[ih] uucp, was Question re rate of growth of the Arpanet

[the keyboard of geoff goodfellow]

the Telebit modems ran at 19.2 and had some "magic" in them called "UUCP
Spoofing" that IIRC "faked spoofed" the UUCP ACK packet locally at the
forward sending host to make it run lickity split rather than having to
"endure" the latency of remote receiving host sending it back.

a bit more of Internet History is that Telebit was also going to put more
of this kind of "magic" in the modems to similarly speed up TCP/IP PPP
connections BUT Telebit was unwilling to do so until (understandably) PPP
was "standardized"... THE PROBLEM was that the lead of the IETF Standard
Working Group (who will remain nameless!) wasn't doing their "job" (let's
say) and the endless delays and frustration built to a point that yours
truly's business (as well as others) was being "stymied"/"harmed" was The
Entire Impetus for yours truly facilitating and launching the (most dearly
revered and reviled) Internet Crucible publication:

"THE CRUCIBLE                                                  INTERNET
EDITION
August, 1989                                                Volume 1 :
Issue 1
                                                                 (reprint)
   In this issue:
A Critical Analysis of the Internet Management Situation..."

[for which the archive of Internet Crucible issues are available at
https://iconia.com/ic/
should anyone wish to summarily "revisit" that Era of Internet History
(from roughly the late 1980's to 1990).]

geoff

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 7:56 AM Craig Partridge via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> According to the wikipedia page (which could be wrong), the pioneering
> Telebit Trailblazer didn't show up until 1985, by which time USENIX/UUCP
> was already quite big.  So something else must have been in place before
> then -- or was the fact that ihnp4 was willing to run up a huge phone tab
> hide many issues?
>
> Side note: the web page also noted that Telebit was founded by Paul Baran
> (small world department).
>
> Craig
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 8:24 AM John Levine via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > It appears that Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <julf at Julf.com>
> > said:
> > >On 21/04/2025 22:15, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via
> > >Internet-history wrote:
> > >
> > >> then there was UUCP... can anyone chime in what the "minimum"
> acceptable
> > >> bit rate for that was?  anything less than Bell 202 at 1.2 or Racal
> > Vadic
> > >> at 2.4?
> > >
> > >Pretty much, yes. Leaf nodes could survive on a 1200 bps connection,
> > >but I don't think I ever saw anything slower.
> >
> > I think I set up a 300 bps leaf node but didn't run much traffic over it.
> >
> > All the serious uucp nodes used Telebit modems that had special support
> > for uucp
> > and could run about 14K bps over a regular phone line. I believe that was
> > the
> > best you could do until the era of 56K modems that cheated by connecting
> > directly to digital trunks.
> >
> > R's,
> > John
> > --
> > 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.
> --
> 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