[ih] OSI and alternate reality

[Lyman Chapin]

I think the missed opportunity had nothing to do with choosing between OSI and TCP/IP as self-contained monoliths—it was the opportunity, which I presented to the IAB in 1990, to absorb into the TCP/IP framework just two OSI protocols, CLNP (OSI's IP) and TP4 (OSI's TCP). The idea was not to swallow OSI whole, but to use CLNP (in particular) as the starting point for finding solutions within the TCP/IP world for problems like IP address space exhaustion (CLNP had variable length source and destination addresses).

In 1990 CLNP and TP4 were running in production networks using equipment from most of the major minicomputer vendors (including DEC, DG, HP, and Tandem). We could have started with the implementation and deployment experience already gained with those protocols. Instead, we had to start with a new protocol (IPv6) that had never been implemented or deployed. And 30+ years later I think we all know how well that has turned out.

The “protocol wars” language that was used to frame “OSI vs. TCP/IP” as a competition obscured opportunities like the one I’ve just described to recognize and develop good ideas regardless of where they came from (the TP4 checksum being another example). The “wars” language makes it seem as though there were two “camps”—but the same people who were working on CLNP, routing, and TP4 were also working in the IETF on IP, routing, and TCP.

As you suggest, it may have been impossible, regardless of the language being used, to take advantage of these opportunities given the weight of all the surrounding X. crap. For many people, that crap was OSI. Too bad -

- Lyman

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 9:52 AM, 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] OSI and alternate reality
>> Date: March 15, 2024 at 09:45:07 EDT
>> To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>> 
>> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
>> 
>> The PTTs never got (and still don’t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
>> 
>> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
>> 
>> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn’t get what was going on.
>> 
>> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
>> 
>> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>> 
>>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kindest regards,
>>> 
>>> Olivier
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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