Re:

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

Just as an interesting aside if you're interested in the history of 
networking, When Wizards Stayed Up Late is quite elucidating.

Mike

On 10/20/21 2:16 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> *Mel Beckman*mel at beckman.org 
> <mailto:nanog%40nanog.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Network%20visibility&In-Reply-To=%3C3F9A10AF-090C-410A-96BC-CEF1B0371B3C%40beckman.org%3E> 
> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > Before 1983, the ARPANET wasn’t an internet, let alone The Internet. Each ARPANET connection required a host-specific 
> > interface (the “IMP”) and simplex Network Control Protocol (NCP). NCP used users' email addresses, and routing had to 
> > be specified in advance within each NCP message.
> This is just so completely wrong as to be ludicrous.
>
> First of all, the IMP was the box.  Computers connected using the 
> protocols specified in BBN Report 1822 
> (https://walden-family.com/impcode/BBN1822_Jan1976.pdf)
>
> NCP was alternately referred to as the Network Control PROGRAM and the 
> Network Control Protocol.  It essentially played the role of TCP, 
> managing pairs of simplex connections.
>
> Routing was completely dynamic - that was the whole point of the IMP 
> software. And routing did NOT require email addresses - those operated 
> much further up the protocol stack.
>
> Perhaps you're confusing this with UUCP mail addressing ("bang" 
> paths).  Or possibly BITNET or FidoNet - which I believe also were 
> source routed (but memory fails on that.
>
> re.
> > Even so, the Internet as a platform open to anyone didn’t start until 1992. I know you joined late, in 1999, so you 
> > probably missed out on this history. :)
> You know, there are people on this list who were back there in 1969, 
> and actually wrote some of that code - so you might want to stop 
> spouting nonsense.  (Not me, I was a user, starting in 1971, didn't 
> get to BBN until 1985 - when we were still dealing with stragglers who 
> didn't quite manage to cutover to TCP/IP on the Flag Day.)
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra
>
> Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
> Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
> In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
> nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown