Here's another article on the 40th anniversary of the first host to host communication on the Arpanet, including a video of Leonard Kleinrock with the original IMP log (at the very end). http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/lo_and_behold_the_internet/ Craig Simon
On 2 Nov 2009 at 9:11, Craig Simon wrote: > Here's another article on the 40th anniversary of the first host to host > communication on the Arpanet, including a video of Leonard Kleinrock > with the original IMP log (at the very end). Does the IMP log include the part where the BBN folk had been exchanging messages over the "net" for a couple of weeks before UCLA and SRI started getting their host interfaces and software running? The event that Len keeps trumpeting as the first message sent over the net was, of course, nowhere *NEAR* that: it was the first, staggering steps at debugging the *host* code and interfaces at UCLA and SRI. The net, itself, had been up and running for a little while by that time. Ben Barker [who was at UCLA] reported when he first saw the light on the imp lights-panel tell him that the SRI IMP had just come up, which to my view would _really_ be when the ARPAnet first came alive. /Bernie\ -- -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie <at> fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <--
> From: "Bernie Cosell" <bernie <at> fantasyfarm.com>
> the first message sent over the net was, of course, nowhere *NEAR*
> that ... The net, itself, had been up and running for a little while by
> that time. ... first saw the light on the imp lights-panel tell him
> that the SRI IMP had just come up, which to my view would _really_ be
> when the ARPAnet first came alive.
As a systems person, I have a somewhat different perspective. Yes, the event
you mention was a very important milestone, but to me, the most significant
milestone would have been something that exercised the entire system, and did
_what the system was intended to achieve as an overall goal_: i.e. have a
packet go from the source host, through the host and IMP host->Imp interface
pair, across the network, out the Imp->host interface pair on the other side,
and into the destination host.
Something I'm curious about, though: how much of this stuff was all
demonstrated internally at BBN, first? E.g. I would have guessed that the
first frame (for want of a better word to differentiate IMP-IMP datagrams
from host-host datagrams) sent from one IMP to another happened at BBN? Or
was there insufficient hardware/testbed stuff to do that, and in fact the
first IMP-IMP frames sent actually were sent between the SRI and UCLA IMPs?
Did BBN have any host-IMP host interfaces (and hosts) they could play with,
or were the host interfaces at the user sites the first ones actually plugged
in and tried?
Noel
there were "fake host" exchanges almost certainly but the host-host protocols were some time in coming. I drove traffic into the net either to fake hosts or round-trip from the Sigma-7 at UCLA to get statistical measurements and to test Bob Kahn's hypotheses about lockup. That would be have been end of 1969 or perhaps more likely early in 1970. But going end-end through the BBN 1822 host/IMP interfaces would be the key to noel's metric (and mine as I agree with him). v On Nov 2, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: "Bernie Cosell" <bernie <at> fantasyfarm.com> > >> the first message sent over the net was, of course, nowhere *NEAR* >> that ... The net, itself, had been up and running for a little >> while by >> that time. ... first saw the light on the imp lights-panel tell him >> that the SRI IMP had just come up, which to my view would _really_ be >> when the ARPAnet first came alive. > > As a systems person, I have a somewhat different perspective. Yes, > the event > you mention was a very important milestone, but to me, the most > significant > milestone would have been something that exercised the entire > system, and did > _what the system was intended to achieve as an overall goal_: i.e. > have a(Continue reading)
On 2 Nov 2009 at 10:43, Noel Chiappa wrote: > Something I'm curious about, though: how much of this stuff was all > demonstrated internally at BBN, first? E.g. I would have guessed that the > first frame (for want of a better word to differentiate IMP-IMP datagrams > from host-host datagrams) sent from one IMP to another happened at BBN? Yes. We had a three-node network up and fully running [we could debug the routing code and such with it]. > Did BBN have any host-IMP host interfaces (and hosts) they could play with, > or were the host interfaces at the user sites the first ones actually plugged > in and tried? Those were the first *hardware* host interfaces. I can't remember when we connected up an actual host to an IMP at BBN -- the host interface hardware must have been shaken down by Severo's crew but I can't remember anything about how that happened. The host *code* in the IMP was already pretty much debugged: the way we implemented the imp-TTY to imp-TTY communication (which had been up and working solidy quite a while before the IMP was even shipped west) was by a "fake host". What the TTY handler did, for both send and receive, was simulate acting as a real host [and so all the reassembly, RFNMs, etc, stuff was exercised by it]. There was another fake host that was a little DDT-like debugger that also ran as a host and hacking from the IMP console TTY was a little like using telnet [a decade later..:o)]: you had to tell the local TTY handler "connect me to Host X at IMP Y" and then it just acted as a regular host, sending and receiving traffic. If the "remote host" was the other IMP's TTY, then we had a primitive IM system; if the "remote host" was the other IMP's debugger, we could restart the IMP, install patches, etc. We(Continue reading)
Vint Cerf wrote: > But going > end-end through the BBN 1822 host/IMP interfaces would be the key to > noel's metric (and mine as I agree with him). +1 In spite of being another UCLA guy, I'm a bit embarrassed by its being touted as the birth of the Internet, given the earlier work elsewhere. That said I do believe that at legitimate host-to-host, end-to-end, packet-based demonstration would be the best criterion for declaring the live birth of the world we now call the Internet. It would be the networking equivalent of "Watson, come here; I need you." If that was at BBN, fine. If it was the first long-distance exchange, between two sites fine. However the demo at UCLA seems to be the most touted. But we should perhaps first settle on the criteria. d/ -- -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Vint Cerf wrote: >> But going >> end-end through the BBN 1822 host/IMP interfaces would be the key to >> noel's metric (and mine as I agree with him). > > > +1 > > In spite of being another UCLA guy, I'm a bit embarrassed by its being > touted as the birth of the Internet, given the earlier work elsewhere. > That said I do believe that at legitimate host-to-host, end-to-end, > packet-based demonstration would be the best criterion for declaring the > live birth of the world we now call the Internet. It would be the > networking equivalent of "Watson, come here; I need you." > > If that was at BBN, fine. If it was the first long-distance exchange, > between two sites fine. However the demo at UCLA seems to be the most > touted. > > But we should perhaps first settle on the criteria. How does this incident and history's view of it compare to the "What Hath God Wrought" and "Watson, Come here, I need you" incidents. Remember, History is written by the winners. -- --(Continue reading)
On 2 Nov 2009 at 11:06, Vint Cerf wrote: > .... But going end-end through the BBN 1822 host/IMP > interfaces would be the key to noel's metric (and mine as I agree with > him). I guess I disagree -- *IF* it was actually a successful communication [which as I understand took a while longer, since the original "test" crashed], then that'd be right: the first time someone at UCLA *LOGGED*IN* to SRI. YAY!! -- does anyone know when *THAT* actually happened?? But the actual test that Len has ensured is fabled in story and song exercised little that hadn't/couldn't be tested previously. The sigma-7 had already communicated with its IMP [through its 1822 interface and as far as the sigma-7 was concerned was as end-to-end as any other]. I know Ben reported helping Mike Wingfield with the interface while he was there and I helped debug another problem with the interface some time later [but before the SRI connection]]. I actually don't know what happened at SRI prior to its connection [there's no reason I can see why they couldn't have tried to "log in" locally from the IMP TTY but I don't know a lot about the host side of those tests]. As for history written by the 'winner' -- that's not exactly right: often it is written by the person with the best PR instincts. /Bernie\ -- -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers(Continue reading)
> From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 <at> dcrocker.net>
> the live birth of the world we now call the Internet
Call me picky, but I do like to differentiate between 'the Internet' and 'the
global communcation/information catenetwork'. The birth of the ARPAnet is, I
think, the birth of the latter, but to me, not the Internet. (I.e. the entity
which speaks TCP/IP - although it's not clear that definition of 'the
Internet' is really the best definition, though).
Although the ARPAnet was clearly the forerunner, I think there are important
distinctions, in particular the Internet's express intent to incorporate a
wide range of disparate data communications subsystems into a tightly-coupled
integrated entity.
And speaking of the Internet as a distinct entity, whats it's birth-day
anyway? I would call it the first day on which a packet was sent from one
host, across a particular kind of network, through a router (or gateway as we
called them back then), across another network, into another host. (That would
have been a TCP packet, I guess - no IP back then!) So where and when was
that?
Noel
> > From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 <at> dcrocker.net> > > > the live birth of the world we now call the Internet > > Call me picky, but I do like to differentiate between 'the Internet' and 'the > global communcation/information catenetwork'. The birth of the ARPAnet is, I > think, the birth of the latter, but to me, not the Internet. (I.e. the entity > which speaks TCP/IP - although it's not clear that definition of 'the > Internet' is really the best definition, though). > > Although the ARPAnet was clearly the forerunner, I think there are important > distinctions, in particular the Internet's express intent to incorporate a > wide range of disparate data communications subsystems into a tightly-coupled > integrated entity. > > And speaking of the Internet as a distinct entity, whats it's birth-day > anyway? I would call it the first day on which a packet was sent from one > host, across a particular kind of network, through a router (or gateway as we > called them back then), across another network, into another host. (That woul > d > have been a TCP packet, I guess - no IP back then!) So where and when was > that? First TCP running over a single network by 1975. First router c. first half of 1976 (Ginny Strazisar implemented it and she joined BBN in 1975). By late 1976 the proto-Internet had three routers active (one at BBN, one at SRI and one at UCL). Thanks!(Continue reading)
RSS Feed28 | |
|---|---|
100 | |
20 | |
51 | |
23 | |
67 | |
4 | |
3 | |
3 | |
5 | |
198 | |
44 | |
217 | |
26 | |
13 | |
1 | |
65 | |
2 | |
20 | |
18 | |
3 | |
1 | |
33 | |
54 | |
149 | |
10 | |
1 | |
256 | |
45 | |
9 | |
65 | |
18 | |
6 | |
81 | |
5 | |
101 | |
21 | |
151 | |
15 | |
29 | |
91 | |
6 | |
4 | |
10 | |
31 | |
26 | |
20 | |
2 | |
6 | |
15 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
2 | |
16 | |
6 | |
34 | |
9 | |
1 | |
11 | |
35 | |
49 | |
16 | |
15 | |
1 | |
4 | |
3 | |
3 | |
29 | |
17 | |
1 | |
3 | |
27 | |
6 | |
31 | |
12 | |
4 | |
6 | |
14 | |
11 | |
2 | |
1 | |
12 | |
1 | |
3 | |
15 | |
91 | |
52 | |
27 | |
2 |
