[ih] Resend:: early networking

Karl Auerbach karl at iwl.com
Sun Apr 21 16:43:18 PDT 2024 

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

More information about the Internet-history mailing list