On 9/15/2010 12:04 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I disagree that it was a direct descendant of ARPANET. It has
a very different interface (connection oriented vs. message oriented) that
IMHO was not an improvement.
Right.
There were Arpanet folk who participated in standardizing X.25. But as
X.25 was a disaster area. I watched someone trying to code a PAD in 1984,
took him months to realize that the reason it did not work is that the spec
did not correspond to the bits on the wire.
The idea for X.25 certainly did not come out of BBN or the ARPANET. Many
groups round the world were
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 16:39, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Far from being an incremental evolution of the ARPANET, Orange Book was
essentially Spock with Beard. The ARPANET was a research network whose
development was mostly led by academics with some input from corporations.
There were Arpanet folk who participated in standardizing X.25. But as
technology comparisons go, X.25 versus Arpanet were probably as far as you
can get apart and still be doing packet switching.
So fart apart that when we started moving IP packets over dedicated
lines in South America the
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention that at the time, the great competitor for all this
new-fangled connectionless datagram stuff was X.25, a pay-per-connection
and pay-per-byte stream service.
As PHB says, intentions back
If you have such a poor opinion of engineers, then why post here?
In my experience, K-street think tanks provide negative value. Almost
without exception they refuse to disclose their sources of funding while
peddling talking points written for them by the people who fund them.
In this forum
Well as you know, for whatever reason, certain network prefixes turn out to
be the source of rather more unreliable traffic than others.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.comwrote:
Indeed, K St. think tanks were heavily involved in the Kennedy
assassination,
On Sep 14, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I wonder how many people realize that X.25 was a direct descendant of
ARPANET, and that BBN became a leading supplier of X.25 hardware simply by
continuing the IMP down its evolutionary path.
I was at BBN at the time this was going on.
I think it's actually pretty easy to make the case that a
circuit-switched protocol with a sliding window is superior to a
stop-and-wait system that required the RFNM from the receiver before
every message. In that sense, X.25 was an upgrade over the ARPANET. One
problem with coax-based
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I think it's actually pretty easy to make the case that a circuit-switched
protocol with a sliding window is superior to a stop-and-wait system that
required the RFNM from the receiver before every message. In that sense, X.25
was an
No doubt about that, I'm not defending X.25, which was after all a
telco plot to kill the datagram. I was wrong, BTW, about the RFNM in
ARPANET; initially, it was one message at a time, but was enhanced to a
sliding window in the fullness of time.
Further discussions of this topic should
* Noel Chiappa:
I actually vaguely recall discussions about the TOS field (including
how many bits to give to each sub-field), but I can't recall very
much of the content of the discussions. If anyone cares, some of the
IENs which document the early meetings might say more.
See RFC 760,
Who cares?
William Shockley is considered by some to have 'founded' the modern field of
electronics. Are we thus obliged to accept his bigoted and racist views on
social issues?
I am pretty sure that my ancestors did not anticipate parliamentary
democracy as they raped and pillaged their way
On 9/14/2010 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Noel Chiappa:
I actually vaguely recall discussions about the TOS field (including
how many bits to give to each sub-field), but I can't recall very
much of the content of the discussions. If anyone cares, some of the
IENs which document the
On 2010-09-15 04:36, Bob Braden wrote:
On 9/14/2010 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Noel Chiappa:
I actually vaguely recall discussions about the TOS field (including
how many bits to give to each sub-field), but I can't recall very
much of the content of the discussions. If anyone
I wonder how many people realize that X.25 was a direct descendant of
ARPANET, and that BBN became a leading supplier of X.25 hardware simply
by continuing the IMP down its evolutionary path.
The dialog on Internet regulation is world-wide. The EC has an open
inquiry on it, and nations
Indeed, K St. think tanks were heavily involved in the Kennedy
assassination, Watergate, and 9/11. Like IPv6, it's all about the address.
RB
On 9/14/2010 6:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If you have such a poor opinion of engineers, then why post here?
In my experience, K-street think
There is an interesting discussion thread on the NANOG list na...@nanog.org
under this title that some people on this list might be interested in
following.
Regards
Marshall
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 9/13/2010 11:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
There is an interesting discussion thread on the NANOG list na...@nanog.org
under this title that some people on this list might be interested in
following.
Regards
Marshall
Why not simply ask Len Klienrock the answer to this question.
From: todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net
Why not simply ask Len Klienrock the answer to this question.
Umm, OK idea, wrong person: Len wasn't around the early Internet development.
I actually vaguely recall discussions about the TOS field (including how many
bits to give to each
The story I've heard from Vint Cerf about the TOS field is that it
was put in for AUTODIN-II, a defense network that had multiple
service levels to accommodate the requirements of interactive apps
vs. bulk data apps. Jon Postel wrote RFC 795 - Service mappings on
the
Heh...
The TOS field was designed to mimic the DOD's message preemption scheme - lower
priority messages were only sent if there were no higher priority messages
waiting (a message in this case being more like an email than a packet).
Routine, Priority, Operational Immediate, Flash and Flash
On 9/13/2010 1:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Frankly, I doubt we understood the issues that well back then. Remember, this
I would disagree with that but Vint is still around and obviously with
his partner Al Gore should be able to answer this one, or so one would
think.
Sorry - I grew up at SUAI
23 matches
Mail list logo
