Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #232980 > unrolled thread

43 Years Of TCP/IP

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  43 Years Of TCP/IP Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 20:25 +0000
    Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-01-01 13:34 -0700
      Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 22:10 +0000
        Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-01-01 15:36 -1000
      Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-01-01 15:27 -1000
        Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2026-01-01 17:45 -0800
          Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-01-02 13:27 -1000
            Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 03:11 +0000
        Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 03:22 +0000
        Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-02 14:08 +0000
          Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 20:29 +0000
        Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-01-02 08:27 -1000
          Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 20:34 +0000
      Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-01-02 04:41 +0000
      Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-02 05:45 +0000
    Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-01-01 22:11 +0000
      Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2026-01-01 15:03 -0800
    Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2026-01-04 16:46 +0100
      Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP - What was the competition Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-04 15:53 +0000
        Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP - What was the competition Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2026-01-10 17:38 +0100

#232980 — 43 Years Of TCP/IP

The Arpanet started switching over from the old NCP protocol it had
been using to this new TCP/IP thing on 1st January 1983
<https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/arpanet-standardized-tcp-ip-on-this-day-in-1983-43-year-old-standard-set-the-foundations-for-todays-internet>.
The transition took six months to complete.

The article says:

    In contrast, the open, scalable, and hardware-agnostic TCP/IP
    managed to get a clear run at widespread adoption, and succeeded.
    One could say it won - not by being the best protocol designed to
    connect everything - but by being the only one.

Why was nobody interested in offering a suitably scalable rival to
TCP/IP? Perhaps because in those days companies wanted to monetize
everything. I’m sure there were alternative protocols available -- for
a price. TCP/IP was the only one whose creators were offering it for
free -- no NDAs, no patent licensing, nothing.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#232981

On 1/1/26 13:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> The Arpanet started switching over from the old NCP protocol it had
> been using to this new TCP/IP thing on 1st January 1983
> <https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/arpanet-standardized-tcp-ip-on-this-day-in-1983-43-year-old-standard-set-the-foundations-for-todays-internet>.
> The transition took six months to complete.
> 
> The article says:
> 
>      In contrast, the open, scalable, and hardware-agnostic TCP/IP
>      managed to get a clear run at widespread adoption, and succeeded.
>      One could say it won - not by being the best protocol designed to
>      connect everything - but by being the only one.
> 
> Why was nobody interested in offering a suitably scalable rival to
> TCP/IP? Perhaps because in those days companies wanted to monetize
> everything. I’m sure there were alternative protocols available -- for
> a price. TCP/IP was the only one whose creators were offering it for
> free -- no NDAs, no patent licensing, nothing.

I think the alternatives were X.25 and various "network architectures" 
from different vendors, that all looked like SNA. SNA was a complete mess.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232986

On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 13:34:50 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> On 1/1/26 13:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Why was nobody interested in offering a suitably scalable rival to
>> TCP/IP?
>
> I think the alternatives were X.25 and various "network
> architectures" from different vendors, that all looked like SNA. SNA
> was a complete mess.

SNA wasn’t even a proper peer-to-peer network architecture at this
time.

I just remembered that of course ISO-OSI was the “official” candidate
for an open network architecture. But it turned out to be overly
complicated and bureaucratic and (mostly) too hard to implement. So
TCP/IP won pretty much by default.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232992

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> SNA wasn’t even a proper peer-to-peer network architecture at this
> time.
>
> I just remembered that of course ISO-OSI was the “official” candidate
> for an open network architecture. But it turned out to be overly
> complicated and bureaucratic and (mostly) too hard to implement. So
> TCP/IP won pretty much by default.

For a time I reported to same executive as person responsible for AWP164
(which had some peer-to-peer) that morphs into (AS/400) APPN. I told him
that he should come over to work on real networking (TCP/IP) because the
SNA forces would never appreciate him.

When AS/400 went to announce APPN, the SNA forces vetoed it and there
was delay to carefully rewrite the announcement letter to not imply any
relationship between APPN & SNA. It wasn't until much later that
documents were rewritten to imply that somehow APPN came under the SNA
umbrella.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232991

Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
> I think the alternatives were X.25 and various "network architectures"
> from different vendors, that all looked like SNA. SNA was a complete
> mess.

The Internet That Wasn't. How TCP/IP eclipsed the Open
Systems Interconnection standards to become the global protocol for
computer networking
https://spectrum.ieee.org/osi-the-internet-that-wasnt

Meanwhile, IBM representatives, led by the company's capable director
of standards, Joseph De Blasi, masterfully steered the discussion,
keeping OSI's development in line with IBM's own business
interests. Computer scientist John Day, who designed protocols for the
ARPANET, was a key member of the U.S. delegation. In his 2008 book
Patterns in Network Architecture(Prentice Hall), Day recalled that IBM
representatives expertly intervened in disputes between delegates
"fighting over who would get a piece of the pie.... IBM played them
like a violin. It was truly magical to watch."

... snip ...

I was on Chessin's XTP TAB 2nd part of the 80s and there were some
gov/mil (including SAFENET2) so we took it too X3S3.3 ... but eventually
got told that ISO had rule they could only standardize stuff that
conformed to OSI Model.

XTP didn't because 1) supported internetworking which didn't exist in
OSI, 2) bypassed network/transport interface, 3) went directly to
LAN/MAC interface which doesn't exist in OSI.

there was joke that while (internet) IETF had rule to proceed in
standards process, there needed to be two interoperable implementations
while ISO didn't even require a standard be implementable.

co-worker at the science center was responsible for the 60s CP67-based
science centers wide-area network that morphs into the corporate
internal network (larger than arpanet/internet from just about the
beginning until sometime mid/late 80s, about the time it was force to
convert to SNA/VTAM).

comment by one of the 1969 GML inventors at the science center
https://web.archive.org/web/20230402212558/http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/jasis.htm
Actually, the law office application was the original motivation for the
project, something I was allowed to do part-time because of my knowledge
of the user requirements. My real job was to encourage the staffs of the
various scientific centers to make use of the CP-67-based Wide Area
Network that was centered in Cambridge.

...

newspaper article about some of Edson's Internet & TCP/IP IBM battles:
https://web.archive.org/web/20000124004147/http://www1.sjmercury.com/svtech/columns/gillmor/docs/dg092499.htm
Also from wayback machine, some additional (IBM missed, Internet &
TCP/IP) references from Ed's website
https://web.archive.org/web/20000115185349/http://www.edh.net/bungle.htm

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232993

On 1/1/26 5:27 PM, Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> I was on Chessin's XTP TAB 2nd part of the 80s and there were some
> gov/mil (including SAFENET2) so we took it too X3S3.3 ... but eventually
> got told that ISO had rule they could only standardize stuff that
> conformed to OSI Model.
> 
> XTP didn't because 1) supported internetworking which didn't exist in
> OSI, 2) bypassed network/transport interface, 3) went directly to
> LAN/MAC interface which doesn't exist in OSI.

Chessin came to visit us in the Systems Technology Group at Apple ATG
and we had a nice discussion.

I had wondered whatever happened to XTP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233091

Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> writes:
> Chessin came to visit us in the Systems Technology Group at Apple ATG
> and we had a nice discussion.
>
> I had wondered whatever happened to XTP.

TCP had minimum 7 packet exchange and XTP defined a reliable transaction
with minimum of 3 packet exchange. Issue was that TCP/IP was part of
kernel distribution requiring physical media (and typically some
expertise for complete system change/upgrade; browsers and webservers
were self contained load&go).

XTP also defined things like trailer protocol where interface hardware
could do CRC as packet flowing through and do the append/check
... helping minimize packet fiddling (as well as other pieces of
protocol offloading, Chessin also liked to draw analogies with SGI
graphic card process pipelining). Problem was that there were lots of
push back (part of claim at the time HTTPS prevailing over IPSEC) for
any kernel change prereq.

topic drift ... 1988, HA/6000 was approved, initially for NYTimes to
migrate their newspaper system off DEC VAXCluster to RS/6000. I rename
it HA/CMP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_High_Availability_Cluster_Multiprocessing
when I start doing technical/scientific cluster scale-up with national
labs (LANL, LLNL, NCAR, etc, also porting LLNL LINCS and NCAR
filesystems to HA/CMP) and commercial cluster scale-up with RDBMS
vendors (Oracle, Sybase, Ingres, Informix) that had VAXCluster support
in same source base with unix (also do DLM supporting VAXCluster
semantics).

Early Jan92, have a meeting with Oracle CEO where IBM AWD executive
Hester tells Ellison that we would have 16-system clusters by mid92 and
128-system clusters by ye92. Mid Jan92, convince IBM FSD to bid HA/CMP
for gov. supercomputers. Late Jan92, cluster scale-up is transferred for
announce as IBM Supercomputer (for technical/scientific *ONLY*) and we
are told we can't do clusters with anything that involve more than four
systems (we leave IBM a few months later).

Partially blamed FSD going up to the IBM Kingston supercomputer group to
tell them they were adopting HA/CMP for gov. bids (of course somebody
was going to have to do it eventually). A couple weeks later, 17feb1992,
Computerworld news ... IBM establishes laboratory to develop parallel
systems (pg8)
https://archive.org/details/sim_computerworld_1992-02-17_26_7

Not long after leaving IBM, was brought in as consulatnt to small
client/server startup, two former Oracle people (that had worked on
HA/CMP and were in the Ellison/Hester meeting) are there responsible for
something call "commerce server" and they want to do payment
transactions. The startup had also invented this stuff they called "SSL"
they want to use, it is now frequently calle "e-commerce". I had
responsibility between web servers and payment networks, including the
payment gateways.

One of the problems with HTTP&HTTPS were transactions built on top of
TCP ... implementation that sort of assumed long lived sessions (made it
easier to install on top kernel TCP/IP protocol stack). As webserver
workload ramped up, web servers were starting to spend 95+% of CPU
running FINWAIT list. NETSCAPE was increasing number of servers and
trying to spread the workload. Eventually NETSCAPE installs a large
multiprocessor server from SEQUENT (that had also redone DYNIX FINWAIT
processing to eliminate that non-linear increase in CPU overhead).

XTP had provided for piggy-back transaction processing to keep packet
exchange overhead to minimum ... and I showed HTTPS over XTP in the
minimum 3-packet exchange (existing HTTPS had to 1st establish TCP
session, then establish HTTPS, then the transaction, then shutdown
session).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xpress_Transport_Protocol

other trivia: I then did a talk on "Why Internet Isn't Business Critical
Dataprocessing" based on documentation, processes and software I had to
do for e-commerce, which (IETF RFC editor) Postel sponsored at ISI/USC.

more trivia: when 1st started doing TCP/IP over high-speed satellite
links, established dynamic adaptive rate-based pacing implementation
... which I also got written into the XTP spec.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233105

On Fri, 02 Jan 2026 13:27:04 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> XTP had provided for piggy-back transaction processing to keep
> packet exchange overhead to minimum ...

And HTTP/3 (aka QUIC) works over UDP for a similar reason, doesn’t it.
How does that compare, efficiency-wise?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233001

On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 15:27:07 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> I was on Chessin's XTP TAB 2nd part of the 80s and there were some
> gov/mil (including SAFENET2) so we took it too X3S3.3 ... but eventually
> got told that ISO had rule they could only standardize stuff that
> conformed to OSI Model.
> 
> XTP didn't because 1) supported internetworking which didn't exist in
> OSI, 2) bypassed network/transport interface, 3) went directly to
> LAN/MAC interface which doesn't exist in OSI.

For those who were wondering ...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xpress_Transport_Protocol>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233045

> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
>> I think the alternatives were X.25 and various "network architectures"
>> from different vendors, that all looked like SNA. SNA was a complete
>> mess.

On 2026-01-02, Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
> The Internet That Wasn't. How TCP/IP eclipsed the Open
> Systems Interconnection standards to become the global protocol for
> computer networking
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/osi-the-internet-that-wasnt

Oh, those bad old days, when we all used TCP/IP while getting paid to
implement OSI protocol stacks.

SNA seemed to me to be designed around the IBM32xx transaction
terminals. The entire structure revolved around the assumption that a
network would have a hierarchical structure with ONE central node
coordinating the whole network. This was why it could not be used for
Lynn's "IBM Internal Network", which was built on low-level point-
to-point links emulating IBM2780 RJE terminals, and where the protocol
assumed that the "terminal" was  initiating the connection.
For a network to become truly universal, it has to allow connection
between equal peers, what Lynn calls "Internetworking".

SNA could easily have won out, if IBM had been willing to concede
some of these points:
- allow peer-to-peer networks (internetworking) and have a way
  for departments (such as research groups) in one company to
  connect to groups in other companies, maybe through intermediaries
  (neutral brokers).
- allow outsiders to implement the protocol set without exorbitant
  royalties.
- cede control of the standard to an independent body.

OSI could have won if
- the registry were optional or if it had been specified FIRST
  in an extensible manner
- a non-profit had sponsored a basic reference implementation with
  enough features to be useful, and thereafter any new extesnsions
  to the protocol set had to be tested/certified/demonstrated to
  interwork with that reference

TCP/IP won because
- it had internetworking
- it was all peer-to-peer
- the protocols were open source, developed by working engineers
  and graduate student to solve real-world problems
- it HAD to be proven to work before being accepted as "standard

Truth, beauty and the Internet Way:
"We believe in rough concensus and running code!"

Vint Cerf guided the process masterfully. I asked Edge AI Ïs Vint Cerf
still alive?

"Yes, Vint Cerf is alive. He is currently 79 years old and remains active
in his role as Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, continuing his
efforts to advance the beneficial use of the Internet. He will turn 80
this year."

Also:
https://www.the-independent.com/tech/vint-cerf-father-internet-b2582067.html

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233074

On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 14:08:08 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:

> - allow peer-to-peer networks (internetworking) ...

I never came across this usage of “internetworking” before. From the
textbooks, I always understood it to mean “connections between
separate, autonomous networks”.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233055

Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> newspaper article about some of Edson's Internet & TCP/IP IBM battles:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20000124004147/http://www1.sjmercury.com/svtech/columns/gillmor/docs/dg092499.htm
> Also from wayback machine, some additional (IBM missed, Internet &
> TCP/IP) references from Ed's website
> https://web.archive.org/web/20000115185349/http://www.edh.net/bungle.htm

late 80s, a senior disk engineer got a talk scheduled at internal,
world-wide, annual communication group conference, supposedly on 3174
performance. However, his opening was that the communication group was
going to be responsible for the demise of the disk division. The disk
division was seeing drop in disk sales with data fleeing mainframe
datacenters to more distributed computing friendly platforms. The disk
division had come up with a number of solutions, but they were
constantly being vetoed by the communication group (with their corporate
ownership of everything that crossed the datacenter walls) trying to
protect their dumb terminal paradigm. Senior disk software executive
partial countermeasure was investing in distributed computing startups
that would use IBM disks (he would periodically ask us to drop in on his
investments to see if we could offer any assistance).

The communication group's stranglehold on mainframe datacenters wasn't
just disks and a couple years later, IBM has one of the largest losses
in the history of US companies ... and was being reorganized into the 13
"baby blues" (take-off on the "baby bells" breakup a decade earlier) in
preperation for breaking up IBM.
https://web.archive.org/web/20101120231857/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977353,00.html
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,977353-1,00.html
We had already left IBM but get a call from the bowels of Armonk asking
if we could help with the breakup. Before we get started, the board
brings in the former AMEX president as CEO to try and save the company,
who (somewhat) reverses the breakup and uses some of the same techniques
used at RJR (gone 404, but lives on at wayback)
https://web.archive.org/web/20181019074906/http://www.ibmemployee.com/RetirementHeist.shtml

other trivia: in the early 80s, I was funded for HSDT project, T1 and
faster computer links (both terrestrial and satellite) and battles with
SNA group (60s, IBM had 2701 supporting T1, 70s with SNA/VTAM and
issues, links were capped at 56kbit ... and I had to mostly resort to
non-IBM hardware). Also was working with NSF director and was suppose to
get $20M to interconnect the NSF Supercomputer centers. Then congress
cuts the budget, some other things happened and eventually there was RFP
released (in part based on what we already had running). NSF 28Mar1986
Preliminary Announcement (from old archived a.f.c post):
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#12
The OASC has initiated three programs: The Supercomputer Centers Program
to provide Supercomputer cycles; the New Technologies Program to foster
new supercomputer software and hardware developments; and the Networking
Program to build a National Supercomputer Access Network - NSFnet.

... IBM internal politics was not allowing us to bid. The NSF director
tried to help by writing the company a letter (3Apr1986, NSF Director to
IBM Chief Scientist and IBM Senior VP and director of Research, copying
IBM CEO) with support from other gov. agencies ... but that just made
the internal politics worse (as did claims that what we already had
operational was at least 5yrs ahead of the winning bid), as regional
networks connect in, NSFnet becomes the NSFNET backbone, precursor to
modern internet. Note RFP had called for T1 links, however winning bid
put in 440kbit/sec links ... then to make it look something like T1,
they put in T1 trunks with telco multiplexors running multiple
440kbit/sec links over T1 trunks.

When director left NSF, he went over to K (H?) street lobby group
(council on competitiveness) and we would try and periodically drop in
on him

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233076

On Fri, 02 Jan 2026 08:27:29 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> The disk division had come up with a number of solutions, but they
> were constantly being vetoed by the communication group (with their
> corporate ownership of everything that crossed the datacenter walls)
> trying to protect their dumb terminal paradigm.

IBM were legendary (notorious?) for having just about the biggest
patent hoard of any company back in the day, and for the sheer number
of papers published by their research division.

But my impression of their shipping products was that very little of
this cutting-edge cleverness actually made it into production. SNA
being a case in point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233005

According to Peter Flass  <Peter@Iron-Spring.com>:
>> Why was nobody interested in offering a suitably scalable rival to
>> TCP/IP? Perhaps because in those days companies wanted to monetize
>> everything. I’m sure there were alternative protocols available -- for
>> a price. TCP/IP was the only one whose creators were offering it for
>> free -- no NDAs, no patent licensing, nothing.
>
>I think the alternatives were X.25 and various "network architectures" 
>from different vendors, that all looked like SNA. SNA was a complete mess.

The alternative was supposed to be OSI, which suffered greatly from being
designed by a large international committee that tended to solve disagreements
by adding all the features that anyone wanted. It died of heat death while
TCP/IP was good enough and had a lot of interoperating implementations, many of
which were (and are) free.



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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233010

On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 13:34:50 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> On 1/1/26 13:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> The Arpanet started switching over from the old NCP protocol it had
>> been using to this new TCP/IP thing on 1st January 1983
>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/arpanet-standardized-tcp-ip-
on-this-day-in-1983-43-year-old-standard-set-the-foundations-for-todays-
internet>.
>> The transition took six months to complete.
>> 
>> The article says:
>> 
>>      In contrast, the open, scalable, and hardware-agnostic TCP/IP
>>      managed to get a clear run at widespread adoption, and succeeded.
>>      One could say it won - not by being the best protocol designed to
>>      connect everything - but by being the only one.
>> 
>> Why was nobody interested in offering a suitably scalable rival to
>> TCP/IP? Perhaps because in those days companies wanted to monetize
>> everything. I’m sure there were alternative protocols available -- for
>> a price. TCP/IP was the only one whose creators were offering it for
>> free -- no NDAs, no patent licensing, nothing.
> 
> I think the alternatives were X.25 and various "network architectures"
> from different vendors, that all looked like SNA. SNA was a complete
> mess.

For today's trivia hams were some of the early adopters of Linux since it 
supported the AX.25 protocol used in packet radio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AX.25

The good old days of 1200 baud packet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232987

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> The Arpanet started switching over from the old NCP protocol it had
> been using to this new TCP/IP thing on 1st January 1983
> <https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/arpanet-standardized-tcp-ip-on-this-day-in-1983-43-year-old-standard-set-the-foundations-for-todays-internet>.
> The transition took six months to complete.
> 
> The article says:
> 
>     In contrast, the open, scalable, and hardware-agnostic TCP/IP
>     managed to get a clear run at widespread adoption, and succeeded.
>     One could say it won - not by being the best protocol designed to
>     connect everything - but by being the only one.
> 
> Why was nobody interested in offering a suitably scalable rival to
> TCP/IP? Perhaps because in those days companies wanted to monetize
> everything. I’m sure there were alternative protocols available -- for
> a price. TCP/IP was the only one whose creators were offering it for
> free -- no NDAs, no patent licensing, nothing.

IMO "monetize everything" is too unspecific and at least partially
misses the point.  Simply various companies pushed solutions
intended to maximize their share of the pie.  Computer vendors
wanted vendor lockin, so prefered protocals tied to their hardware
and software.  Telecomunication companies wanted complex switches,
to maximize cost of gear they sell.  TCP/IP was against interests
of major players, so it is really happy accident that it gained
traction.  Accident made possible by state funding, but note that
usually US agencies do not want to fund projects going against
interests of established players.

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232988

On 1/1/26 2:11 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> it is really happy accident that it gained
> traction. 

The rise in Unix popularity and the fact it went
out with BSD had a huge impact. The Unix supermicros
shipped with it as well.

The side effect was we now live in a world built
in the security mindset of college hackers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233152

On 2026-01-01 21:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> The Arpanet started switching over from the old NCP protocol it had
> been using to this new TCP/IP thing on 1st January 1983
> <https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/arpanet-standardized-tcp-ip-on-this-day-in-1983-43-year-old-standard-set-the-foundations-for-todays-internet>.
> The transition took six months to complete.
> 
> The article says:
> 
>      In contrast, the open, scalable, and hardware-agnostic TCP/IP
>      managed to get a clear run at widespread adoption, and succeeded.
>      One could say it won - not by being the best protocol designed to
>      connect everything - but by being the only one.
> 
> Why was nobody interested in offering a suitably scalable rival to
> TCP/IP? Perhaps because in those days companies wanted to monetize
> everything. I’m sure there were alternative protocols available -- for
> a price. TCP/IP was the only one whose creators were offering it for
> free -- no NDAs, no patent licensing, nothing.

DECnet anyone?

The case against DECnet was partly the concern that it was designed by 
one of the companies competing in the space, even though the DECnet 
specs were fully open and anyone could do their own implementation.

Second point was that the address space of DECnet was too small. 
Basically just a 16-bit address, compared to the 32 bits in IPv4.

There are some really cool and nice things in DECnet, but there are also 
some ugly bits in there. Especially some of the application level 
protocols...

   Johnny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233153 — Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP - What was the competition

On 2026-01-04, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> On 2026-01-01 21:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> The Arpanet started switching over from the old NCP protocol it had
>> been using to this new TCP/IP thing on 1st January 1983
>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/arpanet-standardized-tcp-ip-on-this-day-in-1983-43-year-old-standard-set-the-foundations-for-todays-internet>.
>> The transition took six months to complete.
>> 
>> The article says:
>> 
>>      In contrast, the open, scalable, and hardware-agnostic TCP/IP
>>      managed to get a clear run at widespread adoption, and succeeded.
>>      One could say it won - not by being the best protocol designed to
>>      connect everything - but by being the only one.
>> 
>> Why was nobody interested in offering a suitably scalable rival to
>> TCP/IP? Perhaps because in those days companies wanted to monetize
>> everything. I’m sure there were alternative protocols available -- for
>> a price. TCP/IP was the only one whose creators were offering it for
>> free -- no NDAs, no patent licensing, nothing.
>
> DECnet anyone?
>
> The case against DECnet was partly the concern that it was designed by 
> one of the companies competing in the space, even though the DECnet 
> specs were fully open and anyone could do their own implementation.
>
> Second point was that the address space of DECnet was too small. 
> Basically just a 16-bit address, compared to the 32 bits in IPv4.
>
> There are some really cool and nice things in DECnet, but there are also 
> some ugly bits in there. Especially some of the application level 
> protocols...

The address space concern was addressed in DECnet Phase V - which
IIRC was structured with a foundational packet format that matched
low-level ISO protocols. The larger address space also made it possible
to tunnel it across the Internet.

Unfortunately, the structural changes were so large that you could not
mix it with the earlier generations in the same network, so the adoption
rate was rather low. Sort of like the IPv4 to IPv6 transition.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233480 — Re: 43 Years Of TCP/IP - What was the competition

On 2026-01-04 16:53, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> On 2026-01-04, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>> On 2026-01-01 21:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> The Arpanet started switching over from the old NCP protocol it had
>>> been using to this new TCP/IP thing on 1st January 1983
>>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/arpanet-standardized-tcp-ip-on-this-day-in-1983-43-year-old-standard-set-the-foundations-for-todays-internet>.
>>> The transition took six months to complete.
>>>
>>> The article says:
>>>
>>>       In contrast, the open, scalable, and hardware-agnostic TCP/IP
>>>       managed to get a clear run at widespread adoption, and succeeded.
>>>       One could say it won - not by being the best protocol designed to
>>>       connect everything - but by being the only one.
>>>
>>> Why was nobody interested in offering a suitably scalable rival to
>>> TCP/IP? Perhaps because in those days companies wanted to monetize
>>> everything. I’m sure there were alternative protocols available -- for
>>> a price. TCP/IP was the only one whose creators were offering it for
>>> free -- no NDAs, no patent licensing, nothing.
>>
>> DECnet anyone?
>>
>> The case against DECnet was partly the concern that it was designed by
>> one of the companies competing in the space, even though the DECnet
>> specs were fully open and anyone could do their own implementation.
>>
>> Second point was that the address space of DECnet was too small.
>> Basically just a 16-bit address, compared to the 32 bits in IPv4.
>>
>> There are some really cool and nice things in DECnet, but there are also
>> some ugly bits in there. Especially some of the application level
>> protocols...
> 
> The address space concern was addressed in DECnet Phase V - which
> IIRC was structured with a foundational packet format that matched
> low-level ISO protocols. The larger address space also made it possible
> to tunnel it across the Internet.
> 
> Unfortunately, the structural changes were so large that you could not
> mix it with the earlier generations in the same network, so the adoption
> rate was rather low. Sort of like the IPv4 to IPv6 transition.

Well, that isn't exactly true. DECnet phase IV nodes and DECnet phase V 
nodes can talk fine with each other.

However, phase V was/is a headache in general, not to mention that it 
was way later than TCP/IP v4, so it wasn't even an option at the time.

   Johnny

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web