[ih] early networking

Sat Apr 20 10:16:04 PDT 2024

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
>>
>
>