On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 08:29:44PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > > > > > On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote: > >>> Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for > >>> the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would > >>> survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction. (strategic > >>> nuclear strikes) > >> > >> Urban legend, although widely believed. Someone probably made the > >> observation. > > > > > > Maybe not quite an UL... > > > > <http://www.rand.org/about/history/baran.html> > > > > On the average, The Rand Corp is extremely careful about what it publishes, > > yet here it is, repeating the claim. > > But Len Kleinrock adamantly disputes it. > > > Back in the '70s, I always heard "survive hostile battlefield conditions" > > and never heard anyone talk about comms survival of a nuclear event, but I > > wasn't in any interesting conversations, such as in front of funding > > agencies... > > To survive an EMP, electronics needs some fancy circuitry. I've never worked > with a bit of equipment that had it. It would therefore have to have been > through path redundancy.
i suspect that the idea of survivalbility has everything to do w/ packet oriented communications vs circuit switching. packets work best w/ path redundancy... :) i've worked w/ EMP resistnt kit. its not something a commercial offering would ever have. --bill