Note NCP did flow
>> control but no retransmissions because the IMP subnet was reliable.) This
>> is when layers were first introduced. (Again, Walden confirmed for me that
>> there were no layer diagrams of the IMP subnet and I wouldn?t have expected
>> them then.) This is when the idea that networking was IPC began. Walden
>> wrote a very early RFC proposing IPC for a resource sharing network.)
>> 
>> sender
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Tue Apr 30 14:26:35 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:26:35 -0400
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <5b25baac-21f3-4f18-a15c-deee7dbcead2@iwl.com>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5b25baac-21f3-4f18-a15c-deee7dbcead2@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <1ABD84B2-DD12-4C7F-A3A2-76F8048A8A5F@comcast.net>

First of all, great story!!!  ;-)  Sounds like a number of things outside the rules that went on. It was a great time!!

> On Apr 30, 2024, at 14:50, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> In our early security work at SDC (circa 1972-4) we were trying to interpose an end-to-end encryption into ARPAnet protocols.  One aspect kept getting our technical goats - RFNM - Request For Next Message.  The reason was that this message was generated by elements (destination IMPS) below our encryption but needed to be delivered to elements above our encryption.
> 
> (I know that RFNM was supposed to from destination IMP to source IMP, but for reasons that I no longer remember, it ended up crossing our security/cryptography barrier.)

I don?t know, but let me suggest what it was and you can tell me if that is it. About this time there was something called ?receipt confirmation.?  The idea was that receiving acks should notify the sender.  CCITT was especially big on it.  It was a bone of contention, some thought it was a good idea, some didn?t. Those who liked more determinism liked it. The argument for Transport Protocols was that it was IPC and IPC didn?t give the user an ack, so the Transport protocol shouldn?t. The acks were entirely inside the layer.

So was this receipt confirmation?

Take care,
John

> 
> RFNM became a pejorative, or rather, was the subject of many pejorative outbursts by our group (Dave Kaufman, Frank Heinrich, Marv Schaeffer, Jerry Cole, Carl Switzky, Jerry Simon, Josie Althous, Val Schorre, John Scheid, Hillary X <can never remember her last name>, Jay Egglestun, Dave Golber, and myself.)
> 
> We had to engineer a trusted (mathematical specifications of security, formal verification of code against that security spec) hardware/software bypass around our cryptographic layer (much of which was in very expensive Tempest grade hardware) to deal this this.
> 
> (As our work progressed, TCP came along and we moved our work over to that approach, using the evolving split of an IP-like layer from the bottom of TCP, as a wedge into which to insert our security protocols. This was a much better design for our purposes when measured by Wirth's definitions of modularity (minimal information flow between modules). Our designs got easier and less Rube Goldberg - except that along the way we had begun to use much more complex modes of encryption (we'd call it blockchain today) and key management.
> 
> Apropos Hamlet's line that ?There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.? the Internet grew from a soil rich with pranks, strange events, and  not a little romance. Such as this:
> 
> As that happened our network security work got moved behind multiple layers of guards and locked doors (and special RF containment rooms). That had the effect of isolating us from company management who lacked the clearances to come into our area.  It was at that time what some of us wanted to make our offices nicer - in violation of SDCs rather strict organizational hierarchy.  So one evening we (Carl Switzky and myself) found a large spool of rather nice, essentially new, white wool carpet that was being discarded by a super high end shop on San Vicente and I had an International Harvester truck large enough to carry that spool. It was also at that time we discovered that while the SDC guards had instructions not to allow things to be carried out from the buildings that they had no instructions about carrying things in.  And through a strange coincidence of the dark forces of the universe one of our group was working late and also had a carpet knife attached to his belt.  So the next day we all had really nice white wool carpet in our offices, inside the high security zone (we did all the offices in order to create plausible deniability about our role.)
> 
> 	--karl--
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Tue Apr 30 14:49:23 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:49:23 -0400
Subject: [ih] early networking
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zv+F38uwJtdNjw9Wj8oE61mST8cbqwcJ-c7n9C9k+M_7bA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EBDA2DE8-5E8B-41BC-877B-4EFB282B06A7@comcast.net>
 <E1A7B777-90B7-4C2A-BDE9-95E82BE8D87D@comcast.net>
 <1269AB47-9045-49D2-BC79-B8284E9AFDB3@comcast.net>
 <57D0A393-4D61-4AB8-A7F4-9B0B4CD6245A@comcast.net>
 <CA+s1KQEK36T8zSbqfP8-cbwo9cFRzjmYr5Bwmn1CFWCQMGXo-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCC17086-F5A5-4774-8F30-3C394971CE9D@comcast.net>
 <10735fb9-c5ae-4409-b5c4-a63cdb251990@gmail.com>
 <6798C262-8265-43BC-9F37-04FBCD6236E6@comcast.net>
 <CABf5zv+F38uwJtdNjw9Wj8oE61mST8cbqwcJ-c7n9C9k+M_7bA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CDC7A180-4F82-430D-BFDD-352A6E1AF878@comcast.net>

Just back to my desk,

> On Apr 30, 2024, at 17:07, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
> My understanding re the idea for the IMPs is slightly different.  Yes, there was pushback from some of the sites, but I have understood the introduction of the IMP idea came from Wes Clark.  (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_A._Clark)  He was deeply involved with small computers.  The introduction of  the IMPs into the design provided a clean separation between the subnet and the hosts.  The reliability of the overall system was dependent only on the IMPs and the lines.  In those days, it was fairly rare for an operating system to have 24 hours of continuous operation.

Yes, exactly. I was trying to keep it short. I read in Hafner?s book how Roberts was really not happy with how that meeting went and on the way to the airport Wes Clark suggested to him putting minicomputers in front of the hosts. The OSs we had were operational pretty much 24/7, except of possibly one night a week when the graveyard shift did upgrades, etc. But the idea was so that hosts would not be involved in much of he network operations.
> 
> Re the protocol, the few of us who were involved at the outset of the host level protocol design focused on connections as the basic building block.  I'll take the blame for this narrow focus if we need someone to blame.  (On the other hand, if it's a matter of giving credit, there were several of us.)  Walden's IPC concept came along after we were far down the path of designing the host-host protocol.  That said, general interprocess communication was part of our thinking from the start.

I can see how having the IMP-Host protocol create a connection from source to destination and then HHP creating the connection process-to-process made a lot of sense.
> 
> John White from UCSB also pushed for remote procedure calls as a basic building block.  It was a powerful idea but didn't dissuade us from choosing a virtual bitstream as the building block.  Maybe it should have.

Really? That early!!? Be glad you didn?t do it. IPC has to be symmetrical. We tried doing systems on top of asymmetrical models like mailboxes (Apollo) and RPC and it is always a mess. Yea, there was a big argument later over which was more fundamental RPC or IPC.  The RPC fanatics were just that. Not only was it asymmetrical, but synchronous!  When someone would bring it up, my standard response was, ?O, you mean like co-routines in COBOL?? ;-) They denied but could never explain the difference.
> 
> Along a separate path, Danny Cohen was interested in real-time applications, particularly voice and flight simulation.  His work, among others, led to using messages that were not subject to flow control.

Yea, for awhile that seemed okay. But I have come to the conclusion that there should be no flows in a network that are not flow controlled. I don?t care if they are run wide open, but for security reasons there has to be a way to shut them down or at least try.
> 
> In all cases, the notion of layers was fundamental and an intrinsic part of everyone's thinking coming out of the August 1968 meeting.

Agreed, I think it is more fundamental and arises more naturally than it does in Operating Systems. In fact, the layer is a distributed resource allocator.

Take care,
John
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 3:58?PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> As we all know, the ARPANET was the first major packet switching network. It was built to be a production network to lower the cost of computing for ARPA Projects.  Cyclades was built to be a network to do research on networks. Cyclades was a platform, what today would be called a clean-slate approach having seen the ARPANET. (There was considerable interaction between BBN and CYCLADES: As Dave Walden (who led IMP team) told me, so ?they wouldn?t make the same mistakes we did.? ;-) And Jean-Louis Grang? (led the CIGALE team) spent a fair amount of time at BBN.) 
>> 
>> Because Roberts had gotten considerable resistance from the potential host sites when he proposed just a network of hosts, the IMPs were proposed to ?off-load? the network from the hosts. Hence for the ARPANET, the host used the IMP-Host protocol to allocate a ?connection? to the destination and then the Host-Host Protocol created a connection between processes in the two machines. The applications were built on top of it. (Note NCP did flow control but no retransmissions because the IMP subnet was reliable.) This is when layers were first introduced. (Again, Walden confirmed for me that there were no layer diagrams of the IMP subnet and I wouldn?t have expected them then.) This is when the idea that networking was IPC began. Walden wrote a very early RFC proposing IPC for a resource sharing network.)
>> 
> 



From jtk at dataplane.org  Tue Apr 30 14:57:03 2024
From: jtk at dataplane.org (John Kristoff)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:57:03 -0500
Subject: [ih] Steve Bellovin's retirement/farewell talk
Message-ID: <20240430165703.4a1a8831@dataplane.org>

I don't think Steve is on this list and I think many here would
certainly want to see this.

via https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/@SteveBellovin/112362015712050310

  I gave a retirement/farewell talk today.
  Video at https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/talks/farewell.mp4;
  slides at https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/talks/farewell.pdf

John


From karl at iwl.com  Tue Apr 30 15:00:31 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:00:31 -0700
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <1ABD84B2-DD12-4C7F-A3A2-76F8048A8A5F@comcast.net>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5b25baac-21f3-4f18-a15c-deee7dbcead2@iwl.com>
 <1ABD84B2-DD12-4C7F-A3A2-76F8048A8A5F@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <218c166b-4b2a-4e73-bcad-b405ee6651ee@iwl.com>

I think Steve Crocker answered your question about RFNM and why we 
needed to deal with it across our cryptographic barrier.

As for the other part - Yes, the history of the Internet has a lot of 
non-technical stories.? Those stories provide a really interesting (to 
me) meta story about how ideas are born, how they evolve, how 
personalities and events interplay with technology. To me these are 
important things, particularly among young people who can excusably say 
that they think all the fun stuff has been done already.? To my mind the 
history of the net that we've been discussing is really just the 
lighting of the fuse of fireworks yet to be seen - many of those 
fireworks will be outside of, but strongly affected by, our technical 
choices.

(And as a participant in the growth of the net I am also intrigued by 
the human aspects - ranging from some of our clothing choices [such as 
Mike Padlipsky's red suit with white piping] to the romances [and 
marriages, including my own], to the deep friendships that were born of 
intense, hard work [such as our Interop network commando-networking 
team].? We could fill a Dickens novel with intriguing, non technical, 
people and happenings.? For instance there's the story of the first 
Internet Band, Severe Tire Damage, in the DEC parking lot in Palo Alto, 
their parties with Anita Borg and others, and the "innocence" of 
copyright lawyers at Sony and other music companies about music over the 
Internet.)

(Some years back I did a badly filmed, badly recorded, short film about 
Severe Tire Damage: https://www.history-of-the-internet.org/videos/std/ )

The lawyer in me also is interested in those ancillary stories. (I 
almost took a legal position in the chief counsel's office at NTIA in 
1978 where I would have been one of two people who knew of the nascent, 
growing network - my job interview involved rewriting a major policy 
paper [at a DC bar] on computer/network privacy for President Carter.)? 
We can learn a lot from the history of the net why some ideas succeed 
and others, even with strong backing (ISO/OSI/Gosip/Map/Top), sank as 
much from ill framed exposition and advocacy as from overwrought technology.

 ??? ??? --karl--

On 4/30/24 2:26 PM, John Day wrote:
> First of all, great story!!!  ;-)  Sounds like a number of things outside the rules that went on. It was a great time!!
>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 14:50, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In our early security work at SDC (circa 1972-4) we were trying to interpose an end-to-end encryption into ARPAnet protocols.  One aspect kept getting our technical goats - RFNM - Request For Next Message.  The reason was that this message was generated by elements (destination IMPS) below our encryption but needed to be delivered to elements above our encryption.
>>
>> (I know that RFNM was supposed to from destination IMP to source IMP, but for reasons that I no longer remember, it ended up crossing our security/cryptography barrier.)
> I don?t know, but let me suggest what it was and you can tell me if that is it. About this time there was something called ?receipt confirmation.?  The idea was that receiving acks should notify the sender.  CCITT was especially big on it.  It was a bone of contention, some thought it was a good idea, some didn?t. Those who liked more determinism liked it. The argument for Transport Protocols was that it was IPC and IPC didn?t give the user an ack, so the Transport protocol shouldn?t. The acks were entirely inside the layer.
>
> So was this receipt confirmation?
>
> Take care,
> John
>
>> RFNM became a pejorative, or rather, was the subject of many pejorative outbursts by our group (Dave Kaufman, Frank Heinrich, Marv Schaeffer, Jerry Cole, Carl Switzky, Jerry Simon, Josie Althous, Val Schorre, John Scheid, Hillary X <can never remember her last name>, Jay Egglestun, Dave Golber, and myself.)
>>
>> We had to engineer a trusted (mathematical specifications of security, formal verification of code against that security spec) hardware/software bypass around our cryptographic layer (much of which was in very expensive Tempest grade hardware) to deal this this.
>>
>> (As our work progressed, TCP came along and we moved our work over to that approach, using the evolving split of an IP-like layer from the bottom of TCP, as a wedge into which to insert our security protocols. This was a much better design for our purposes when measured by Wirth's definitions of modularity (minimal information flow between modules). Our designs got easier and less Rube Goldberg - except that along the way we had begun to use much more complex modes of encryption (we'd call it blockchain today) and key management.
>>
>> Apropos Hamlet's line that ?There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.? the Internet grew from a soil rich with pranks, strange events, and  not a little romance. Such as this:
>>
>> As that happened our network security work got moved behind multiple layers of guards and locked doors (and special RF containment rooms). That had the effect of isolating us from company management who lacked the clearances to come into our area.  It was at that time what some of us wanted to make our offices nicer - in violation of SDCs rather strict organizational hierarchy.  So one evening we (Carl Switzky and myself) found a large spool of rather nice, essentially new, white wool carpet that was being discarded by a super high end shop on San Vicente and I had an International Harvester truck large enough to carry that spool. It was also at that time we discovered that while the SDC guards had instructions not to allow things to be carried out from the buildings that they had no instructions about carrying things in.  And through a strange coincidence of the dark forces of the universe one of our group was working late and also had a carpet knife attached to his belt.  So the next day we all had really nice white wool carpet in our offices, inside the high security zone (we did all the offices in order to create plausible deniability about our role.)
>>
>> 	--karl--
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net  Tue Apr 30 15:09:37 2024
From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:09:37 -0500
Subject: [ih] Steve Bellovin's retirement/farewell talk
In-Reply-To: <20240430165703.4a1a8831@dataplane.org>
References: <20240430165703.4a1a8831@dataplane.org>
Message-ID: <8888c285-ab3c-722b-b12d-77507a61154b@tnetconsulting.net>

On 4/30/24 4:57?PM, John Kristoff via Internet-history wrote:
> I don't think Steve is on this list and I think many here would
> certainly want to see this.

Thank you for sharing John.

I've been reading some of Steve's works from the early 90s and have more 
on top.

I've added his slide deck to my list.  Maybe the video too.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Tue Apr 30 17:10:48 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:10:48 -0400
Subject: [ih] Flow Control in IP
In-Reply-To: <D935EFA3-3A32-40FF-A78B-96979048C3A0@icloud.com>
References: <77b2dca3-746d-4c4b-8b26-54518b87c470@web.de>
 <CABf5zvKV7L8PudscPf=Cffm0DST26YnGGDz1Fy83t7ON9ZDbaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <08363EB6-1670-44E3-82DA-E8273551FACE@comcast.net>
 <D935EFA3-3A32-40FF-A78B-96979048C3A0@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <8560491E-1A38-40BE-A590-A4A4F255B1FF@comcast.net>

Ahh, later than I thought.

But that was what I remembered. Type 3 messages were introduced after exposure to CYCLADES and datagrams in 1972.

As I said, in my long post yesterday. The CYCLADES transport protocol already supported the UDP-like protocol. But Type 3 was necessary to have something like a datagram in the ARPANET.

Thanks,
John

> On Apr 30, 2024, at 18:02, Greg Skinner <gregskinner0 at icloud.com> wrote:
> 
> On Apr 30, 2024, at 10:45?AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> Yes, those were Type 3 messages. When were they added? Was it around 1973. There were previous discussions on this list about how tightly controlled there use was.
> 
> Around 1975, according to this thread:
> 
> https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2009-November/001056.html
> ?gregbo
> 
> 



From bill.n1vux at gmail.com  Tue Apr 30 19:43:14 2024
From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:43:14 -0400
Subject: [ih] Steve Bellovin's retirement/farewell talk
In-Reply-To: <8888c285-ab3c-722b-b12d-77507a61154b@tnetconsulting.net>
References: <20240430165703.4a1a8831@dataplane.org>
 <8888c285-ab3c-722b-b12d-77507a61154b@tnetconsulting.net>
Message-ID: <CAAbKA3UXqC27HPMUz8-_u5XWWn0vN88c5fD2rar__YbqPUROYA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 6:09?PM Grant Taylor via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I've added his slide deck to my list.  Maybe the video too.
>

The fascinating historical anecdotes are barely hinted at in the slide-deck.
( You can select playback speed 1.5? . This does *not* result in Chipmunks
voice.)


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1vux at gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux