[ih] capacity v bandwidth

[Tom Lyon]

Another reason to call them routers was the fact that they ran dynamic
routing protocols; very much unlike the typical staticly configured
application gateways.

4.2BSD had 'routed' in 1983.   (Many struggles with that at Sun)

On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 6:32 PM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I had always thought that cisco introduced the term 'router" in 1984.
>
> v
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:52 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > This is slightly complicated by the IGP/EGP terminology. That persisted
> > even when
> > "router" became commonplace. I think we can date it to between June 1988
> > and June 1989:
> >
> > RFC1058 (RIP, June 1988) uses "gateway" exclusively
> >
> > RFC1105 (the first version of BGP, June 1989) uses "router" exclusively,
> > except in the name of the protocol!
> >
> > Wikipedia says that the p4200 came out in 1986. I couldn't find a manual,
> > but its product name was in a May 1988 DoD report:
> >
> > "Proteon p4200 Gateway
> > ...
> > The p4200 gateway is a multiprotocol router, supporting (among other
> > protocols) TCP/IP."
> >
> > [https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA192186.pdf]
> >
> > Also see: RFC1208 "A Glossary of Networking Terms" (March 1991)
> >
> > Regards/Ngā mihi
> >     Brian
> >
> > On 02-Jun-26 11:48, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote:
> > >      > From: Jack Haverty
> > >
> > >      > In the early Internet, the boxes interconnecting networks were
> > called
> > >      > "gateways". Today they're called "routers".  But why the
> > change...?
> > >      >
> > >      > So we started callig them "routers". Other companies (cisco,
> > proteon,
> > >      > ...) probably had similar experiences in their sales activities.
> > >
> > > If my memory isn't failing me (it well might be), I can take part of
> the
> > > blame.
> > >
> > > I do remember that I was pissed off because everyone and their brother
> > > (across the industry generally) called any box that did digital
> > > communications between two things a 'gateway'. E.g. a box that did
> email
> > > forwarding from BITNET to the Internet was called a 'gateway'. I.e.
> > 'gateway'
> > > was useless as a technical term, because it covered an impossibly wide
> > range
> > > of functionalities.
> > >
> > > (I am not sure if the p4200, the first Proteon router product,
> > > post-dated the 'gateway' -> 'router' change; I'd have to try and find
> an
> > > original manual. If it pre-dated, I may have taken Proteon experience
> > into
> > > account too.)
> > >
> > > So I campaigned (I think it was me) in the IETF community to come up
> > with a
> > > term limited to internetwork-level datagra packet switches, and
> 'router'
> > was
> > > picked.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know if that change post-dated the creation of the IETF or
> not. I
> > > remember such large-scale questions (i.e. not within the purview of a
> WG,
> > > after Phill set up the WG structure) were often discussed on the main
> > IETF
> > > mailing list, so if we still have the email archive from the start of
> > that
> > > list, someone can dig into it.
> > >
> > > I remember that before the IETF existed, there was an email list (I
> think
> > > hosted at CNRI maybe, although CNRI didn't exist until 1986 - Jon's
> > minutes
> > > of TCP/IP meetings stop at the end of 1980) where a lot of early TCP
> > > internetworking discussions ('TCP internetworking' since there must
> have
> > been
> > > PUP internetworking discussions, too, inside Xerox) happened. Does
> anyone
> > > remember what it was called?
> > >
> > > Any technical history of the creation of TCP internetting would
> _really_
> > > benefit from having access to that email archive (if it still exists
> > > somewhere; if not, maybe it would be possible to re-create it by
> picking
> > > through preserved emailboxes; or perhaps someone who printed out all
> > their
> > > email still has those printouts).
> > >
> > > I feel sadly wary that a lot of our earliest history has been lost
> > (since we
> > > didn't use physical memos, which many technical histories depend on for
> > 'nuts
> > > and bolts' primary sources) - except for the copy stored in 'meat' CPUs
> > (who
> > > will soon start dying off - historians take note, and act now, while
> you
> > can).
> > >
> > >       Noel
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>