[ih] Correct name for early TCP/IP working group?

[John Day]

Brian,
I agree with you. In the Baran reports, he describes something that sounds like a datagram. However, he never explores it much other than to define hot-potato routing. His focus is very centered on survivability and resilience, which makes sense it was research for the DoD. There is also the consideration that so far as I have been able to determine, all of the projects Baran was involved in afterwards were virtual-circuit, as were Roberts.

OTOH, NPL didn’t do military research, so I guessed that their impetus for exploring packet switching had to be different and indeed it was. We have found a memo Davies wrote (and a similar one by Derek Barber) that Davies had attended the IFIP Congress in the US in 1965 and heard lots of papers on timesharing and the time slicing scheduling that timesharing used. The advantage being that while batch systems did FCFS and short jobs got stuck behind long ones, timesharut ing interleaved jobs and while short jobs were still delayed but their *completion* times were shorter. Davies told Derek that that was what they should do with communications and they did. Their impetus for packet switching was very different. (But there were two problems. ;-) 1) Donald got promoted and less time for research, ;-) and 2) the GPO got involved and the government directed NPL to concentrate on “practical” projects, so they had to move to virtual-circuits.

Scantlebury told Roberts about packet switching at the Gatlinburg conference and convinced him to use it. When Roberts returned to DC, he found he had Baran’s reports in a stack of documents but hadn’t read it yet. Based on the NPL experience Roger also convinced Roberts not to use 2.4Kbps lines but 50Kbps, which was a large part of the ARPANET success. (Slower speed would have worked but been so slow people would have said it wasn’t practical, etc.)

There is much more to be said about all of this. But that seems to be the core of it. I find it very interesting how minor events have major effects.

Take care,
John Day

> On Jan 27, 2025, at 20:47, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Vint, and Noel,
> 
> I just glanced through Baran's 1964 paper, and it clearly recognized
> statelessnesss (and a standard packet header) as important for network
> survivability and adaptive routing. But although he mentions networks
> of intercontinental size, I didn't spot any discussion of scalability
> as such.
> 
> Interestingly, exactly the same applies to Dave Clark's 1988 "Design
> Philosophy" paper.
> 
> In RFC 1958, we did note as principle 3.3 that "All designs must scale
> readily to very many nodes per site and to many millions of sites".
> I guess that by then (1996) this was too obvious to ignore, and it was
> written when IPv4 address exhaustion was considered inevitable.
> 
> Maybe somebody who knows the early literature better than me can find
> something. But it's almost as if the intrinsic scalability of stateless
> packet switching was an unnoticed and accidental property.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian
> 
> On 27-Jan-25 11:16, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>> statelessness was an important design choice and was made consciously so
>> that paths were not critical to successful transport. For example we did
>> not want to have to reassemble along a particular path. Even though we
>> deprecated fragmentation, at the time we thought it was important, we did
>> not want gateway (router) state to be necessary to accomplish reassembly
>> regardless of path. I don't know that we recognized the scalability aspect
>> but we definitely cared a lot about statelessness of the gateways.
>> v
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 4:25 PM Noel Chiappa via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>     > From: Jack Haverty jack at 3kitty.org
>>> 
>>>     > At the time, the "ARPANET crowd" was skeptical that the "datagram"
>>>     > nature of TCP could be made to work. Traditional networks, including
>>>     > the ARPANET, had elaborate internal mechanisms to provide a "virtual
>>>     > circuit" service to its users.
>>> 
>>> I was thinkking about this, and wondering if internetworking was a more
>>> fundamental advance than the ARPANET (relegating the latter to a
>>> 'ground-breaking experiment'), and I had another thought.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Internetworking (following in the track of CYCLADES) made much of the
>>> fate-sharing aspect - that the data needed to ensure reliable transmission
>>> was co-located was the application. One good reason for that (that we knew
>>> at
>>> the time) was that it made the network itself simpler.
>>> 
>>> But there's another side to that, one that was even more important, and
>>> which
>>> I'm not sure was obvious to us at the time (1977-79), which is that because
>>> it means the intermediate packet switches in the overall internet carry no
>>> state about the connections travelling through them, there's no scaling
>>> limit. This, to me, has been the single biggest reason why the Internet has
>>> been able to grow to the stupendous size it has.
>>> 
>>> I don't think we could have been thinking 'this aspect of lack of state in
>>> the internet packet switches neans it will scale indefinitely', because I
>>> don't think we had any idea, at that point, about how to do path selection
>>> in
>>> a global-scale internet - so global-scale internets could not have been in
>>> our thinking.
>>> 
>>> Did that infinite scalability turn out to be just a happy accident, a
>>> side-effect of good fundamental design (but one whose true complete value
>>> wasn't obvious to us at the time), one that moved state out of the internet
>>> packet switches?
>>> 
>>>         Noel
>>> --
>>> 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