From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Fri Oct  2 13:19:07 2026
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2026 13:19:07 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fwd: DTIC is unavailable for public access!
References: <2043730475.94869.1790971799755@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <04C3767A-C4CA-4096-A53D-15B7F505BDEF@icloud.com>

Forwarded for Barbara

> From: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
> To: Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 at 12:59:33 PM PDT
> Subject: DTIC is unavailable for public access!
> 
> I am unhappy to report that I just discovered DTIC is no longer searchable for public users, like us!  The website says it is only temporary while they improve (????) the site but  one quick search says it has been gone since sometime in August.  All material I ever saw seemed to have the appropriate vetting as the documents were marked for public access.  It sounds like some groups have complained but I found no info on when it will be restored.
> 
> barbara



From jack at 3kitty.org  Fri Oct  2 13:58:07 2026
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2026 13:58:07 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fwd: DTIC is unavailable for public access!
In-Reply-To: <04C3767A-C4CA-4096-A53D-15B7F505BDEF@icloud.com>
References: <2043730475.94869.1790971799755@mail.yahoo.com>
 <04C3767A-C4CA-4096-A53D-15B7F505BDEF@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <96cb15ac-2869-4221-9050-724d996279b7@3kitty.org>

If you know the ADA number a DTIC document may still be accessible by 
searching on archive.org? ?For example, here's one I wrote:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250202074233/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA121350.pdf 

/Jack Haverty


On 10/2/26 13:19, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote:
> Forwarded for Barbara
>
>> From: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
>> To: Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 at 12:59:33 PM PDT
>> Subject: DTIC is unavailable for public access!
>>
>> I am unhappy to report that I just discovered DTIC is no longer searchable for public users, like us!  The website says it is only temporary while they improve (????) the site but  one quick search says it has been gone since sometime in August.  All material I ever saw seemed to have the appropriate vetting as the documents were marked for public access.  It sounds like some groups have complained but I found no info on when it will be restored.
>>
>> barbara

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20261002/b1b2836a/attachment.asc>

From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Fri Oct  2 18:20:20 2026
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 01:20:20 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Potential URL for technical reports
References: <133554393.142750.1790990420690.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <133554393.142750.1790990420690@mail.yahoo.com>


https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/
I haven't had a chance to poke really.? I am having trouble downloading the documents but i am at least getting a list of? accession numbers that seem somewhat? relevant to my search.?
The site is slow?
Website courtesy of gemini
barbara


From jtk at dataplane.org  Sat Oct  3 09:26:16 2026
From: jtk at dataplane.org (John Kristoff)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 11:26:16 -0500
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
Message-ID: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>

DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.

Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
that.

John


From tho.ietf at gmail.com  Sat Oct  3 09:46:13 2026
From: tho.ietf at gmail.com (Thomas Fossati)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 18:46:13 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
Message-ID: <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:26?PM John Kristoff via Internet-history
<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
> history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
> support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.
>
> Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
> given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
> much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
> to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
> that.

It failed because of an abundance of middleboxes and a lack of APIs.
Unlike SCTP (which is similarly affected by middleboxes), it never
found a niche where it could be safely deployed.
Then came QUIC, which made it completely redundant.

That's my rough understanding of the situation.

cheers!

>
> John
> --
> 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



-- 
Thomas


From carsten at schiefner.berlin  Sat Oct  3 10:29:34 2026
From: carsten at schiefner.berlin (Carsten Schiefner)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 19:29:34 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
Message-ID: <6b172af8-0a1b-d149-143b-9e82fcfb73f0@schiefner.berlin>

Small nit picking if I may, John...?

It's RFC 43_4_0:

RFC 4340: Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340/

I stumbled over RFC 4330:

RFC 4330: Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 for IPv4, IPv6 
and OSI
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4330/

and was pretty sure that this is quite obviously *not* it.

Best,

	-C.

On 03.10.2026 18:26, John Kristoff via Internet-history wrote:
> DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
> history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
> support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.
> 
> Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
> given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
> much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
> to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
> that.
> 
> John


From jtk at dataplane.org  Sat Oct  3 10:47:05 2026
From: jtk at dataplane.org (John Kristoff)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 12:47:05 -0500
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <6b172af8-0a1b-d149-143b-9e82fcfb73f0@schiefner.berlin>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <6b172af8-0a1b-d149-143b-9e82fcfb73f0@schiefner.berlin>
Message-ID: <20261003124705.460097e0@dataplane.org>

On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 19:29:34 +0200
Carsten Schiefner via Internet-history
<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Small nit picking if I may, John...?
> It's RFC 43_4_0:

Yes, of course. Thanks for catching the typo.

John


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Oct  3 13:22:20 2026
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2026 09:22:20 +1300
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <15009287-d520-4fca-afd0-f7bdb126e8c8@gmail.com>

On 04-Oct-26 05:46, Thomas Fossati via Internet-history wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:26?PM John Kristoff via Internet-history
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
>> history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
>> support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.
>>
>> Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
>> given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
>> much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
>> to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
>> that.
> 
> It failed because of an abundance of middleboxes and a lack of APIs.
> Unlike SCTP (which is similarly affected by middleboxes), it never
> found a niche where it could be safely deployed.

That's certainly true, but I think that in reality there was no operational
problem that "congestion-controlled unreliable datagrams" would solve more
cheaply than simply buying extra bandwidth.

I see that Linux proactively removed DCCP support from Linux 6.16.

    Brian

> Then came QUIC, which made it completely redundant.
> 
> That's my rough understanding of the situation.
> 
> cheers!
> 
>>
>> John
>> --
>> 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
> 
> 
> 

From tho.ietf at gmail.com  Sat Oct  3 13:56:56 2026
From: tho.ietf at gmail.com (Thomas Fossati)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 22:56:56 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <15009287-d520-4fca-afd0-f7bdb126e8c8@gmail.com>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <15009287-d520-4fca-afd0-f7bdb126e8c8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAObGJnN7KQZE_P38SnjxtbfaVKf4obouPZ9-N2eMYdtb1rKtJw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 10:22?PM Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04-Oct-26 05:46, Thomas Fossati via Internet-history wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:26?PM John Kristoff via Internet-history
> > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
> >> history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
> >> support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.
> >>
> >> Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
> >> given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
> >> much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
> >> to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
> >> that.
> >
> > It failed because of an abundance of middleboxes and a lack of APIs.
> > Unlike SCTP (which is similarly affected by middleboxes), it never
> > found a niche where it could be safely deployed.
>
> That's certainly true, but I think that in reality there was no operational
> problem that "congestion-controlled unreliable datagrams" would solve more
> cheaply than simply buying extra bandwidth.

Yes, you are right.
Besides, I reckon that ABR may have also helped to solve, for a
significant proportion of Internet traffic, some of the problems that
DCCP was designed to tackle.

> I see that Linux proactively removed DCCP support from Linux 6.16.

For the past ~10 years, the Linux community has been maintaining a
protocol that no one really uses.  It made total sense to drop it.

-- 
Thomas


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Oct  3 13:58:08 2026
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 13:58:08 -0700
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>

In addition to technical issues, I think there was another reason for 
"failing to gain traction".? It comes down to management, or lack 
thereof, of new technology in an evolving infrastructure service.

Personally, I'm just one of billions of users of the Internet now. ?But 
I was pretty heavily involved in the technology during the early years.? 
 ?Today, my home LAN is an eclectic mix of devices, all on the 
Internet.? There are desktops and servers, running Windows, IOS, or 
Ubuntu.? ?There are phones, tablets, both Android and Apple systems, and 
even a few Raspberry Pis.? ?Several irrigation controllers and other 
home automation stuff.? Probably a bunch of things I've forgotten.? Even 
the fan in my attic is on the Internet.

I have no idea whether or not any of those devices use, or even are 
capable of using, DCCP.? DCCP is not alone - As just a user, I haven't 
heard about SCTP either, or many of the other technology that the IETF 
has documented in RFCs and placed "on the shelf" for anyone to use.? 
I've heard a little about QUIC, but don't know how to tell if any of my 
devices can or do use it.? Or why they should. ?I suspect most of the 
billions of Users have similar experiences.

Looking outward, I see lots of ads for new devices to attach to my LAN.? 
But I can't recall ever seeing any ad that highlighted some product as 
"Supports DCCP!!".? ?Or "QUIC!", or "SCTP!", or even "IPv6!".? 
 ?Companies traditionally tout the benefits of their products over the 
competition, and implement the features that their customers demand.? 
For some reason that doesn't seem to happen for Internet technology.

Back in 1983, a major effort was involved to transition the existing 
ARPANET from its old technology (called NCP) to the new TCP mechanisms.? 
That was accomplished on January 1, 1983, after several years of 
planning and preparing.? After that date, TCP was used everywhere, and 
NCP was no longer present anywhere.

Afterwards, we realized that such transitions were a lot of work, and 
that particular transition was greatly aided by the fact that the entire 
Internet at the time was owned and managed by a combination of ARPA and 
DCA, i.e., part of the US Department of Defense.? ?They were definitely 
"in charge."

We also realized that such a scheme wouldn't have the same advantage as 
the Internet grew and many more players got involved.? No one would be 
"in charge" and have the ability to orchestrate the introduction of new 
technology, as well as the removal of the older technology which it 
replaced.? Without both steps, the technical machinery would just get 
more and more complex and difficult to operate.

But no one in 1983 knew how to do that for the Internet.? It was 
possible that some lessons could be learned from the experience of the 
telephony system, which had pretty much succeeded at creating a 
multi-vendor and global voice service.? ?But the topic was still viewed 
as a research area, likely involving considerable research and trial and 
error to find some techniques that would work to not only introduce some 
new technology, but also to remove any old technology that was no longer 
appropriate.

The question for the research community was "How do you build a 
multi-vendor global communications system that can evolve with new 
protocols, algorithms, and techniques, and removal of the old technology 
that are to be replaced?"

As far as I can tell, that hasn't been answered yet.? ?It's been more 
than 40 years.? Maybe it's just not possible?

/Jack Haverty


On 10/3/26 09:46, Thomas Fossati via Internet-history wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:26?PM John Kristoff via Internet-history
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
>> history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
>> support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.
>>
>> Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
>> given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
>> much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
>> to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
>> that.
> It failed because of an abundance of middleboxes and a lack of APIs.
> Unlike SCTP (which is similarly affected by middleboxes), it never
> found a niche where it could be safely deployed.
> Then came QUIC, which made it completely redundant.
>
> That's my rough understanding of the situation.
>
> cheers!
>
>> John
>> --
>> 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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20261003/cd6cbda8/attachment.asc>

From sob at sobco.com  Sat Oct  3 15:26:31 2026
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 18:26:31 -0400
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <F68D2515-1642-4F52-8E9F-EC3635D6D7E1@sobco.com>

at some level, DCCP was designed to solve the problem (middle boxes blocking non tcp/udp protocols - Quick (RFC 9000)
has done a fine job of solving that (and evolving the net to answer Jack?s last question

Scott

> On Oct 3, 2026, at 4:58?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> In addition to technical issues, I think there was another reason for "failing to gain traction".  It comes down to management, or lack thereof, of new technology in an evolving infrastructure service.
> 
> Personally, I'm just one of billions of users of the Internet now.  But I was pretty heavily involved in the technology during the early years.   Today, my home LAN is an eclectic mix of devices, all on the Internet.  There are desktops and servers, running Windows, IOS, or Ubuntu.   There are phones, tablets, both Android and Apple systems, and even a few Raspberry Pis.   Several irrigation controllers and other home automation stuff.  Probably a bunch of things I've forgotten.  Even the fan in my attic is on the Internet.
> 
> I have no idea whether or not any of those devices use, or even are capable of using, DCCP.  DCCP is not alone - As just a user, I haven't heard about SCTP either, or many of the other technology that the IETF has documented in RFCs and placed "on the shelf" for anyone to use.  I've heard a little about QUIC, but don't know how to tell if any of my devices can or do use it.  Or why they should.  I suspect most of the billions of Users have similar experiences.
> 
> Looking outward, I see lots of ads for new devices to attach to my LAN.  But I can't recall ever seeing any ad that highlighted some product as "Supports DCCP!!".   Or "QUIC!", or "SCTP!", or even "IPv6!".   Companies traditionally tout the benefits of their products over the competition, and implement the features that their customers demand.  For some reason that doesn't seem to happen for Internet technology.
> 
> Back in 1983, a major effort was involved to transition the existing ARPANET from its old technology (called NCP) to the new TCP mechanisms.  That was accomplished on January 1, 1983, after several years of planning and preparing.  After that date, TCP was used everywhere, and NCP was no longer present anywhere.
> 
> Afterwards, we realized that such transitions were a lot of work, and that particular transition was greatly aided by the fact that the entire Internet at the time was owned and managed by a combination of ARPA and DCA, i.e., part of the US Department of Defense.   They were definitely "in charge."
> 
> We also realized that such a scheme wouldn't have the same advantage as the Internet grew and many more players got involved.  No one would be "in charge" and have the ability to orchestrate the introduction of new technology, as well as the removal of the older technology which it replaced.  Without both steps, the technical machinery would just get more and more complex and difficult to operate.
> 
> But no one in 1983 knew how to do that for the Internet.  It was possible that some lessons could be learned from the experience of the telephony system, which had pretty much succeeded at creating a multi-vendor and global voice service.   But the topic was still viewed as a research area, likely involving considerable research and trial and error to find some techniques that would work to not only introduce some new technology, but also to remove any old technology that was no longer appropriate.
> 
> The question for the research community was "How do you build a multi-vendor global communications system that can evolve with new protocols, algorithms, and techniques, and removal of the old technology that are to be replaced?"
> 
> As far as I can tell, that hasn't been answered yet.   It's been more than 40 years.  Maybe it's just not possible?
> 
> /Jack Haverty
> 
> 
> On 10/3/26 09:46, Thomas Fossati via Internet-history wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 6:26?PM John Kristoff via Internet-history
>> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
>>> history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
>>> support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.
>>> 
>>> Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
>>> given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
>>> much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
>>> to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
>>> that.
>> It failed because of an abundance of middleboxes and a lack of APIs.
>> Unlike SCTP (which is similarly affected by middleboxes), it never
>> found a niche where it could be safely deployed.
>> Then came QUIC, which made it completely redundant.
>> 
>> That's my rough understanding of the situation.
>> 
>> cheers!
>> 
>>> John
>>> --
>>> 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



From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Oct  3 17:56:56 2026
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 3 Oct 2026 20:56:56 -0400
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>
References: <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20261004005657.46EAE1228B0D6@ary.qy>

It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>The question for the research community was "How do you build a 
>multi-vendor global communications system that can evolve with new 
>protocols, algorithms, and techniques, and removal of the old technology 
>that are to be replaced?"

Dunno about removal of the old stuff but QUIC is a good example of how
protocols evolve. HTTP version 1 and 2 ran over TCP, http/3 runs over
QUIC which is built on UDP so it doesn't need kernel support, with all
the multiplexing and flow control in the application. They added a new
HTTPS DNS record that browsers can query to see if a site has http/3
support. Wikipedia says that Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Safari have
all supported http/3 and QUIC for several years, and about 40% of
Google's and Facebook's web traffic now runs over QUIC.

The popular open source web server NGINX has QUIC support, which it appears
you can enable with a one or two line configuration change.

I don't think the earlier versions of http will ever go away, but given
that a megabyte is a rounding error in application code sizes these days
I don't see that as much of a problem.

R's,
John


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Oct  3 18:40:54 2026
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2026 14:40:54 +1300
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <20261004005657.46EAE1228B0D6@ary.qy>
References: <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>
 <20261004005657.46EAE1228B0D6@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <96e4de11-c329-4105-9bef-5e3e7c6222d2@gmail.com>

> so it doesn't need kernel support

I don't think everbody realises how critical that is. Getting updated user-space
code deployed is a solved problem. Getting a kernel update deployed is very hard
work that needs earthquake-sized incentives applying to a few major corporations,
several open-source communities, and all operators.

As far as I can tell, DCCP was never implemented in any commercial operating
system kernel. Effectively, it was DOA.

As an example, IPv6 availability to Google clients only started hitting 50%
peaks in July 2026 (32 years after the original IPv6 announcement).

I believe that QUIC was carefully conceived to avoid this trap.

Regards/Ng? mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 04-Oct-26 13:56, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>> The question for the research community was "How do you build a
>> multi-vendor global communications system that can evolve with new
>> protocols, algorithms, and techniques, and removal of the old technology
>> that are to be replaced?"
> 
> Dunno about removal of the old stuff but QUIC is a good example of how
> protocols evolve. HTTP version 1 and 2 ran over TCP, http/3 runs over
> QUIC which is built on UDP so it doesn't need kernel support, with all
> the multiplexing and flow control in the application. They added a new
> HTTPS DNS record that browsers can query to see if a site has http/3
> support. Wikipedia says that Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Safari have
> all supported http/3 and QUIC for several years, and about 40% of
> Google's and Facebook's web traffic now runs over QUIC.
> 
> The popular open source web server NGINX has QUIC support, which it appears
> you can enable with a one or two line configuration change.
> 
> I don't think the earlier versions of http will ever go away, but given
> that a megabyte is a rounding error in application code sizes these days
> I don't see that as much of a problem.
> 
> R's,
> John

From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Oct  3 19:31:30 2026
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 3 Oct 2026 22:31:30 -0400
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <3cc0f562-8f2b-4ee5-861d-3f212c8cf8fa@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>
 <20261004005657.46EAE1228B0D6@ary.qy>
 <3cc0f562-8f2b-4ee5-861d-3f212c8cf8fa@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <7ee2c0eb-27a4-0abe-29f5-7efbebfdac93@iecc.com>

On Sun, 4 Oct 2026, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 10/3/2026 5:56 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>> HTTP version 1 and 2 ran over TCP, http/3 runs over
>> QUIC which is built on UDP so it doesn't need kernel support, with all
>> the multiplexing and flow control in the application

> Why can't TCP run in the application?
> What does it require that UDP+QUIC don't also require?

Nothing, give or take some way to route the individual protocol 6 packets 
to the application.  If TCP weren't already in every operating system for 
historical reasons, I suspect we'd have a QUIC-lite for applications where 
a single stream is adequate.

I see that there is a kernel implementation of QUIC for linux that might 
be faster and makes it easier to integrate into SMB an NFS which are also 
in the kernel.  It doesn't seem to be much faster than the user library 
version.

For client systems, speed isn't very important since the machines that web 
browsers run on are rarely CPU bound. High volume servers like Google's 
run on highly customized hardware and software so I suppose if there were 
a benefit to putting QUIC in the kernel on those systems, they'd just do 
it.

R's,
John



From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Oct  3 19:43:09 2026
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 4 Oct 2026 02:43:09 -0000
Subject: [ih] QUIC history, Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <3cc0f562-8f2b-4ee5-861d-3f212c8cf8fa@dcrocker.net>
 <20261004005657.46EAE1228B0D6@ary.qy>
 <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>
 <7ee2c0eb-27a4-0abe-29f5-7efbebfdac93@iecc.com>
References: <3cc0f562-8f2b-4ee5-861d-3f212c8cf8fa@dcrocker.net>
 <20261004005657.46EAE1228B0D6@ary.qy>
 <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>
 <7ee2c0eb-27a4-0abe-29f5-7efbebfdac93@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <119seft$2l2t$1@gal.iecc.com>

According to John R. Levine via Internet-history <johnl at iecc.com>:
>On Sun, 4 Oct 2026, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> On 10/3/2026 5:56 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>>> HTTP version 1 and 2 ran over TCP, http/3 runs over
>>> QUIC which is built on UDP so it doesn't need kernel support, with all
>>> the multiplexing and flow control in the application
>
>> Why can't TCP run in the application?
>> What does it require that UDP+QUIC don't also require?
>
>Nothing, give or take some way to route the individual protocol 6 packets 
>to the application.  If TCP weren't already in every operating system for 
>historical reasons, I suspect we'd have a QUIC-lite for applications where 
>a single stream is adequate.

More apropos to Brian's point, if we had to wait for kernel implementations
of new protocols, we'd wait forever.  QUIC doing it backwards, first in user
code, then migrate into the kernel eventually is a lot more practical.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly



From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Oct  3 22:47:21 2026
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2026 05:47:21 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <7ee2c0eb-27a4-0abe-29f5-7efbebfdac93@iecc.com>
References: <CAObGJnPLUb6pc3seXKo4-uWV5gP6cBNqxn-M+i4hHbweThpdrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <afde5a7f-7626-4be9-a825-cd598d619f0d@3kitty.org>
 <20261004005657.46EAE1228B0D6@ary.qy>
 <3cc0f562-8f2b-4ee5-861d-3f212c8cf8fa@dcrocker.net>
 <7ee2c0eb-27a4-0abe-29f5-7efbebfdac93@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <1899744346.308268.1791092841590@mail.yahoo.com>

 Just a reminder, QUIC has a minimum mtu of 1200 bytes.??
IPv4 only requires support for 576 bytes.
barbara
    On Saturday, October 3, 2026 at 07:31:40 PM PDT, John R. Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 On Sun, 4 Oct 2026, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 10/3/2026 5:56 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>> HTTP version 1 and 2 ran over TCP, http/3 runs over
>> QUIC which is built on UDP so it doesn't need kernel support, with all
>> the multiplexing and flow control in the application

> Why can't TCP run in the application?
> What does it require that UDP+QUIC don't also require?

Nothing, give or take some way to route the individual protocol 6 packets 
to the application.? If TCP weren't already in every operating system for 
historical reasons, I suspect we'd have a QUIC-lite for applications where 
a single stream is adequate.

I see that there is a kernel implementation of QUIC for linux that might 
be faster and makes it easier to integrate into SMB an NFS which are also 
in the kernel.? It doesn't seem to be much faster than the user library 
version.

For client systems, speed isn't very important since the machines that web 
browsers run on are rarely CPU bound. High volume servers like Google's 
run on highly customized hardware and software so I suppose if there were 
a benefit to putting QUIC in the kernel on those systems, they'd just do 
it.

R's,
John

-- 
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
  

From roland.bless at kit.edu  Mon Oct  5 02:29:06 2026
From: roland.bless at kit.edu (Bless, Roland (TM))
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 11:29:06 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
Message-ID: <87813c62-b5c8-4f03-8bd2-af56e29bdd9a@kit.edu>

Hi,

my perception was that at the time DCCP was designed,
there was a fear that especially an increasing amount of
multimedia streams may cause congestion problems and
it would be better to to solve them in a single protocol
rather than letting the application developers do it
  "somehow" (and maybe neglecting ECN support etc.).
See also the section 2 of RFC4340
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4340#section-2

However, given the development of WebRTC and DASH,
people used rather their own application-specific
congestion control mechanisms instead. For example,
WebRTC used more fine-grained RTCP-based feedback
(see also RFC8888) and there were other approaches
developed in the (concluded) RMCAT WG
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/about/) as well
such as NADA (RFC8698) and SCReAM (RFC8298).

The reasons why DCCP had seen no real deployment are
probably manifold, but I guess that NAT/FW traversal
for DCCP as well as the easier development and change
process in the user space contributed to this
(as others noted, this also helped QUIC development and
was a deliberate design choice).

FWIW, there has been recent work in the IETF on Multipath-DCCP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9897/
to support a special use case for providing an MP-DCCP proxy
inside a provider network. The idea was to also support
QUIC and other UDP-based protocols.

So I disagree that QUIC development hindered DCCP
deployment already,
the work on Media over QUIC (MOQ) started only 2022.

Regards,
  Roland

On 03.10.26 at 18:26 John Kristoff via Internet-history wrote:
> DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
> history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
> support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.
> 
> Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
> given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
> much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
> to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
> that.


From lars at eggert.org  Wed Oct  7 01:49:32 2026
From: lars at eggert.org (Lars Eggert)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2026 11:49:32 +0300
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <87813c62-b5c8-4f03-8bd2-af56e29bdd9a@kit.edu>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <87813c62-b5c8-4f03-8bd2-af56e29bdd9a@kit.edu>
Message-ID: <5A59F18E-CB1D-4A9C-B4BF-F60F83E0A68E@eggert.org>

Roland?s recollection matches mine (used to be a chair of DCCP ~2006)

> On 5. Oct 2026, at 12:29, Bless, Roland (TM) via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> my perception was that at the time DCCP was designed,
> there was a fear that especially an increasing amount of
> multimedia streams may cause congestion problems and
> it would be better to to solve them in a single protocol
> rather than letting the application developers do it
> "somehow" (and maybe neglecting ECN support etc.).
> See also the section 2 of RFC4340
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4340#section-2
> 
> However, given the development of WebRTC and DASH,
> people used rather their own application-specific
> congestion control mechanisms instead. For example,
> WebRTC used more fine-grained RTCP-based feedback
> (see also RFC8888) and there were other approaches
> developed in the (concluded) RMCAT WG
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/about/) as well
> such as NADA (RFC8698) and SCReAM (RFC8298).
> 
> The reasons why DCCP had seen no real deployment are
> probably manifold, but I guess that NAT/FW traversal
> for DCCP as well as the easier development and change
> process in the user space contributed to this
> (as others noted, this also helped QUIC development and
> was a deliberate design choice).
> 
> FWIW, there has been recent work in the IETF on Multipath-DCCP
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9897/
> to support a special use case for providing an MP-DCCP proxy
> inside a provider network. The idea was to also support
> QUIC and other UDP-based protocols.
> 
> So I disagree that QUIC development hindered DCCP
> deployment already,
> the work on Media over QUIC (MOQ) started only 2022.
> 
> Regards,
> Roland
> 
> On 03.10.26 at 18:26 John Kristoff via Internet-history wrote:
>> DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
>> history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
>> support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.
>> Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
>> given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
>> much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
>> to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
>> that.
> -- 
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 870 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20261007/7733c575/attachment.asc>

From roland.bless at kit.edu  Wed Oct  7 05:27:52 2026
From: roland.bless at kit.edu (Bless, Roland (TM))
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2026 14:27:52 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why did DCCP fail to gain traction?
In-Reply-To: <5A59F18E-CB1D-4A9C-B4BF-F60F83E0A68E@eggert.org>
References: <20261003112616.3aa794d0@dataplane.org>
 <87813c62-b5c8-4f03-8bd2-af56e29bdd9a@kit.edu>
 <5A59F18E-CB1D-4A9C-B4BF-F60F83E0A68E@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <62c6b887-80eb-47ed-8b28-fe7d7cb0b076@kit.edu>

Hi Lars and all,

thanks for the confirmation of my assessment.

One additional reason I forgot in my previous mail:
many multimedia streams often do not scale continuously
and linearly in throughput, but rather in discrete steps
of corresponding different quality levels. Therefore, it
is often quite application-specific (and/or codec-specific)
how a multimedia stream sender (or receiver) reacts to
congestion. Moreover, although DCCP offered the
possibility of defining and using different congestion
control algorithms, it probably did not reduce
the app developer burden because one has to
implement this scaling logic/behavior anyway
at the application layer; using DCCP underneath
would rather only complicate things with its
own congestion control loop...

Moreover, streaming of stored media mainly uses
HTTP (also due to the benefit of being
able to reuse the existing caching/CDN infrastructure)
and DASH is more receiver-controlled and thus
quite different to the DCCP model.

Regards,
  Roland

On 07.10.26 at 10:49 Lars Eggert wrote:
> Roland?s recollection matches mine (used to be a chair of DCCP ~2006)
> 
>> On 5. Oct 2026, at 12:29, Bless, Roland (TM) via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> my perception was that at the time DCCP was designed,
>> there was a fear that especially an increasing amount of
>> multimedia streams may cause congestion problems and
>> it would be better to to solve them in a single protocol
>> rather than letting the application developers do it
>> "somehow" (and maybe neglecting ECN support etc.).
>> See also the section 2 of RFC4340
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4340#section-2
>>
>> However, given the development of WebRTC and DASH,
>> people used rather their own application-specific
>> congestion control mechanisms instead. For example,
>> WebRTC used more fine-grained RTCP-based feedback
>> (see also RFC8888) and there were other approaches
>> developed in the (concluded) RMCAT WG
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/about/) as well
>> such as NADA (RFC8698) and SCReAM (RFC8298).
>>
>> The reasons why DCCP had seen no real deployment are
>> probably manifold, but I guess that NAT/FW traversal
>> for DCCP as well as the easier development and change
>> process in the user space contributed to this
>> (as others noted, this also helped QUIC development and
>> was a deliberate design choice).
>>
>> FWIW, there has been recent work in the IETF on Multipath-DCCP
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9897/
>> to support a special use case for providing an MP-DCCP proxy
>> inside a provider network. The idea was to also support
>> QUIC and other UDP-based protocols.
>>
>> So I disagree that QUIC development hindered DCCP
>> deployment already,
>> the work on Media over QUIC (MOQ) started only 2022.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Roland
>>
>> On 03.10.26 at 18:26 John Kristoff via Internet-history wrote:
>>> DCCP (IETF RFC 4330) is/was a relatively new transport in Internet
>>> history. I don't think it ever really saw much, if any, deployment or
>>> support in applications. It was removed from the Linux kernel last year.
>>> Was it too late, too complex, too little, or just deemed unnecessary
>>> given available alternatives such as QUIC?  I don't recall seeing
>>> much discussion about why it failed to gain traction and I'm interested
>>> to hear what the collective wisdom of this group might have to say about
>>> that.
>> -- 
>> 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
> 



From frantisek.borsik at gmail.com  Sat Oct 31 00:32:29 2026
From: frantisek.borsik at gmail.com (Frantisek Borsik)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 07:32:29 +0000
Subject: [ih] Internet: 57 years later,
 what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?
Message-ID: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>

"Leonard Kleinrock and a team of scientists at UCLA gave life to the
Internet at precisely 10:30 PM on October 29, 1969, quite literally
changing the world.

57 years later, what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?"

https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925
<https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925?a=bXFqldnx0o8OUK9A6xw&s=46>

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BU8EMAfdG/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/
<https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/?mdxt=MTMzMTRwdDliNjcyNw==>




All the best,

Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

In loving memory of Dave T?ht: 1965-2025
https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/


https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
Skype: casioa5302ca
frantisek.borsik at gmail.com


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat Oct 31 04:16:44 2026
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 07:16:44 -0400
Subject: [ih] Internet: 57 years later,
 what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?
In-Reply-To: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>

The 10/29/1969 was a two node test of the Arpanet and involved connecting a
terminal at UCLA to a host at SRI International that were connected via two
Interface Message Processors (IMPs) which we would call packet switches
today. There was no host level protocol for that test. The protocol that
linked the Arpanet hosts was developed under the leadership of Steve
Crocker and was eventually called either the host-to-host protocol or
Network Control Protocol (or Program) in 1970 (see IETF RFC document
series, also started by Steve Crocker; RFC 33 Feb 1970). Three of us worked
at the Network Measurement Lab, led by Leonard Kleinrock: Steve Crocker,
Vint Cerf and Jon Postel, among others. The Internet development started in
the Spring of 1973 at Stanford and was initiated by Bob Kahn (then at
DARPA) who invited Vint Cerf to work with him on the project. The
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) protocol was published in May 1974 in
IEEE Transactions. By Dec 1974, a complete TCP spec was published in Dec
1974 (RFC 675) written by Cerf, Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine at Stanford.
Three networks made up the cohort populating the early Internet: Arpanet,
Packet Radio network and the Atlantic Packet Satellite network. The first
two-network test of the Internet protocols occurred in Summer 1976 linking
the Packet Radio network to the Arpanet and was conducted by SRI
International. The first three network test was conducted Nov 22, 1977
including Packet Radio, Packet Satellite and Arpanet. Internet went
operational on January 1, 1983.





On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 3:19?AM Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> "Leonard Kleinrock and a team of scientists at UCLA gave life to the
> Internet at precisely 10:30 PM on October 29, 1969, quite literally
> changing the world.
>
> 57 years later, what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?"
>
> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925
> <
> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925?a=bXFqldnx0o8OUK9A6xw&s=46
> >
>
> https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BU8EMAfdG/?mibextid=wwXIfr
>
> https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/
> <https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/?mdxt=MTMzMTRwdDliNjcyNw==>
>
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
> In loving memory of Dave T?ht: 1965-2025
> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
> --
> 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
>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Oct 31 07:51:54 2026
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 10:51:54 -0400
Subject: [ih] Internet: 57 years later,
 what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C3A75D8C-AA81-4677-9CF6-6216C7072442@comcast.net>

Vint,
A slight correction to your note.

A APRA PI meeting in early 67 rejected Roberts plans for the ARPANET because their systems were too loaded as it was. But Wes Clark suggested putting minicomputers in front of the hosts as a front-end, hence the IMPs. If you look closely, the IMP is really a virtual circuit packet switch on the backend and a front-end to the host.  Host-IMP protocol is part of the front-end part that sets up connections between hosts and reassembles packets into multi-packet messages. It was the front-end function that was the source of the deadlocks we talk about.

Take care,
John

> On Oct 31, 2026, at 07:16, vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> The 10/29/1969 was a two node test of the Arpanet and involved connecting a
> terminal at UCLA to a host at SRI International that were connected via two
> Interface Message Processors (IMPs) which we would call packet switches
> today. There was no host level protocol for that test. The protocol that
> linked the Arpanet hosts was developed under the leadership of Steve
> Crocker and was eventually called either the host-to-host protocol or
> Network Control Protocol (or Program) in 1970 (see IETF RFC document
> series, also started by Steve Crocker; RFC 33 Feb 1970). Three of us worked
> at the Network Measurement Lab, led by Leonard Kleinrock: Steve Crocker,
> Vint Cerf and Jon Postel, among others. The Internet development started in
> the Spring of 1973 at Stanford and was initiated by Bob Kahn (then at
> DARPA) who invited Vint Cerf to work with him on the project. The
> Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) protocol was published in May 1974 in
> IEEE Transactions. By Dec 1974, a complete TCP spec was published in Dec
> 1974 (RFC 675) written by Cerf, Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine at Stanford.
> Three networks made up the cohort populating the early Internet: Arpanet,
> Packet Radio network and the Atlantic Packet Satellite network. The first
> two-network test of the Internet protocols occurred in Summer 1976 linking
> the Packet Radio network to the Arpanet and was conducted by SRI
> International. The first three network test was conducted Nov 22, 1977
> including Packet Radio, Packet Satellite and Arpanet. Internet went
> operational on January 1, 1983.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 3:19?AM Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> "Leonard Kleinrock and a team of scientists at UCLA gave life to the
>> Internet at precisely 10:30 PM on October 29, 1969, quite literally
>> changing the world.
>> 
>> 57 years later, what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?"
>> 
>> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925
>> <
>> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925?a=bXFqldnx0o8OUK9A6xw&s=46
>>> 
>> 
>> https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BU8EMAfdG/?mibextid=wwXIfr
>> 
>> https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/
>> <https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/?mdxt=MTMzMTRwdDliNjcyNw==>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Frank
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>> 
>> In loving memory of Dave T?ht: 1965-2025
>> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>> --
>> 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



From steve at shinkuro.com  Sat Oct 31 08:13:11 2026
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 11:13:11 -0400
Subject: [ih] Internet: 57 years later,
 what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvKkA9bcwkbNDhJ0gJVdT1TKsVofqrhQXDHGSRJG=c_2jw@mail.gmail.com>

We should mention that the late evening event on 29 October 1969 consisted
of just two people: Charley Kline at UCLA and Bill Duvall at SRI.  The
software at SRI connected the IMP to its terminal management software
inside its operating system.  The software on the UCLA side was primarily a
simple ad hoc user-level process that connected the user's terminal to the
IMP.  The SRI system had command completion, so when Charley typed the G
after the LO, the SRI system attempted to echo back GIN.  Bill's software
didn't have room for three characters arriving at once, and the connection
crashed.  Bill fixed it quickly and the test continued.  The event might
not have gained any attention except Charley dutifully documented it in the
lab notebook and Kleinrock, reading the log later, waxed poetic about "LO".

Steve


On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 7:17?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> The 10/29/1969 was a two node test of the Arpanet and involved connecting a
> terminal at UCLA to a host at SRI International that were connected via two
> Interface Message Processors (IMPs) which we would call packet switches
> today. There was no host level protocol for that test. The protocol that
> linked the Arpanet hosts was developed under the leadership of Steve
> Crocker and was eventually called either the host-to-host protocol or
> Network Control Protocol (or Program) in 1970 (see IETF RFC document
> series, also started by Steve Crocker; RFC 33 Feb 1970). Three of us worked
> at the Network Measurement Lab, led by Leonard Kleinrock: Steve Crocker,
> Vint Cerf and Jon Postel, among others. The Internet development started in
> the Spring of 1973 at Stanford and was initiated by Bob Kahn (then at
> DARPA) who invited Vint Cerf to work with him on the project. The
> Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) protocol was published in May 1974 in
> IEEE Transactions. By Dec 1974, a complete TCP spec was published in Dec
> 1974 (RFC 675) written by Cerf, Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine at Stanford.
> Three networks made up the cohort populating the early Internet: Arpanet,
> Packet Radio network and the Atlantic Packet Satellite network. The first
> two-network test of the Internet protocols occurred in Summer 1976 linking
> the Packet Radio network to the Arpanet and was conducted by SRI
> International. The first three network test was conducted Nov 22, 1977
> including Packet Radio, Packet Satellite and Arpanet. Internet went
> operational on January 1, 1983.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 3:19?AM Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > "Leonard Kleinrock and a team of scientists at UCLA gave life to the
> > Internet at precisely 10:30 PM on October 29, 1969, quite literally
> > changing the world.
> >
> > 57 years later, what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?"
> >
> > https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925
> > <
> >
> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925?a=bXFqldnx0o8OUK9A6xw&s=46
> > >
> >
> > https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BU8EMAfdG/?mibextid=wwXIfr
> >
> > https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/
> > <https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/?mdxt=MTMzMTRwdDliNjcyNw==>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Frank
> > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >
> > In loving memory of Dave T?ht: 1965-2025
> > https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
> >
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
> <+421%20919%20416%20714>
> > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
> <+420%20775%20230%20885>
> > Skype: casioa5302ca
> > frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
> > --
> > 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
>


-- 
Sent by a Verified

sender


From lk at cs.ucla.edu  Sat Oct 31 09:09:53 2026
From: lk at cs.ucla.edu (Leonard Kleinrock)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 09:09:53 -0700
Subject: [ih] Internet: 57 years later,
 what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvKkA9bcwkbNDhJ0gJVdT1TKsVofqrhQXDHGSRJG=c_2jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABf5zvKkA9bcwkbNDhJ0gJVdT1TKsVofqrhQXDHGSRJG=c_2jw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CB8D697B-2286-4420-B096-A6EBAEA4BEA8@cs.ucla.edu>

The ?message? we were trying to send, ?login? was not designed to be of eternal significance as we celebrate it on Oct 29 each year. Consider Neal Armstrong?s  dramatic message ?? one giant leap for mankind.? Or Samuel Morse?s  ?What hath God wrought?.  Those guys were smart, they understood public relations, the media, the press.  We were just a bunch of nerds doing an engineering job. However, the message we sent ?Lo? (which I later embellished to ?Lo and Behold?) could not have been a more succinct, more powerful, more prophetic message!

Len

> On Oct 31, 2026, at 8:13?AM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> We should mention that the late evening event on 29 October 1969 consisted
> of just two people: Charley Kline at UCLA and Bill Duvall at SRI.  The
> software at SRI connected the IMP to its terminal management software
> inside its operating system.  The software on the UCLA side was primarily a
> simple ad hoc user-level process that connected the user's terminal to the
> IMP.  The SRI system had command completion, so when Charley typed the G
> after the LO, the SRI system attempted to echo back GIN.  Bill's software
> didn't have room for three characters arriving at once, and the connection
> crashed.  Bill fixed it quickly and the test continued.  The event might
> not have gained any attention except Charley dutifully documented it in the
> lab notebook and Kleinrock, reading the log later, waxed poetic about "LO".
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 7:17?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> 
>> The 10/29/1969 was a two node test of the Arpanet and involved connecting a
>> terminal at UCLA to a host at SRI International that were connected via two
>> Interface Message Processors (IMPs) which we would call packet switches
>> today. There was no host level protocol for that test. The protocol that
>> linked the Arpanet hosts was developed under the leadership of Steve
>> Crocker and was eventually called either the host-to-host protocol or
>> Network Control Protocol (or Program) in 1970 (see IETF RFC document
>> series, also started by Steve Crocker; RFC 33 Feb 1970). Three of us worked
>> at the Network Measurement Lab, led by Leonard Kleinrock: Steve Crocker,
>> Vint Cerf and Jon Postel, among others. The Internet development started in
>> the Spring of 1973 at Stanford and was initiated by Bob Kahn (then at
>> DARPA) who invited Vint Cerf to work with him on the project. The
>> Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) protocol was published in May 1974 in
>> IEEE Transactions. By Dec 1974, a complete TCP spec was published in Dec
>> 1974 (RFC 675) written by Cerf, Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine at Stanford.
>> Three networks made up the cohort populating the early Internet: Arpanet,
>> Packet Radio network and the Atlantic Packet Satellite network. The first
>> two-network test of the Internet protocols occurred in Summer 1976 linking
>> the Packet Radio network to the Arpanet and was conducted by SRI
>> International. The first three network test was conducted Nov 22, 1977
>> including Packet Radio, Packet Satellite and Arpanet. Internet went
>> operational on January 1, 1983.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 3:19?AM Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> "Leonard Kleinrock and a team of scientists at UCLA gave life to the
>>> Internet at precisely 10:30 PM on October 29, 1969, quite literally
>>> changing the world.
>>> 
>>> 57 years later, what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?"
>>> 
>>> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925
>>> <
>>> 
>> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925?a=bXFqldnx0o8OUK9A6xw&s=46
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BU8EMAfdG/?mibextid=wwXIfr
>>> 
>>> https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/
>>> <https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/?mdxt=MTMzMTRwdDliNjcyNw==>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>> 
>>> Frank
>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>> 
>>> In loving memory of Dave T?ht: 1965-2025
>>> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
>> <+421%20919%20416%20714>
>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
>> <+420%20775%20230%20885>
>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>>> --
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent by a Verified
> 
> sender
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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



From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat Oct 31 09:23:25 2026
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 12:23:25 -0400
Subject: [ih] Internet: 57 years later,
 what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?
In-Reply-To: <C3A75D8C-AA81-4677-9CF6-6216C7072442@comcast.net>
References: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3A75D8C-AA81-4677-9CF6-6216C7072442@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_XWi2uJ7iA4tEY7rRfQ3Nwb-G0ob+c7jQA6h1G2U9GX+g@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks John,
correct about Wes contribution for sure. The IMP presented a packet
interface (BBN 1822) but internally set up a two way connection between end
IMPs. Between IMPs the packets flowed in store-and-forward fashion and
allowed for adaptive alternative routing, so the routing was not a fixed
circuit although the end-point IMPs established an end/end relationship
that could be seen as a 'circuit' especially considering reservation of
reassembly space as part of the "set up".

v


On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 10:51?AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> Vint,
> A slight correction to your note.
>
> A APRA PI meeting in early 67 rejected Roberts plans for the ARPANET
> because their systems were too loaded as it was. But Wes Clark suggested
> putting minicomputers in front of the hosts as a front-end, hence the IMPs.
> If you look closely, the IMP is really a virtual circuit packet switch on
> the backend and a front-end to the host.  Host-IMP protocol is part of the
> front-end part that sets up connections between hosts and reassembles
> packets into multi-packet messages. It was the front-end function that was
> the source of the deadlocks we talk about.
>
> Take care,
> John
>
> > On Oct 31, 2026, at 07:16, vinton cerf via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > The 10/29/1969 was a two node test of the Arpanet and involved
> connecting a
> > terminal at UCLA to a host at SRI International that were connected via
> two
> > Interface Message Processors (IMPs) which we would call packet switches
> > today. There was no host level protocol for that test. The protocol that
> > linked the Arpanet hosts was developed under the leadership of Steve
> > Crocker and was eventually called either the host-to-host protocol or
> > Network Control Protocol (or Program) in 1970 (see IETF RFC document
> > series, also started by Steve Crocker; RFC 33 Feb 1970). Three of us
> worked
> > at the Network Measurement Lab, led by Leonard Kleinrock: Steve Crocker,
> > Vint Cerf and Jon Postel, among others. The Internet development started
> in
> > the Spring of 1973 at Stanford and was initiated by Bob Kahn (then at
> > DARPA) who invited Vint Cerf to work with him on the project. The
> > Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) protocol was published in May 1974 in
> > IEEE Transactions. By Dec 1974, a complete TCP spec was published in Dec
> > 1974 (RFC 675) written by Cerf, Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine at
> Stanford.
> > Three networks made up the cohort populating the early Internet: Arpanet,
> > Packet Radio network and the Atlantic Packet Satellite network. The first
> > two-network test of the Internet protocols occurred in Summer 1976
> linking
> > the Packet Radio network to the Arpanet and was conducted by SRI
> > International. The first three network test was conducted Nov 22, 1977
> > including Packet Radio, Packet Satellite and Arpanet. Internet went
> > operational on January 1, 1983.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 3:19?AM Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> "Leonard Kleinrock and a team of scientists at UCLA gave life to the
> >> Internet at precisely 10:30 PM on October 29, 1969, quite literally
> >> changing the world.
> >>
> >> 57 years later, what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his
> creation?"
> >>
> >> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925
> >> <
> >>
> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925?a=bXFqldnx0o8OUK9A6xw&s=46
> >>>
> >>
> >> https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BU8EMAfdG/?mibextid=wwXIfr
> >>
> >> https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/
> >> <https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/?mdxt=MTMzMTRwdDliNjcyNw==>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >>
> >> Frank
> >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >>
> >> In loving memory of Dave T?ht: 1965-2025
> >> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
> <+421%20919%20416%20714>
> >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
> <+420%20775%20230%20885>
> >> Skype: casioa5302ca
> >> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
> >> --
> >> 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
>
>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Oct 31 11:22:38 2026
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 14:22:38 -0400
Subject: [ih] Internet: 57 years later,
 what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_XWi2uJ7iA4tEY7rRfQ3Nwb-G0ob+c7jQA6h1G2U9GX+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3A75D8C-AA81-4677-9CF6-6216C7072442@comcast.net>
 <CAAFtm_XWi2uJ7iA4tEY7rRfQ3Nwb-G0ob+c7jQA6h1G2U9GX+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0CAB73D1-A85D-4144-994E-3763A3003DDF@comcast.net>

You are correct, The ARPANET was what one might call a ?weak virtual circuit? as opposed to a pure datagram, like IP.. (The packets followed the same path unless there was the routing caused a change. However, it was the front-end functionality that reassembled packets into message, not by intervening IMPs.

The perspective that hosts were considered part of the network is consistent with that.  They are subtle differences but they made a big difference in the thinking going forward. In fact, Hosts are still considered not part of the network.

IMP-Host created a connection from Host to Host. Then the Host-to-Host protocol created a connection from process-to-process.

Whereas TCP created process-to-process connections and there was no underlying host-to-host connection, like what IMP-Host did.

> On Oct 31, 2026, at 12:23, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks John,
> correct about Wes contribution for sure. The IMP presented a packet interface (BBN 1822) but internally set up a two way connection between end IMPs. Between IMPs the packets flowed in store-and-forward fashion and allowed for adaptive alternative routing, so the routing was not a fixed circuit although the end-point IMPs established an end/end relationship that could be seen as a 'circuit' especially considering reservation of reassembly space as part of the "set up". 
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 10:51?AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> Vint,
>> A slight correction to your note.
>> 
>> A APRA PI meeting in early 67 rejected Roberts plans for the ARPANET because their systems were too loaded as it was. But Wes Clark suggested putting minicomputers in front of the hosts as a front-end, hence the IMPs. If you look closely, the IMP is really a virtual circuit packet switch on the backend and a front-end to the host.  Host-IMP protocol is part of the front-end part that sets up connections between hosts and reassembles packets into multi-packet messages. It was the front-end function that was the source of the deadlocks we talk about.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>> > On Oct 31, 2026, at 07:16, vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > The 10/29/1969 was a two node test of the Arpanet and involved connecting a
>> > terminal at UCLA to a host at SRI International that were connected via two
>> > Interface Message Processors (IMPs) which we would call packet switches
>> > today. There was no host level protocol for that test. The protocol that
>> > linked the Arpanet hosts was developed under the leadership of Steve
>> > Crocker and was eventually called either the host-to-host protocol or
>> > Network Control Protocol (or Program) in 1970 (see IETF RFC document
>> > series, also started by Steve Crocker; RFC 33 Feb 1970). Three of us worked
>> > at the Network Measurement Lab, led by Leonard Kleinrock: Steve Crocker,
>> > Vint Cerf and Jon Postel, among others. The Internet development started in
>> > the Spring of 1973 at Stanford and was initiated by Bob Kahn (then at
>> > DARPA) who invited Vint Cerf to work with him on the project. The
>> > Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) protocol was published in May 1974 in
>> > IEEE Transactions. By Dec 1974, a complete TCP spec was published in Dec
>> > 1974 (RFC 675) written by Cerf, Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine at Stanford.
>> > Three networks made up the cohort populating the early Internet: Arpanet,
>> > Packet Radio network and the Atlantic Packet Satellite network. The first
>> > two-network test of the Internet protocols occurred in Summer 1976 linking
>> > the Packet Radio network to the Arpanet and was conducted by SRI
>> > International. The first three network test was conducted Nov 22, 1977
>> > including Packet Radio, Packet Satellite and Arpanet. Internet went
>> > operational on January 1, 1983.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 3:19?AM Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history <
>> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> "Leonard Kleinrock and a team of scientists at UCLA gave life to the
>> >> Internet at precisely 10:30 PM on October 29, 1969, quite literally
>> >> changing the world.
>> >> 
>> >> 57 years later, what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?"
>> >> 
>> >> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925
>> >> <
>> >> https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925?a=bXFqldnx0o8OUK9A6xw&s=46
>> >>> 
>> >> 
>> >> https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BU8EMAfdG/?mibextid=wwXIfr
>> >> 
>> >> https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/
>> >> <https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/?mdxt=MTMzMTRwdDliNjcyNw==>
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> All the best,
>> >> 
>> >> Frank
>> >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>> >> 
>> >> In loving memory of Dave T?ht: 1965-2025
>> >> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>> >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <tel:+421%20919%20416%20714> <+421%20919%20416%20714>
>> >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <tel:+420%20775%20230%20885> <+420%20775%20230%20885>
>> >> Skype: casioa5302ca
>> >> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik at gmail.com>
>> >> --
>> >> Internet-history mailing list
>> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> 



From aam3sendonly at gmail.com  Sat Oct 31 13:00:29 2026
From: aam3sendonly at gmail.com (Alexander McKenzie)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 16:00:29 -0400
Subject: [ih] Fwd: Fw:  Internet: 57 years later,
 what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?
In-Reply-To: <1929866901.804568.1793476681600@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <95864229.323394.1793457986498@mail.yahoo.com>
 <1929866901.804568.1793476681600@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAMusaY9aOMfBvFakf+jqsQSvKy41+hkZ7gqA+_t-K-32gQ-RBA@mail.gmail.com>

In addition to "Leonard Kleinrock and a team of scientists at UCLA" who
sent the first Host-to-Host messages over the ARPAnet (not the Internet) in
1969 it is reasonable to say that those who "gave life to" the ARPANET
include:
- the visionary thinkers at ARPA who came up with the idea and the funding
- the extraordinary engineers at Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc who produced
the working ARPAnet hardware and software in 9 months
- the collection of Principal Investigators and grad students at the many
computer science sites supported by ARPA who comprised the Network Working
Group which developed ideas for the practical use of the ARPAnet

Why must we continue to read accounts which try to give credit for this
astounding development to one man who was very much on the sidelines of the
actual work?

Alex McKenzie

On Saturday, October 31, 2026 at 03:19:30 AM EDT, Frantisek Borsik via
Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:


"Leonard Kleinrock and a team of scientists at UCLA gave life to the
Internet at precisely 10:30 PM on October 29, 1969, quite literally
changing the world.

57 years later, what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?"

https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925
<
https://x.com/lainaminute/status/2115898117229039925?a=bXFqldnx0o8OUK9A6xw&s=46
>

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BU8EMAfdG/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/
<https://www.instagram.com/reel/DfFw5IGSTy9/?mdxt=MTMzMTRwdDliNjcyNw==>




All the best,

Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

In loving memory of Dave T?ht: 1965-2025
https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/


https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
Skype: casioa5302ca
frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
-- 
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


From karl at iwl.com  Sat Oct 31 13:34:57 2026
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 13:34:57 -0700
Subject: [ih] Internet: 57 years later,
 what does Professor Kleinrock think of the his creation?
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJUtOOi25GYkVf+kqShstXr0LDz2QKLcCS=0ymrJwGZjFQydXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_WU6LniKZk4bgXCN1E3A4kjeEFFYAsefBRVK=0OLg1P9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c39e178c-6602-4ca3-ab52-bdb768e8c314@iwl.com>


On 10/31/26 4:16 AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> The 10/29/1969 was a two node test of the Arpanet and involved connecting a
> terminal at UCLA to a host at SRI Internationa

There is a play, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead", in which two 
characters who have rather little to do with the main plot of the play 
Hamlet, observe the goings on in Castle Elsinore, in Hamlet.

I, rather similarly, had nothing to do with that early IMP phase, and 
even less to do with the UCLA-SRI test, but I may have been close by...

It was very likely that I was in the room next door. During that period 
I was working nights preparing data for the IBM 7094 which lived in the 
room next to IMP #1.? We could hear things through the thin partition 
wall between the rooms - usually we heard the squeals of an AM radio 
that was being overloaded by the RF coming from the computers - but 
sometimes we heard voices.

A bit further away, and of uncertain date, certain members of the UCLA 
Computer Club ... usually led by person who shall remain anonymous and 
known only by the letters "M*rk K*mpe" ... had been dropping 
"interesting" things - superballs frozen in liquid nitrogen, empty 
radiation containers, etc - off the roof of nine-story tall Boelter Hall 
(the landing area was the collection of cars that had been crashed by my 
group, the Institution of Traffic and Transportation Engineering).? That 
Computer Club cadre laid eyes on IMP #1, admired the lifting hooks on 
its top, and became intrigued by the word "ruggedized".? They began to 
wonder whether IMP #1 would make an interesting new item for the 
roof-drop tests.? Fortunately for the Internet (and unfortunately for a 
vending machine repairman) their gaze was distracted by a troublesome 
ice cream vending machine.

 ? ? ? ? --karl--



From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Oct 31 19:50:01 2026
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 19:50:01 -0700
Subject: [ih] J.C.R. Licklider
Message-ID: <7d6f08de-4571-4c26-b343-4f8a9fdb2324@3kitty.org>

Speaking of Internet History, the ARPANET et al --- There's another 
player from the early days of The Internet that may not be well known to 
Internet historians - J.C.R. Licklider

 From 1970 through 1977, I was in Licklider's group at MIT, first as a 
student and then as a member of his research staff.? ?Sometime in the 
early 1960s, Lick (as everyone called him then) wrote several papers 
describing his vision of a "intergalactic network" of computers, all 
somehow able to communicate with each other, and working together to 
help humans "do everything humans do."? ?His vision included the notion 
that everyone would have some kind of "personal" computer that would 
interact with other computers even when the human was doing something else.

Of course, in 1975 a "personal computer" was an account on some large 
timeshared machine, and the human interacted with it only when s/he was 
"logged in" at some kind of terminal.? Today, humans have computers in 
their pockets much more powerful than the 1970s machines, and able to 
interact with huge numbers of other computers using this thing we call 
The Internet.? ?As AI and its "agents" emerge, we may be getting very 
close to Lick's vision of vast numbers of interacting computers helping 
humans do everything humans do.

During the 1970s, I was thoroughly indoctrinated into Lick's 
"intergalactic network" vision of how computers would be integrated into 
society.? ?In retrospect, I've realized that I spent my entire career 
somehow involved in building Lick's vision, as part of the huge 
community that made it happen.? It's been a wild ride and there's still 
a question of whether we'll see a utopian future or one where AI kills 
us all.

For anyone interested in the history of the Internet, I highly recommend 
a book by Mitchell Waldrop, called "The Dream Machine". It is 
essentially a biography of Lick, but also describes much of the 
1960-1990 history of computing.? Among the details you may not know:

- Lick's training was in psychology and psychoacoustics, not computer 
science.
- The Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) of ARPA was formed 
to explore use of computers.? Lick was the first Director of IPTO, and 
the ARPANET was a means of starting work on his vision;
- Prior to joining ARPA, Lick worked at BBN, and lobbied for the 
company's first computer purchase.? It was necessary to process data 
associated with the study of acoustics; later, ARPA awarded the ARPANET 
contract to BBN;? Connection?
- Lick was very much a "do it" person, preferring functioning systems 
over theory;? he described what we now call "agents", but he called them 
Olivers
- Lick's vision was continued after he retired by his "chief of staff" 
at MIT, Al Vezza, who convinced Tim Berners-Lee to come to MIT and lead 
the W3C from there.? This happened too late to be covered in Waldrop's 
book.? The Web was an important component of Lick's vision and W3C was a 
means to drive its evolution.? Al used to be my boss and he contacted me 
to get Oracle to join W3C as a Founding Member and I served as the 
corporate representative.

There were a lot of people involved in the early years of what is now 
The Internet, and this book describes a lot of the interactions and 
behind the scenes activity that was involved.? Again, I highly recommend 
it.? I found that the parts of the book that describe things that 
happened while I was "in the room" are quite accurate and often explain 
the "why" of things I remember happening but never knew the full story.

/Jack Haverty





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20261031/63a5d149/attachment.asc>

From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Oct 31 22:07:27 2026
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2026 18:07:27 +1300
Subject: [ih] W3C origins [was: Re:  J.C.R. Licklider]
In-Reply-To: <7d6f08de-4571-4c26-b343-4f8a9fdb2324@3kitty.org>
References: <7d6f08de-4571-4c26-b343-4f8a9fdb2324@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <0cd61b08-eb5c-424e-b216-f352afd89ab1@gmail.com>

On 01-Nov-26 15:50, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:

> Speaking of Internet History, the ARPANET et al --- There's another
> player from the early days of The Internet that may not be well known to
> Internet historians - J.C.R. Licklider

He's fully credited in any serious history of the Internet, I think,
e.g. Katie Hafner's book.

> - Lick's vision was continued after he retired by his "chief of staff" 
> at MIT, Al Vezza, who convinced Tim Berners-Lee to come to MIT and lead 
> the W3C from there. 

I would add that Michael Dertouzos was *at least* as influential as Al
in attracting TimBL to MIT. Probably more, because Dertouzos's old pal
George Metakides (an MIT alum) was the senior official in the European
Commissionin charge of funding the European end of the W3C.

My understanding at the time was that Dertouzos and Metakides (they
were both Greek) had decided that the main part of the W3C would be at
MIT, with European Commission (EC) funding, but with a small European
"pole". Metakides thought it would be a fine idea to place the European
unit at CERN, but CERN refused to be part of an exercise whose main
result would be to send European funds to the USA.

Al Vezza was very much in the room for these discussions. I wasn't, but
I knew all the CERN participants, and in fact met them in the departure
lounge at Brussels airport on their way back from the critical meeting.
(I was in Brussels the same day for a meeting related to growing Internet
capacity in Europe.) The CERN team in that discussion, from memory, was
Mike Sendall, Tim B-L, Robert Cailliau, and Francois Fluckiger. Maybe David
Williams, our Division Leader, was there too. All of them except Tim were
flabbergasted by the idea that CERN (a non-EC institution) should be used
to route money from the EC to MIT.

I heard within a few days that the CERN management definitely refused
this. It seemed politically dangerous and was it even legal? Also it seemed
outside CERN's mission as a physics laboratory. And nobody missed that
Metakides and Dertouzos were buddies. So in the end, INRIA in France
acted as the European pole.

Regards/Ng? mihi
    Brian Carpenter


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Oct 31 23:41:15 2026
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 23:41:15 -0700
Subject: [ih] W3C origins [was: Re:  J.C.R. Licklider]
In-Reply-To: <0cd61b08-eb5c-424e-b216-f352afd89ab1@gmail.com>
References: <7d6f08de-4571-4c26-b343-4f8a9fdb2324@3kitty.org>
 <0cd61b08-eb5c-424e-b216-f352afd89ab1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec8bbda-ae3c-4b2d-bb67-3ab49a909dd5@3kitty.org>

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the additional info on W3C.? ?All of that occurred before Al 
contacted me, so I didn't know anything about it.? FYI, here's another 
view of that founding part of the W3C history, from Dave Walden's 
interview of Al Vezza in 2012.? You're mentioned in it:

https://www.walden-family.com/ieee/galley-proof-anhc-34-2-intv.pdf

There was quite a bit of politics involved in the History of The 
Internet -- what Lick called the "Multinet".

/Jack Haverty


On 10/31/26 22:07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 01-Nov-26 15:50, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>
>> Speaking of Internet History, the ARPANET et al --- There's another
>> player from the early days of The Internet that may not be well known to
>> Internet historians - J.C.R. Licklider
>
> He's fully credited in any serious history of the Internet, I think,
> e.g. Katie Hafner's book.
>
>> - Lick's vision was continued after he retired by his "chief of 
>> staff" at MIT, Al Vezza, who convinced Tim Berners-Lee to come to MIT 
>> and lead the W3C from there. 
>
> I would add that Michael Dertouzos was *at least* as influential as Al
> in attracting TimBL to MIT. Probably more, because Dertouzos's old pal
> George Metakides (an MIT alum) was the senior official in the European
> Commissionin charge of funding the European end of the W3C.
>
> My understanding at the time was that Dertouzos and Metakides (they
> were both Greek) had decided that the main part of the W3C would be at
> MIT, with European Commission (EC) funding, but with a small European
> "pole". Metakides thought it would be a fine idea to place the European
> unit at CERN, but CERN refused to be part of an exercise whose main
> result would be to send European funds to the USA.
>
> Al Vezza was very much in the room for these discussions. I wasn't, but
> I knew all the CERN participants, and in fact met them in the departure
> lounge at Brussels airport on their way back from the critical meeting.
> (I was in Brussels the same day for a meeting related to growing Internet
> capacity in Europe.) The CERN team in that discussion, from memory, was
> Mike Sendall, Tim B-L, Robert Cailliau, and Francois Fluckiger. Maybe 
> David
> Williams, our Division Leader, was there too. All of them except Tim were
> flabbergasted by the idea that CERN (a non-EC institution) should be used
> to route money from the EC to MIT.
>
> I heard within a few days that the CERN management definitely refused
> this. It seemed politically dangerous and was it even legal? Also it 
> seemed
> outside CERN's mission as a physics laboratory. And nobody missed that
> Metakides and Dertouzos were buddies. So in the end, INRIA in France
> acted as the European pole.
>
> Regards/Ng? mihi
> ?? Brian Carpenter

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20261031/57529b31/attachment.asc>