Xref: utzoo soc.culture.british:11647 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:16532 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!Firewall!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!athene!pcg From: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: IP in the UK (was Re: Fingering the English) Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 91 17:30:28 GMT References: <7957@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <5280@syma.sussex.ac.uk> Sender: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP Organization: Coleg Prifysgol Cymru Lines: 70 On 5 Jun 91 13:39:32 GMT, grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham S Thomas) said: grahamt> When the Coloured Book software suite was conceived, it was grahamt> (according to my best information - correct me if I'm wrong) by grahamt> no means clear that TCP/IP would become as dominant as it has grahamt> today. On this I would disagree. At the time the CB were done, the *only* large scale network, especially in the academic sector, was the ARPAnet. There were *no* ISO style networks in widespread use, in the academic sector. Also, the DARPA was funding a lot of efforts to produce networking ARPAnet software for a large variety of machines, software that was, thanks to US govmt. practice, freely available. The JNT chose unproven, incomplete technology for which there was no ready made software, against proven, well established technology for which there was a large and growing mass of ready made software. This was clear even without the benefit of hindsight. Anybody who used the ARPAnet knew that at its time it was simply unique, it did work well, and its technology had several years of advantage on anything else. grahamt> In any case, the Coloured Books were always seen as ultimately grahamt> giving way to full OSI protocols. Again, the originators could grahamt> not have forseen that OSI would be such a long time a-comin', You mean that somebody at the time did not realize that an incomplete set of protocols still being actively being discussed and designed was not 'a long way in coming'. I find this astonishing. Especially as ARPAnet protocols were not only already discussed and designed, they were also already implemented. It is a well known fact that international standadization is already a slow process when the standard sanctifies existing technology, and delays become even more dramatic when the technology has to be developed by the standards bodies themselves. There is also the obvious political observation that, just like ISDN, monopolistic PTTs, especially in Europe, have no interest in rushing new technology to the market, because it means throwing away a lot of existing investment, when there is no need, because the market has to bear what the PTT decides. X.25 networking has been boycotted with great zeal by all/most European PTTs, just like any form of data traffic (which has been boycotted in the USA by AT&T, as Tanenbaum notes), and this was very well known among observers of the telecom scene. Your information, IMNHO, seems to imply that the originators of JANET were naive idealists with thoroughly unrealistic optimistim on the maturity and development speed of ISO technology. Amusing :-(. grahamt> or that it could conceivably be threatened by semi-open grahamt> protocols like TCP/IP. Ah, now we understand. By 'semi-open' you are possibly implying that the ARPAnet suite of procols had the fatal defect of being designed under the auspices of and controlled by somebody else than the cosy club of European PTTs, which could slow down its development at will, but by a relatively efficient Agency of the US Govmt... After all JNT is something that emanates from the British Govmt., which at the time was also the owner of the local PTT. As they say "a synergetic partnership :-). -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk