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

[Jaap Akkerhuis]

[Continuing UUCP nostagia, here are some highlights from EUrope]

 John Levine via Internet-history writes:

 > 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.
 >

Well, it was all we had at that time, Also, one had to toggle
switches by hand which was a bit clumsy so we had this little box
built to do it remotely. Later on we could get our hand on 1200 bps
and even 2400 bps (but don't tell the regulators). The dialler boxes
became a great succes and somehow spread over Europe.

When the X.25 DN-1 came available foe international traffic, we
startad to use that as well.  It also gave birth to the f-protocol.
(Our uucp version was based on the olde V7 verson and some bits of
honeydanber) But the available bandwith wasn't enough so we ended
up havong a leased line over the ocean. Meanwhile a lot of traffice
went via Armano's uucp hub as well.  In exchance for n course on
Ultrix, we actually managed to get an VAX 750 from DEC.  When the
Telebit  modems came around, it was impossible to get the g-protocol
spoofing version. It forced us to blow our own e-proms to get it.

	jaap

PS. I really have t mention some of the prople involved: Teus Hagen, Jim McKie, Piet
    Beertema, Daniel Karrenberg, Peter Collinson, Rob Blokzijl. Note
    this list is in random order and rather incomplete.