Protocol Wars

A long-running debate in computer science known as the Protocol Wars occurred from the 1970s to the 1990s when engineers, organizations and nations became polarized over the issue of which communication protocol would result in the best and most robust computer networks. This culminated in the Internet–OSI Standards War in the 1980s and early 1990s, which was ultimately "won" by the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) by the mid-1990s and has since resulted in most other protocols disappearing.

The pioneers of packet switching technology built computer networks to research and provide data communications in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As more networks emerged in the mid to late 1970s, the debate about interface standards was described as a "battle for access standards". An international collaboration between several national postal, telegraph and telephone (PTT) providers and commercial operators agreed to the X.25 standard in 1976, which was adopted on public data networks providing global coverage. Separately, proprietary data communication protocols also emerged, most notably IBM's Systems Network Architecture and Digital Equipment Corporation's DECnet.

The United States Department of Defense developed and tested TCP/IP during the 1970s in collaboration with universities and researchers in the United States, United Kingdom and France. IPv4 was released in 1981 and the DoD made it standard for all military computer networking. By 1984, an international reference model known as the OSI model had been agreed upon, with which TCP/IP was not compatible. Many governments in Europe – particularly France, West Germany, the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community – and also the United States Department of Commerce mandated compliance with the OSI model and the US Department of Defense planned to transition away from TCP/IP to OSI.

Meanwhile, the development of a complete Internet protocol suite by 1989, and partnerships with the telecommunication and computer industry to incorporate TCP/IP software into various operating systems laid the foundation for the widespread adoption of TCP/IP as a comprehensive protocol suite. While OSI developed its networking standards in the late 1980s, TCP/IP came into widespread use on multi-vendor networks for internetworking and as the core component of the emerging Internet.

Early computer networking

Packet switching vs circuit switching
Donald Davies and Bob Kahn designed the first two packet switching networks for computer-to-computer communication: (a) the NPL Network, with a connectionless network service (datagrams).[1] (b) the ARPANET network, with a connection-oriented network service (virtual circuits).[2][3]

Computer science was an emerging discipline in the late 1950s that began to consider time-sharing between computer users and, later, the possibility of achieving this over wide area networks. In the early 1960s, J. C. R. Licklider proposed the idea of a universal computer network while working at Bolt Beranek & Newman and, later, leading the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later, DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense (DoD). Independently, Paul Baran at RAND in the United States and Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in the United Kingdom invented new ideas for the design of computer data networks.[4] Baran published a series of briefings and papers about dividing information into "message blocks" and sending it over distributed networks between 1960 and 1964.[5] Davies conceived of and named the concept of packet switching in data communication networks in 1965. He proposed a national commercial data network in the UK and built the local-area NPL network to demonstrate and research his ideas.[6][7] The first use of the term protocol in a modern data-communication context occurs in an April 1967 memorandum entitled A Protocol for Use in the NPL Data Communications Network written by two members of Donald Davies' team, Roger Scantlebury and Keith Bartlett.[8][9]

Both Baran and Davies found it hard to convince incumbent telephone companies of the merits of their inventions. AT&T in the United States and the postal, telegraph and telephone service (PTT) in the United Kingdom, the General Post Office (GPO), had a monopoly on communications infrastructure. The telephone service operators believed speech traffic would continue to dominate data traffic and believed in traditional telegraphic techniques.[10][11][12] Telephone companies were operating on the basis of circuit switching, the alternatives to which are message switching or packet switching.[13]

Bob Taylor became the director of the IPTO in 1966 and set out to achieve Licklider's vision to enable resource sharing between remote computers.[14] Taylor hired Larry Roberts to manage the programme.[15] Roberts met Roger Scantlebury at the October 1967 Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. Roberts presented the early "ARPA Net" proposal, based on Wesley Clark's idea for a message switching network using Interface Message Processors (IMPs).[16][17][18] Scantlebury presented Donald Davies' work on packet switching for a data communication network and mentioned the work of Paul Baran. At this seminal meeting, the NPL paper articulated how the data communications for such a resource-sharing network could be implemented.[19][20]

Larry Roberts incorporated Davies' and Baran's ideas about packet switching into the proposal for the ARPANET.[21][22] The network was built by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman (BBN). Designed by Bob Kahn,[23] it departed from the NPL's connectionless network model in avoiding that network congestion could be understood as a problem.[24] The service offered to hosts by the network was connection oriented. It enforced end-to-end flow and error control for each established host-to-host connection.[3] With the constraint that, per connection, only one message may be in transit in the network, the sequential order of messages is preserved end-to-end.[3] This made the ARPANET what would come to be called a virtual circuit network.[2]

Like Baran in the mid-1960s, when Roberts approached AT&T in the early 1970s about taking over the ARPANET to offer a public packet switched service, they declined.[25][26]

Datagrams vs virtual circuits
Computerworld magazine covered the "Battle for Access Standards" between datagrams and virtual circuits in its October 1975 edition.[27]

Packet switching can be based on either a connectionless or connection-oriented mode, which are different approaches to data communications. A connectionless datagram service transports data packets between two host applications independently of any other packet. Its service is best effort (possible losses and permutations of data packets). With a virtual circuit service, data can be exchanged between two host applications only after a virtual circuit has been established between them in the network. After that, flow control is imposed to sources, as much as needed by destinations and intermediate network nodes. Data are delivered to destinations in their original sequential order.

Both concepts have advantages and disadvantages depending on their application domain. Where a best effort service is acceptable, an important advantage of datagrams is that a subnetwork may be kept very simple. A counterpart is that, under heavy traffic, no subnetwork is per se protected against congestion collapse. Also, between users of the best effort service, use of network resources does not enforce fairness, for any definition of it.[28]

Datagram services include the information needed for looking up the next link in the network in every packet. In these systems, the routers examine each packet as it arrives, look at the routing information within them, and decide where to route it. This approach has the advantage that there is no inherent overhead in setting up the circuit, meaning that a single packet can be transmitted as efficiently as a long stream. It generally makes routing around problems simpler as only the single routing table needs to be updated, not the routing information for every virtual circuit. This also requires less memory, as only one route needs to be stored for any destination, not one per virtual circuit. On the downside, they need to examine every packet, which makes them (theoretically) slower.[29]

On the ARPANET, the starting point for connecting a host computer to an IMP in 1969 was the 1822 protocol, written by Bob Kahn.[23][30] Steve Crocker, a graduate student in computer science at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) formed a Network Working Group (NWG) in 1969. He said "While much of the development proceeded according to a grand plan, the design of the protocols and the creation of the RFCs was largely accidental." Under the supervision of Leonard Kleinrock at UCLA, Crocker, and other graduate students, including Vint Cerf, set about designing a host-host protocol known as the Network Control Program (NCP).[nb 1] They planned to use separate protocols, Telnet and the File Transfer Protocol (FTP), to run functions across the ARPANET.[nb 2][31] NCP was finalized and deployed in December 1970 by the NWG, led by Steve Crocker. NCP codified the ARPANET network interface, making it easier to establish, and enabling more sites to join the network.[32][33]

Roger Scantlebury was seconded from the NPL to the British Post Office Telecommunications division (BPO-T) in 1969. Its engineers developed a packet-switching protocol from basic principles for an Experimental Packet Switched Service (EPSS) based on a virtual call capability. However, the protocols were complex and limited; Donald Davies described them as "esoteric".[34][35]

Rémi Després started work in 1971, at the CNET (the research center of the French PTT), on the development of an experimental packet switching network, later known as RCP. Its purpose was to be put in operation before definition of the packet switching service, to be included in the future public data network, was finalized.[36][37] Després simplified and improved on the virtual call approach, introducing the concept of "graceful saturated operation" in 1972.[38] He coined the term "virtual circuit" and validated the concepts on the RCP network.[39] Virtual circuits emulate physical circuits, which are well understood in the telecoms industry, and mimic the operation of their equipment. Once set up, the data packets do not have to contain any routing information, which can simplify the packet structure and improve channel efficiency. The routers are also faster as the route setup is only done once; from then on, packets are simply forwarded down the existing link. One downside is that the equipment has to be more complex as the routing information has to be stored for the length of the connection. Another disadvantage is that the virtual connection may take some time to set up end-to-end, and for small messages, this time may be significant.[29]

TCP vs CYCLADES and INWG vs X.25
Major contributors to the X.25 standard, photographed just after its approval in March 1976, included engineers from two European PTTs and three private companies from North America and Japan.

Donald Davies had conceived and described datagram networks and done some simulation work on them, although he had not built any; Louis Pouzin thought it looked technically feasible.[19][40] In 1972, Pouzin launched the CYCLADES project, with cooperation provided by the French PTT, including free lines and modems.[41] He began to research what would later be called internetworking; at the time, he coined the term "catenet" for concatenated network.[42][43] Hubert Zimmermann was one of his principal researchers and the team included Gérard Le Lann, among others.[42][44] Le Lann pioneered the sliding window scheme for achieving reliable error and flow control on end-to-end connections.[45][46][47] The network, which used unreliable, standard-sized, datagrams in the packet-switched network and virtual circuits for the transport layer, was first demonstrated in 1973.[42][48] This network pioneered the use of the pure datagram model, functional layering, and the end-to-end principle.[49] The name "datagram" was coined by Halvor Bothner-By.[50]

Louis Pouzin's ideas to facilitate large-scale internetworking caught the attention of the ARPA researchers through the International Networking Working Group (INWG),[51] an informal group established in 1972 at the International Conference on Computer Communication (ICCC). It consisted of American researchers, members of the French CYCLADES and RCP projects, and the British teams working on the NPL network, EPSS and the new European Informatics Network (EIN).[52]

Bob Kahn joined DARPA in 1972 where he worked on both satellite packet networks and ground-based radio packet networks, and recognized the value of being able to communicate across both. In Spring 1973, Vint Cerf moved to Stanford University. With funding from DARPA, he began collaborating with Kahn on a new protocol to replace NCP and enable internetworking. Cerf built a research team at Stanford studying the use of fragmentable datagrams. Gérard Le Lann worked in Cerf's team during 1973-4 to incorporate the sliding windows scheme into his research work.[44] Also in the United States, Bob Metcalfe at Xerox PARC outlined the idea of Ethernet.

Peter Kirstein put internetworking into practice at University College London (UCL) in 1973, connecting the ARPANET to British academic networks, the first international heterogeneous computer network.[53]

A seminal paper published by Cerf and Kahn in 1974 addressed the fundamental challenges involved in interworking across networks with different characteristics, such as packet fragmentation and reassembly. The paper drew upon and extended concepts from prior American, British and French research.[54][55] DARPA sponsored work to formulate the first version of the Transmission Control Program (TCP) later that year. At Stanford, its specification, RFC 675, was written in December by Cerf with Yogen Dalal and Carl Sunshine as a monolithic (single layer) design. The following year, testing began through concurrent implementations at Stanford, BBN and University College London,[56] but it was not installed on the ARPANET at this time.

A protocol for internetworking was also being pursued by the INWG.[57][58] There were two competing proposals, one based on the early Transmission Control Program proposed by Cerf and Kahn (using fragmentable datagrams), and the other based on the CYCLADES transport protocol proposed by Pouzin and Zimmermann (using standard-sized datagrams).[59] A compromise was agreed and Vint Cerf, Alex McKenzie, Roger Scantlebury and Hubert Zimmermann authored an "international" end-to-end protocol based on standard-sized datagrams.[60][61] It was presented to the CCITT by Derek Barber in 1975 but was not adopted by the CCITT nor by the ARPANET.[52][44][nb 3]

The fourth biennial Data Communications Symposium later that year included presentations from Donald Davies, Louis Pouzin, Derek Barber, and Ira Cotten about the current state of packet-switched networking.[nb 4] The conference was covered by Computerworld magazine which ran a story on the "battle for access standards" between datagrams and virtual circuits, as well as a piece describing the "lack of standard access interfaces for emerging public packet-switched communication networks is creating 'some kind of monster' for users". At the conference, Louis Pouzin said pressure from European PTTs forced the Canadian DATAPAC network to change from a datagram to virtual circuit approach,[27] although historians attribute this to IBM's rejection of their request for modification to their proprietary protocol.[62] Pouzin was outspoken in his advocacy for datagrams and attacks on virtual circuits and monopolies. He spoke about the "political significance of the [datagram versus virtual circuit] controversy," which he saw as "initial ambushes in a power struggle between carriers and the computer industry. Everyone knows in the end, it means IBM vs. Telecommunications, through mercenaries."[44]

After Larry Roberts left ARPA in 1973 to found Telenet, a commercial packet-switched network in the U.S., he joined the international effort to standardize a protocol for packet switching based on virtual circuits shortly before it was finalized.[63] With contributions from the French, British, and Japanese PTTs, particularly the work of Rémi Després on RCP, along with concepts from DATAPAC in Canada, and Telenet in the U.S., the X.25 standard was agreed by the CCITT in 1976.[nb 5][50][64] X.25 virtual circuits were easily marketed because they permit simple host protocol support.[65] They also satisfy the INWG expectation of 1972 that each subnetwork can exercise its own protection against congestion (a feature missing with datagrams).[66][67]

Larry Roberts promoted this approach over the ARPANET model which he described as "oversold" in 1978.[25] Vint Cerf said Roberts turned down his suggestion to use TCP when he built Telenet, saying that people would only buy virtual circuits and he could not sell datagrams.[40][57] Roberts predicated that "As part of the continuing evolution of packet switching, controversial issues are sure to arise."[25] Louis Pouzin remarked that "the PTT's are just trying to drum up more business for themselves by forcing you to take more service than you need."[68] The CYCLADES project, however, was shut down in the late 1970s for budgetary, political and industrial reasons and Pouzin was "banished from the field he had inspired and helped to create".[44]

Common host protocol vs translating between protocols

At the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom, Donald Davies' team also conducted internetworking research. They considered the "basic dilemma" involved in interconnecting networks; that is, a common host protocol would require restructuring existing networks that used different protocols. To explore this dilemma, the NPL network connected with the EIN by translating between two different host protocols, that is, using a gateway. Concurrently, the NPL connection to the EPSS used a common host protocol in both networks. NPL research confirmed establishing a common host protocol would be more reliable and efficient.[42]

DoD model vs X.25/X.75 vs proprietary standards
The first demonstration of the Internet, linking DARPA's three networks (the ARPANET, SATNET, and PRNET) took place on November 22, 1977.

The design of the Transmission Control Program incorporated both connection-oriented links and datagram services between hosts. A DARPA internetworking experiment in 1977 linking the ARPANET, SATNET and PRNET demonstrated its viability. In version 3 of TCP, written in 1978, Vint Cerf, along with Danny Cohen and Jonathan Postel at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern California, split the Transmission Control Program into two distinct protocols, the Internet Protocol as connectionless layer and the Transmission Control Protocol as a reliable connection-oriented service.[nb 6][69] Originally referred to as IP/TCP, version 4 was installed on SATNET and adopted by Peter Kirstein's group at UCL in 1982. It was installed on the ARPANET on January 1, 1983, known as "flag day", after the DoD made it standard for all military computer networking.[70][71][72] This resulted in a networking model that became known informally as TCP/IP. It was also referred to as the Department of Defense (DoD) model, DARPA model, or ARPANET model.[73][74]

The Coloured Book protocols, developed by British Post Office Telecommunications and the academic community at UK universities, gained some acceptance internationally as the first complete X.25 standard. First defined in 1975, they gave the UK "several years lead over other countries" but were intended as "interim standards" until international agreement was reached.[75][76][77][78] The X.25 standard gained political support in European countries and from the European Economic Community (EEC). The EIN, which was based on datagrams, was replaced with Euronet, which used X.25.[79][80] Peter Kirstein wrote that European networks tended to be short-term projects with smaller numbers of computers and users. As a result, the European networking activities did not lead to any strong standards except X.25,[nb 7] which became the main European data protocol for fifteen to twenty years. Kirstein said his group at University College London was widely involved, partly because they were one of the groups with the most expertise, and partly to try to ensure that the British activities, such as the JANET NRS, did not diverge too far from the US.[53] The construction of public data networks based on the X.25 protocol suite continued through the 1980s; international examples included the International Packet Switched Service (IPSS) and the SITA network.[64][81] Complemented by the X.75 standard, which enabled internetworking across national PTT networks in Europe and commercial networks in North America, this led to a global infrastructure for commercial data transport.[82][83][84]

Computer manufacturers developed proprietary protocol suites such as IBM's Systems Network Architecture (SNA), Digital Equipment Corporation's DECnet, Xerox's Xerox Network Systems (XNS) and Burroughs' BNA.[nb 8] By the end of the 1970s, IBM's networking activities were, by some measures, two orders of magnitude larger in scale than the ARPANET.[85] During the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, there remained a lack of open networking options. Therefore, proprietary standards, particularly SNA and DECnet, as well as some variants of XNS (e.g., Novell NetWare and Banyan VINES), were commonly used on private networks, becoming somewhat "de facto" industry standards.[76][86]

In the US, the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and the United States Department of Energy (DoE) all built networks variously based on the DoD model, DECnet, and IP over X.25.

Internet–OSI Standards War
A cartoon sketched in 1988 by François Flückiger illustrated that "some people foresaw a division between world technologies: Internet in the United States, OSI in Europe. In this model, the two sides would have communicated via gateways."[87]

The early research and development of standards for data networks and protocols culminated in the Internet–OSI Standards War in the 1980s and early 1990s. Engineers, organizations and nations became polarized over the issue of which standard would result in the best and most robust computer networks.[88][89] Both standards are open and non-proprietary in addition to being incompatible,[90] although "openness" may have worked against OSI while being successfully employed by Internet advocates.[91][92][93][87][94]

OSI reference model

Researchers in the UK and elsewhere identified the need for defining higher-level protocols.[95] The UK National Computing Centre publication 'Why Distributed Computing', which was based on extensive research into future potential configurations for computer systems,[96] resulted in the UK presenting the case for an international standards committee to cover this area at the ISO meeting in Sydney in March 1977.[97][92]

Hubert Zimmermann, and Charles Bachman as chairman, played a key role in the development of the Open Systems Interconnections reference model. They considered it too early to define a set of binding standards while technology was still developing since irreversible commitment to a particular standard might prove sub-optimal or constraining in the long run.[98] They had to contend with many competing priorities and interests. The rate of technological change made it necessary to define a model that new systems could converge to rather than standardizing procedures after the fact; the reverse of the traditional approach to developing standards.[99] Although not a standard itself, it was an architectural framework that could accommodate existing and future standards.[100]

The most fundamental idea of the OSI model was that of a “layered” architecture. The layering concept was simple in principle but very complex in practice. The OSI model redefined how engineers thought about network architectures.[98]

Beginning in 1978, international work led to a draft proposal in 1980 and the final OSI model was published in 1984 by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T).[92][101]

Internet protocol suite

The DoD model and other existing protocols, such as X.25 and SNA, all quickly adopted a layered approach in the late 1970s.[98][102] Although the OSI model shifted power away from the PTTs and IBM towards smaller manufacturer and users,[98] the "strategic battle" remained the competition between the ITU's X.25 and proprietary standards, particularly SNA.[103] Neither were fully OSI compliant. Proprietary protocols were based on closed standards and struggled to adopt layering while X.25 was limited in terms of speed and higher-level functionality that would become important for applications. As early as 1982, RFC 874 criticised "zealous" advocates of the OSI reference model and criticised the functionality of the X.25 protocol and its use as an ""end-to-end" protocol in the sense of a Transport or Host-to-Host protocol".

However, until the NSF took over in the 1980s, TCP/IP was not even a candidate for universal adoption.[104][103][105] The implementation of the Domain Name System in 1985 and the development of congestion control in 1988 led to a complete protocol suite, as outlined in RFC 1122 and RFC 1123 in 1989. This laid the foundation for the growth of TCP/IP as a comprehensive protocol suite, which became known as the Internet protocol suite.[106] ARPANET was shut down in 1990 and responsibilities for governance shifted away from the DoD.[97][107]

DARPA studied and implemented gateways, which helped to neutralise X.25 as a rival networking paradigm. Historian Janet Abbate explained: "by running TCP/IP over X.25, [D]ARPA reduced the role of X.25 to providing a data conduit, while TCP took over responsibility for end-to-end control. X.25, which had been intended to provide a complete networking service, would now be merely a subsidiary component of [D]ARPA's own networking scheme. The OSI model reinforced this reinterpretation of X.25's role. Once the concept of a hierarchy of protocols had been accepted, and once TCP, IP, and X.25 had been assigned to different layers in this hierarchy, it became easier to think of them as complementary parts of a single system, and more difficult to view X.25 and the Internet protocols as distinct and competing systems."[108]

Philosophical and cultural aspects
Vint Cerf emphasized the goal of running "IP on everything", notably with a T-shirt he wore while presenting to the 1992 IETF meeting.[109]

Historian Andrew L. Russell wrote that Internet engineers such as Danny Cohen and Jon Postel were accustomed to continual experimentation in a fluid organizational setting through which they developed TCP/IP. They viewed OSI committees as overly bureaucratic and out of touch with existing networks and computers. This alienated the Internet community from the OSI model. A dispute broke out within the Internet community after the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) proposed replacing the Internet Protocol in the Internet with the OSI Connectionless Network Protocol (CLNP). In response, Vint Cerf performed a striptease in a three-piece suit at the 1992 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting, revealing a T-shirt emblazoned with "IP on Everything". According to Cerf, his intention was to reiterate that a goal of the IAB was to run IP on every underlying transmission medium.[109] At the same meeting, David Clark summarised the IETF approach with the famous saying "We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code."[109]

Cerf later said the social culture (group dynamics) that first evolved during the work on the ARPANET was as important as the technical developments in enabling the governance of the Internet to adapt to the scale and challenges involved as it grew.[93]

François Flückiger wrote that "firms that win the Internet market, like Cisco, are small. Simply, they possess the Internet culture, are interested in it and, notably, participate in IETF."[87]

Furthermore, the Internet community was opposed to a homogenous approach to networking, such as one based on a proprietary standard such as SNA. They advocated for a pluralistic model of internetworking where many different network architectures could be joined into a network of networks.[110]

Technical aspects
Further information: OSI model § Comparison with TCP/IP model, Internet protocol suite § Comparison of TCP/IP and OSI layering, and OSI model § Cross-layer functions

Russell notes that Cohen, Postel and others were frustrated with technical aspects of OSI.[109] The model defined seven layers of computer communications, from physical media in layer 1 to applications in layer 7, which was more layers than the network engineering community had anticipated. In 1987, Steve Crocker said that although they envisaged a hierarchy of protocols in the early 1970s, "If we had only consulted the ancient mystics, we would have seen immediately that seven layers were required."[31] Although some sources say this was an acknowledgement that the four layers of the Internet Protocol Suite were inadequate.[111]

Strict layering in OSI was viewed by Internet advocates as inefficient and did not allow trade-offs ("layer violation") to improve performance. The OSI model allowed what some saw as too many transport protocols (five compared with two for TCP/IP). Furthermore, OSI allowed for both the datagram and the virtual circuit approach at the network layer, which are non-interoperable options.[88]

Richard des Jardins, an early contributor to the OSI reference model, captured the intensity of the rivalry in a 1992 article by saying "Let's continue to get the people of good will from both communities to work together to find the best solutions, whether they are two-letter words or three-letter words, and let's just line up the bigots against a wall and shoot them."[109]

In 1996, RFC 1958 described the "Architectural Principles of the Internet" by saying “in very general terms, the community believes that the goal is connectivity, the tool is the Internet Protocol, and the intelligence is end to end rather than hidden in the net work.”

Practical and commercial aspects

Beginning in the early 1980s, DARPA pursued commercial partnerships with the telecommunication and computer industry which enabled the adoption of TCP/IP. In Europe, CERN purchased UNIX machines with TCP/IP for their intranet between 1984 and 1988.[10][112][113] Nonetheless, Paul Bryant, the UK representative on the EARN Board of Directors,[114] said "By the time JNT [the UK academic network JANET] came along [in 1984] we could demonstrate X25 ... and we firmly believed that BT [British Telecom] would provide us with the network infrastructure and we could do away with leased lines and experimental work. If we had gone with DARPA then we would not have expected to be able to use a public service. In retrospect the flaws in that argument are clear but not at the time. Although we were fairly proud of what we were doing, I don't think it was national pride or anti USA that drove us, it was a belief that we were doing the right thing. It was the latter that translated to religious dogma."[57] JANET was a free X.25-based network for academic use, not research; experiments and other protocols were forbidden.[115]

The DARPA Internet was still a research project that did not allow commercial traffic or for-profit services. The NSFNET initiated operations in 1986 using TCP/IP but, two years later, the US Department of Commerce mandated compliance with the OSI model and the Department of Defense planned to transition away from TCP/IP to OSI.[116] The major European countries and the European Economic Community endorsed OSI.[nb 9] They founded RARE and associated national network operators (such as DFN, SURFnet, SWITCH) to promote OSI protocols, and restricted funding for non-OSI compliant protocols.[nb 10] However, in 1988, EUnet, the European UNIX Network, announced its conversion to Internet technology.[87] By 1989, the OSI advocate Brian Carpenter made a speech at a technical conference entitled "Is OSI Too Late?" which received a standing ovation.[92][117][118] OSI was formally defined, but vendor products from computer manufactures and network services from PTTs were still to be developed.[119][120] TCP/IP by comparison was not an official standard (it was defined in unofficial RFCs) but UNIX workstations with both Ethernet and TCP/IP included had been available since 1983.[88][94]

By the beginning of the 1990s, some smaller European countries had adopted TCP/IP.[nb 11] In February 1990, RARE stated "without putting into question its OSI policy, [RARE] recognizes the TCP/IP family of protocols as an open multivendor suite, well adapted to scientific and technical applications." In the same month, CERN established a transatlantic TCP/IP link with Cornell University in the United States.[87][121] Conversely, starting in August 1990, the NSFNET backbone supported the OSI CLNP in addition to TCP/IP. CLNP was demonstrated in production on NSFNET in April 1991, and OSI demonstrations, including interconnections between U.S. and European sites, were planned at the InterOp '91 conference in October that year.[122]

At the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) in the United Kingdom in January 1991, DECnet represented 75% of traffic, attributed to Ethernet between VAXs. IP was the second most popular set of protocols with 20% of traffic, attributed to UNIX machines for which "IP is the natural choice". Paul Bryant, Head of Communications and Small Systems at RAL, wrote "Experience has shown that IP systems are very easy to mount and use, in contrast to such systems as SNA and to a lesser extent X.25 and Coloured Books where the systems are rather more complex." The author continued "The principal network within the USA for academic traffic is now based on IP. IP has recently become popular within Europe for inter-site traffic and there are moves to try and coordinate this activity. With the emergence of such a large combined USA/Europe network there are great attractions for UK users to have good access to it. This can be achieved by gatewaying Coloured Book protocols to IP or by allowing IP to penetrate the UK. Gateways are well known to be a cause of loss of quality and frustration. Allowing IP to penetrate may well upset the networking strategy of the UK."[77] Similar views were shared by others at the time, including Louis Pouzin.[92] At CERN, François Flückiger reflected "The technology is simple, efficient, is integrated into UNIX-type operating systems and costs nothing for the users’ computers. The first companies that commercialise routers, such as Cisco, seem healthy and supply good products. Above all, the technology used for local campus networks and research centres can also be used to interconnect remote centers in a simple way."[87]

Beginning in March 1991, the JANET IP Service (JIPS) was set up as a pilot project to host IP traffic on the existing network.[123] Within eight months, the IP traffic had exceeded the levels of X.25 traffic, and the IP support became official in November. Also in 1991, Dai Davies introduced Internet technology over X.25 into the pan-European NREN, EuropaNet, although he experienced personal opposition to this approach.[124][125] The European Academic and Research Network (EARN) and RARE adopted IP around the same time,[nb 12] and the European Internet backbone EBONE became operational in 1992.[87] OSI usage on the NSFNET remained low when compared to TCP/IP. In the UK, the JANET community talked about a transition to OSI protocols, which was to begin with moving to X.400 mail as the first step, but this never happened. The X.25 service was closed in August 1997.[126][127]

Mail was commonly delivered via Unix to Unix Copy Program (UUCP) in the 1980s, which was well suited for handling message transfers between machines that were intermittently connected. The Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile (GOSIP), developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, would have led to X.400 adoption. Proprietary commercial systems offered an alternative. In practice, use of the Internet suite of email protocols (SMTP, POP and IMAP) grew rapidly.[128]

The invention of the World Wide Web in 1989 by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN, as an application on the Internet,[129] brought many social and commercial uses to what was previously a network of networks for academic and research institutions.[130][131] The Web began to enter everyday use in 1993–4.[132] The U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology proposed in 1994 that GOSIP should incorporate TCP/IP and drop the requirement for compliance with OSI,[116] which was adopted into Federal Information Processing Standards the following year.[nb 13][133] NSFNET had altered its policies to allow commercial traffic in 1991,[134] and was shut down in 1995, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic. Subsequently, the Internet backbone was provided by commercial Internet service providers and Internet connectivity became ubiquitous.[135][136]

Legacy

As the Internet evolved and expanded exponentially, an enhanced protocol was developed, IPv6, to address IPv4 address exhaustion.[137][nb 14] In the 21st century, the Internet of things is leading to the connection of new types of devices to the Internet, bringing reality to Cerf's vision of "IP on Everything".[139] Nonetheless, issues with IPv6 remain and alternatives have been proposed such as Recursive Network Architecture,[140] and Recursive InterNetwork Architecture.[141]

The seven-layer OSI model is still used as a reference for teaching and documentation;[142] however, the OSI protocols originally conceived for the model did not gain popularity. Some engineers argue the OSI reference model is still relevant to cloud computing.[143] Others say the original OSI model doesn't fit today's networking protocols and have suggested instead a simplified approach.[144]

Other standards such as X.25 and SNA remain niche players.[145]

Historiography
Further information: History of the Internet § Historiography

Janet Abbate's book Inventing the Internet was widely reviewed as an important work in the history of computing and networking, particularly in highlighting the role of social dynamics and of non-American participation in early networking development.[146][147] The book was also praised for its use of archival resources to tell the history.[148] She has since written about the need for historians to be aware of the perspectives they take in writing about the history of the Internet and explored the implications of defining the Internet in terms of "technology, use and local experience" rather than through the lens of the spread of technologies from the United States.[149]

Andrew L. Russell argues scholars could and should look differently at the history of the Internet. His work shifts scholarly and popular understanding about the origins of the Internet and contemporary work in Europe that both competed and cooperated with the push for TCP/IP.[150][151][152]

See also

Notes
  1. Crocker said '"NCP" later came to be used as the name for the protocol [see Network Control Protocol], but it originally meant the program within the operating system that managed connections. The protocol itself was known blandly only as the host-host protocol.'
  2. The NPL team also envisaged the need for levels of data transmission in 1968. Both were early examples of the protocol layering concept incorporated in the OSI model.
  3. Alex McKenzie was employed at BBN and worked on the ARPANET project. Hubert Zimmerman was Louis Pouzin's deputy on the CYCLADES project. Derek Barber became chairman of INWG shortly before the submission. He took over from Vint Cerf, who was chair from its inception. Barber was Donald Davies' deputy at the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom and director of the European Informatics Network.
  4. Ira Cotten represented the computer network section at the National Bureau of Standards of the United States Department of Commerce.
  5. Participants in the design of X.25 included engineers from Canada (DATAPAC), France (the PTT), Japan (NTT), the UK (the Post Office), and the USA (Telenet).
  6. See Abbate, Inventing the Internet, 129–30; Vinton G. Cerf (October 1980). "Protocols for Interconnected Packet Networks". ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review. 10 (4): 10–11.; and RFC 760. doi:10.17487/RFC0760.. For records of discussions leading up to the TCP/IP split, see the series of Internet Experiment Notes at the Internet Experiment Notes Index.
  7. Although X.25 predates the OSI model, the three X.25 levels correspond to OSI layers 1 to 3.
  8. Burroughs also built the SWIFT network.
  9. France, West Germany, and the United Kingdom were leading advocates of the OSI model through the Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile (GOSIP).
  10. According to one source, Vint Cerf, as program manager for the ARPANET, also denied funding for ARPA contractors to participate in ISO meetings.[69]
  11. The Scandinavian countries (NORDUnet); the Netherlands (CWI); Spain; Ireland; Switzerland, and Austria had adopted TCP/IP by the beginning of the decade.
  12. EARN and RARE merged in 1994 to form TERENA.
  13. FIPS 146-2 allowed "...other specifications based on open, voluntary standards such as those cited in paragraph 3 ("...such as those developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)... and the International Telecommunications Union, Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU–T))"
  14. IP version number 5 was used by the Internet Stream Protocol, an experimental streaming protocol that was not adopted.[138]

References
  1. Davies, Donald (January 1967). "A digital communication network for computers giving rapid response to terminals".
  2. "An Interview with LOUIS POUZIN Conducted by Andrew L. Russell" (PDF). April 2012. Arpanet was virtual circuit." "essentially a virtual circuit service using internal datagram
  3. "INTERFACE MESSAGE PROCESSOR Specifications for the Innterconnection of a Host" (PDF). January 2014. three parameters uniquely specify a connection between source and destination Hosts." "The destination IMP returns a positive acknowledgment for receipt of the message to the source IMP, which in turn passes this acknowledgment to the source Host." "Each link is unidirectional and is controlled by the network so that no more than one message at a time may be sent over it.
  4. "Inductee Details - Donald Watts Davies". National Inventors Hall of Fame. Retrieved 6 September 2017; "Inductee Details - Paul Baran". National Inventors Hall of Fame. Retrieved 2020-05-09.
  5. "Paul Baran and the Origins of the Internet". RAND Corporation. Retrieved 2020-02-15.
  6. Roberts, Lawrence G. (November 1978). "The evolution of packet switching" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE. 66 (11): 1307–13. doi:10.1109/PROC.1978.11141. S2CID 26876676. Almost immediately after the 1965 meeting, Donald Davies conceived of the details of a store-and-forward packet switching system. ... In nearly all respects, Davies' original proposal, developed in late 1965, was similar to the actual networks being built today.
  7. Roberts, Lawrence G. (May 1995). "The ARPANET & Computer Networks". Archived from the original on March 24, 2016. Retrieved 13 April 2016. Then in June 1966, Davies wrote a second internal paper, "Proposal for a Digital Communication Network" In which he coined the word packet,- a small sub part of the message the user wants to send, and also introduced the concept of an "Interface computer" to sit between the user equipment and the packet network.
  8. Naughton, John (2015). A Brief History of the Future. Orion. ISBN 978-1-4746-0277-8.
  9. Cambell-Kelly, Martin (1987). "Data Communications at the National Physical Laboratory (1965-1975)". Annals of the History of Computing. 9 (3/4): 221-247.
  10. Abbate 2000
  11. Abell, John C. (28 March 2011). "Internet Architect Paul Baran Dies at 84". Wired.
  12. Kirstein, Peter T. (2009). "The early history of packet switching in the UK". IEEE Communications Magazine. 47 (2): 18–26. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2009.4785372. S2CID 34735326.
  13. Davies, Donald Watts (1979). Computer networks and their protocols. Internet Archive. Wiley. pp. 456–477. ISBN 0-471-99750-1.
  14. "An Internet Pioneer Ponders the Next Revolution". The New York Times. December 20, 1999. Retrieved 2020-02-20. Mr. Taylor wrote a white paper in 1968, a year before the network was created, with another ARPA research director, J. C. R. Licklider. The paper, "The Computer as a Communications Device," was one of the first clear statements about the potential of a computer network.
  15. Hafner, Katie (2018-12-30). "Lawrence Roberts, Who Helped Design Internet's Precursor, Dies at 81". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-02-20. He decided to use packet switching as the underlying technology of the Arpanet; it remains central to the function of the internet. And it was Dr. Roberts's decision to build a network that distributed control of the network across multiple computers. Distributed networking remains another foundation of today's internet.
  16. Press, Gil (January 2, 2015). "A Very Short History Of The Internet And The Web". Forbes. Archived from the original on January 9, 2015. Retrieved 2020-02-07. Roberts' proposal that all host computers would connect to one another directly ... was not endorsed ... Wesley Clark ... suggested to Roberts that the network be managed by identical small computers, each attached to a host computer. Accepting the idea, Roberts named the small computers dedicated to network administration 'Interface Message Processors' (IMPs), which later evolved into today's routers.
  17. SRI Project 5890-1; Networking (Reports on Meetings), Stanford University, 1967, archived from the original on February 2, 2020, retrieved 2020-02-15, W. Clark's message switching proposal (appended to Taylor's letter of April 24, 1967 to Engelbart)were reviewed.
  18. Roberts, Lawrence (1967). "Multiple computer networks and intercomputer communication" (PDF). Multiple Computer Networks and Intercomputer Communications. pp. 3.1–3.6. doi:10.1145/800001.811680. S2CID 17409102. Thus the set of IMP's, plus the telephone lines and data sets would constitute a message switching network
  19. Hempstead, C.; Worthington, W., eds. (2005). Encyclopedia of 20th-Century Technology. Routledge. pp. 573–5. ISBN 9781135455514. Retrieved 2015-08-15.
  20. Post, The Washington (2015-11-10). The Threatened Net: How the Web Became a Perilous Place. Diversion Books. ISBN 978-1-68230-136-4. Historians credit seminal insights to Welsh scientist Donald W. Davies and American engineer Paul Baran
  21. Abbate 2000, p. 38 The NPL group influenced a number of American computer scientists in favor of the new technique, and they adopted Davies's term "packet switching" to refer to this type of network. Roberts also adopted some specific aspects of the NPL design.
  22. Gillies, James; Cailliau, Robert (2000). How the Web was Born: The Story of the World Wide Web. Oxford University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-0192862075. Roberts was quick to latch on to a good idea. 'Suddenly I learned how to route packets,' he later said of the Gatlinburg conference.
  23. Hafner & Lyon 1996, pp. 116, 149
  24. Magoun, Alexander (2014). Connecting Computers With Robert E. Kahn. pp. 80–87. ISBN 9781450373845. I actually wrote the technical part of the proposal." "One of the problems Kahn faced in building the IMPs was others' confidence that message packet congestion would not be a problem.
  25. Roberts 1978
  26. Russell, Andrew Lawrence (21 February 2008). 'Industrial Legislatures': Consensus Standardization in the Second and Third Industrial Revolutions (Thesis). p. 215.
  27. Frank, Ronald A. (1975-10-22). "Battle for Access Standards Has Two Sides". Computerworld. IDG Enterprise: 17–18.
  28. Floyd, Sally; Allman, Mark (July 2008). Comments on the Usefulness of Simple Best-Effort Traffic. doi:10.17487/RFC5290. RFC 5290. Simple best-effort traffic, as implemented in the current Internet, makes minimal technical demands on the infrastructure." "there are well-known problems with the enforcement of fairness and the avoidance of congestion collapse [RFC2914] with simple best-effort traffic
  29. "Virtual circuit switching".
  30. Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the Interconnection of a Host and an IMP (PDF) (Report). Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN). Report No. 1822.
  31. Reynolds, J.; Postel, J. (1987). The Request For Comments Reference Guide. doi:10.17487/RFC1000. RFC 1000.
  32. "NCP, Network Control Program". LivingInternet. Retrieved 2022-12-26.
  33. UGC -NET/JRF/SET PTP & Guide Teaching and Research Aptitude. High Definition Books. p. 319.
  34. Smith, Ed; Miller, Chris; Norton, Jim (2017). "Packet Switching: The first steps on the road to the information society". National Physical Laboratory.
  35. Pelkey, James L. (May 27, 1988). "Interview of Donald Davies" (PDF). Computer History Museum.
  36. Davies, Donald (January 1973). "Packet Switching in a New Data Transmission Network (March 1972)". umedia.lib.umn.edu. INWG. The attached is a translation of a paper by Remi Despres. The translation has been supplied by Don Davies of NPL" "Under the title HERMES project, the French PTT Administration undertook the realization of' a new telecommunications network especially for data transmission. It is intended to offer on this network not only conventional circuit switching with improved performance but also a "packet" switching service.
  37. Bache; Guillou; Layec; Lorig; Matras (August 1976). RCP, the Experimental Packet-Switched Data Transmission Service of the French PTT: History, Connections, Control. ICCC '76. Toronto, Canada. pp. 37–43.
  38. Després, Rémi (October 1972). A packet switching network with graceful saturated operation (PDF). ICCC '72. Retrieved 2023-10-19.
  39. Després, R. (1974). "RCP, the Experimental Packet-Switched Data Transmission Service of the French PTT". Proceedings of ICCC 74. pp. 171–185. Archived from the original on 2013-10-20. Retrieved 2013-08-30.
  40. Pelkey, James. "6.3 CYCLADES Network and Louis Pouzin 1971–1972". Entrepreneurial Capitalism and Innovation: A History of Computer Communications 1968–1988.
  41. Pouzin, Louis (1973). "Presentation and major design aspects of the CYCLADES computer network". DATACOMM '73: Proceedings of the third ACM symposium on Data communications and Data networks. pp. 80–87. doi:10.1145/800280.811034. The French PTT are providing lines and modems free of charge till end 75. Also they will run the network control center." "The Cyclades project was launched on the beginning of 1972.;
  42. Abbate 2000, p. 125
  43. Pouzin, Louis (1973). "Presentation and major design aspects of the CYCLADES computer network". DATACOMM '73: Proceedings of the third ACM symposium on Data communications and Data networks. ACM Press. pp. 80–87. doi:10.1145/800280.811034.
  44. Russell, Andrew L.; Schafer, Valérie (2014). "In the Shadow of ARPANET and Internet: Louis Pouzin and the Cyclades Network in the 1970s". Technology and Culture. 55 (4): 880–907. doi:10.1353/tech.2014.0096. ISSN 0040-165X. JSTOR 24468474. S2CID 143582561.
  45. "Between Stanford and Cyclades, a transatlantic perspective on the creation of Internet". Inria. 9 November 2020. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  46. Brügger, Niels; Goggin, Gerard (2022-10-25). Oral Histories of the Internet and the Web. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-79781-7.
  47. Le Lann, Gérard; Le Goff, Hervé (1978-02-01). "Verification and evaluation of communication protocols". Computer Networks (1976). 2 (1): 50–69. doi:10.1016/0376-5075(78)90039-9. ISSN 0376-5075.
  48. Hempstead, C.; Worthington, W. (2005). Encyclopedia of 20th-Century Technology. Routledge. ISBN 9781135455514.
  49. Bennett, Richard (September 2009). "Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate" (PDF). Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. pp. 7, 11. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  50. Després, Rémi (2010). Schwartz, Mischa (ed.). "X.25 Virtual Circuits – TRANSPAC In France – Pre-Internet Data Networking". IEEE Communications Magazine. 48 (11): 40–46. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2010.5621965. S2CID 23639680.
  51. "The internet's fifth man". Economist. 13 December 2013. Retrieved 11 September 2017. In the early 1970s Mr Pouzin created an innovative data network that linked locations in France, Italy and Britain. Its simplicity and efficiency pointed the way to a network that could connect not just dozens of machines, but millions of them. It captured the imagination of Dr Cerf and Dr Kahn, who included aspects of its design in the protocols that now power the internet.
  52. McKenzie, Alexander (January 2011). "INWG and the Conception of the Internet: An Eyewitness Account". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 33 (1): 66–71. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2011.9. S2CID 206443072.
  53. Kirstein, P.T. (1999). "Early experiences with the Arpanet and Internet in the United Kingdom". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 21 (1): 38–44. doi:10.1109/85.759368. S2CID 1558618.
  54. Cerf, V.; Kahn, R. (May 1974). "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication". IEEE Transactions on Communications. 22 (5): 637–648. doi:10.1109/TCOM.1974.1092259. The authors wish to thank a number of colleagues for helpful comments during early discussions of international network protocols, especially R. Metcalfe, R. Scantlebury, D. Walden, and H. Zimmerman; D. Davies and L. Pouzin who constructively commented on the fragmentation and accounting issues; and S. Crocker who commented on the creation and destruction of associations. ... [6] R. Despres, "A packet switching network with graceful saturated operation," in Computer Communications: Impacts and Implications, S. Winkler, Ed. Washington, D.C., 1972, pp. 345-351.
  55. "The Computer History Museum, SRI International, and BBN Celebrate the 40th Anniversary of First ARPANET Transmission, Precursor to Today's Internet". SRI International. 27 October 2009. Archived from the original on March 29, 2019. Retrieved 25 September 2017. But the ARPANET itself had now become an island, with no links to the other networks that had sprung up. By the early 1970s, researchers in France, the UK, and the U.S. began developing ways of connecting networks to each other, a process known as internetworking.
  56. by Vinton Cerf, as told to Bernard Aboba (1993). "How the Internet Came to Be". Retrieved 27 November 2022. We began doing concurrent implementations at Stanford, BBN, and University College London. So effort at developing the Internet protocols was international from the beginning. ... Mar '82 - Norway leaves the ARPANET and become an Internet connection via TCP/IP over SATNET. Nov '82 - UCL leaves the ARPANET and becomes an Internet connection.
  57. Martin 2012, p. 337
  58. Hardy, Daniel; Malleus, Guy (2002). Networks: Internet, Telephony, Multimedia: Convergences and Complementarities. Springer. p. 505. ISBN 978-3-540-00559-9.
  59. Russell, Andrew L. (2014). Open standards and the digital age: history, ideology, and networks. New York: Cambridge Univ Press. p. 196. ISBN 978-1107039193.
  60. Russell, Andrew Lawrence (21 February 2008). 'Industrial Legislatures': Consensus Standardization in the Second and Third Industrial Revolutions (Thesis). p. 217.
  61. Cerf, V.; McKenzie, A.; Scantlebury, R.; Zimmermann, H. (January 1976). "Proposal for an international end to end protocol". ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review. 6 (1): 63–89. doi:10.1145/1015828.1015832. S2CID 36954091.
  62. Abbate (2000), p.153
  63. Mathison, Stuart L.; Roberts, Lawrence G.; Walker, Philip M. (2012). "The history of telenet and the commercialization of packet switching in the US". IEEE Communications Magazine. 50 (5): 28–45. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2012.6194380. S2CID 206453987.
  64. Rybczynski, Tony (December 2009). "Commercialization of packet switching (1975-1985): A Canadian perspective [History of Communications]". IEEE Communications Magazine. 47 (12): 26–31. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2009.5350364. S2CID 23243636.
  65. Roberts, Lawrence G. "The evolution of packet switching" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE. a virtual circuit service is more directly marketable, not requiring substantial modifications to customers' host computer.
  66. "Report of Subgroup 1 on Communication System requirements". International Packet Network Working Group. October 1972. A network must be able to protect itself against congestion without depending completely on the correct operation of other networks with which it is interconnected
  67. "D. W. DAVIES interviewed by M. CAMPBELL-KELLY" (PDF). US Archive. March 1986. the existing packet-switch networks, based on virtual circuit-switching, of course don't have this kind of type of congestion problem in quite the same way. The congestion problem is solved, in my view, in a rather cruder way.
  68. "A Critique of X.25". IETF Datatracker. 1982-09-01. doi:10.17487/RFC0874. RFC 874. Retrieved 2022-12-11.
  69. Russell, Andrew Lawrence (21 February 2008). 'Industrial Legislatures': Consensus Standardization in the Second and Third Industrial Revolutions (Thesis).
  70. Ronda Hauben. "From the ARPANET to the Internet". TCP Digest (UUCP). Retrieved 2007-07-05.
  71. "Planning the ARPANET: 1967-1968 | History of Computer Communications". The History of Computer Communications. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
  72. "TCP/IP Internet Protocol". www.livinginternet.com. Retrieved 2020-02-20.
  73. Cerf, Vinton G; Cain, Edward (October 1983). "The DoD internet architecture model". Computer Networks. 7 (5): 307–318. doi:10.1016/0376-5075(83)90042-9.
  74. "The TCP/IP Guide – TCP/IP Architecture and the TCP/IP Model". www.tcpipguide.com. Retrieved 2020-02-11.
  75. Davies & Bressan 2010, pp. 2
  76. Martin 2012, p. 14
  77. Bryant, Paul (January 1991). "IP". FLAGSHIP - Central Computing Department Newsletter. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Central Computing Division (12). Archived from the original on 2020-02-13. Retrieved 2020-02-13.
  78. Earnshaw, Rae; Vince, John (2007-09-20). Digital Convergence – Libraries of the Future. Springer. p. 42. ISBN 978-1-84628-903-3.
  79. Beauchamp, K. G. (2012-12-06). Interlinking of Computer Networks: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute held at Bonas, France, August 28 – September 8, 1978. Springer. p. 55. ISBN 978-94-009-9431-7.
  80. Joanna (2009-11-25). "L'Europe des réseaux dans les années 1970, entre coopérations et rivalités". Interstices (in French). Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  81. Council, National Research; Sciences, Division on Engineering and Physical; Board, Computer Science and Telecommunications; Applications, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and; Committee, NII 2000 Steering (1998-02-05). The Unpredictable Certainty: White Papers. National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-17414-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  82. Davies & Bressan 2010, pp. 2, 9
  83. Ikram, Nadeem (1985). Internet Protocols and a Partial Implementation of CCITT X.75 (Thesis). p. 2. OCLC 663449435, 1091194379. Two main approaches to internetworking have come into existence based upon the virtual circuit and the datagram services. The vast majority of the work on interconnecting networks falls into one of these two approaches: The CCITT X.75 Recommendation; The DoD Internet Protocol (IP).
  84. Unsoy, Mehmet S.; Shanahan, Theresa A. (1981). "X.75 internetworking of Datapac and Telenet". ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review. 11 (4): 232–239. doi:10.1145/1013879.802679.
  85. Campbell-Kelly (2013), p. 24
  86. Newcombe, Tod (1997-01-31). "Network O/S: Which to Use?". Government Technology. Archived from the original on 2018-10-15. Retrieved 2021-05-29.
  87. Fluckiger 2000
  88. Davies & Bressan 2010, pp. 106–9
  89. Pelkey, James. "12.13 Interop (TCP/IP) Trade Show – September". Entrepreneurial Capitalism and Innovation: A History of Computer Communications 1968–1988. Retrieved 2020-02-05.
  90. "Standards Wars" (PDF). Student Project at Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington. 2006.
  91. Abbate 2000, p. 176-180
  92. Russell 2013
  93. "Internet founders say flexible framework was key to explosive growth". Princeton University. March 18, 2014. Retrieved 2020-02-14.
  94. "Untold Internet: Anyone Can Help Establish Standards". Internet Hall of Fame. December 21, 2015. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  95. Davies & Bressan 2010, pp. 2–3
  96. Down, Peter John; Taylor, Frank Edward (1976). Why Distributed Computing?: An NCC Review of Potential and Experience in the UK. NCC Publications. ISBN 978-0-85012-170-4.
  97. Radu, Roxana (2019). "Revisiting the Origins: The Internet and its Early Governance". Negotiating Internet Governance. pp. 43–C3.N23. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198833079.003.0003. ISBN 978-0-19-883307-9.
  98. Campbell-Kelly (2013), p. 27
  99. Sunshine, Carl A. (1989). Computer Network Architectures and Protocols. Springer. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-4613-0809-6.
  100. Hasman, A. (1995). Education and Training in Health Informatics in Europe: State of the Art, Guidelines, Applications. IOS Press. p. 251. ISBN 978-90-5199-234-2.
  101. Pelkey, James. "9.5 ISO/OSI (Open Systems Interconnection): 1979–1980". Entrepreneurial Capitalism and Innovation: A History of Computer Communications 1968–1988. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
  102. Brügger, Niels; Goggin, Gerard (2022-10-25). Oral Histories of the Internet and the Web. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-79781-7.
  103. Russell (2012), p.6
  104. "The Adoption of TCP/IP". clivemabey.me.uk. Retrieved 2020-02-11. until Internet (initially ARPANET + TCP/IP) was "demobbed" it was not even a candidate (Abbate 1999, 211)
  105. Campbell-Kelly (2013), p. 28
  106. "TCP/IP Internet Protocol". Living Internet.
  107. "A Flaw In The Design". The Washington Post. May 30, 2015. Though the Pentagon oversaw the ARPANET during the years when it was footing the bill for deployment, its power gradually dwindled.
  108. Abbate 2000, p. 175-6
  109. Russell 2006
  110. Campbell-Kelly (2013), p. 26
  111. Miller, Philip M. (2010). TCP/IP: Complete 2 Volume Set. Universal-Publishers. ISBN 978-1-59942-543-6.
  112. "The Adoption of TCP/IP". clivemabey.me.uk. Retrieved 2019-02-12.
  113. Pelkey, James. "6.1 Commercializing Arpanet 1972–1975". Entrepreneurial Capitalism and Innovation: A History of Computer Communications 1968–1988. Retrieved 2020-02-06.
  114. "Networking". Central Computing Department. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
  115. Reid, Jim (April 3, 2007). "Networking in UK Academia ~25 Years Ago" (PDF). 7th UK Network Operators' Forum. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-08-20. Retrieved 2020-02-12.
  116. Zakon, Robert (November 1997). Hobbes' Internet Timeline. IETF. p. 12. doi:10.17487/RFC2235. RFC 2235. Retrieved 2 Dec 2020.
  117. Quarterman, John S. (1990). The matrix: Computer networks and conferencing systems worldwide. Digital Press. pp. 192–195. ISBN 978-1-55558-033-9.
  118. "Untold Internet: The Internet-OSI Standards Wars". Internet Hall of Fame. November 12, 2015. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  119. Korzeniowski, Paul (1988-02-15). "'OSI-based' tools may trip up users". Network World. IDG Network World Inc. 5 (7).
  120. Papageorgiou, Chuck (1988-10-10). "Users cultivating hybrid methods to manage nets". Network World. IDG Network World Inc. 5 (41).
  121. Lehtisalo, Kaarina (2005). The history of NORDUnet: twenty-five years of networking cooperation in the noridic countries (PDF). NORDUnet. ISBN 978-87-990712-0-3.
  122. Horning, Ken (1991). "OSI Demonstrations Planned for Interop '91". Link Letter. 4 (3): 1, 4. hdl:2027/mdp.39015035356347.
  123. Day, Bob (September 1991). "Project shoestring: pilot for a JANET IP Service". FLAGSHIP - Central Computing Department Newsletter. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Central Computing Division (16). Archived from the original on 2020-02-13. Retrieved 2020-02-13.
  124. "Dai Davies". Internet Hall of Fame. Retrieved 2020-01-23.
  125. "Protocol Wars". Internet Hall of Fame. 16 January 2015. Retrieved 2020-02-05.
  126. "Janet(UK) Quarterly Report to the Janet Community: July 1997 to September 1997". Janet webarchive. 1997. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012.
  127. Davies & Bressan 2010, pp. 9
  128. Rutter 2005
  129. Tobin, James (2012-06-12). Great Projects: The Epic Story of the Building of America, from the Taming of the Mississippi to the Invention of the Internet. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-1476-6.
  130. In, Lee (2012-06-30). Electronic Commerce Management for Business Activities and Global Enterprises: Competitive Advantages: Competitive Advantages. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-4666-1801-5.
  131. Misiroglu, Gina (2015-03-26). American Countercultures: An Encyclopedia of Nonconformists, Alternative Lifestyles, and Radical Ideas in US History: An Encyclopedia of Nonconformists, Alternative Lifestyles, and Radical Ideas in US History. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-47729-7.
  132. Couldry, Nick (2012). Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice. London: Polity Press. p. 2. ISBN 9780745639208.
  133. "60 FR 25888 - APPROVAL OF FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS PUBLICATIONS (FIPS) 146-2, PROFILES FOR OPEN SYSTEMS INTERNETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES, AND 179-1, GOVERNMENT NETWORK MANAGEMENT PROFILE". United States Government Publishing Office.
  134. "Outreach: The Internet". US National Science Foundation. In March 1991, the NSFNET acceptable use policy was altered to allow commercial traffic.
  135. Schuster, Jenna (June 10, 2016). "A brief history of internet service providers". Archived from the original on 2019-04-28. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
  136. Deo, Prakash Vidyarthi (2012). Technologies and Protocols for the Future of Internet Design: Reinventing the Web: Reinventing the Web. IGI Global. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-4666-0204-5.
  137. Cerf, Vint (7 Dec 2007). Tracking the Internet into the 21st Century with Vint Cerf. 28:30 minutes in.
  138. Stephen Coty (2011-02-11). "Where is IPv1, 2, 3,and 5?". Archived from the original on 2020-08-02. Retrieved 2020-07-21.
  139. "What is the Internet of Things? WIRED explains". Wired UK. 16 February 2018.
  140. Touch, Joseph D.; Wang, Yu-Shun; Pingali, Venkata (October 20, 2006). "A Recursive Network Architecture" (PDF). USC/ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-2006-626.
  141. Day, J. (2011). How in the Heck Do You Lose a Layer!?. 2nd IFIP International Conference of the Network of the Future. Paris, France. doi:10.1109/NOF.2011.6126673.
  142. Shaw, Keith (2022-03-14). "The OSI model explained and how to easily remember its 7 layers". Network World. Retrieved 2022-11-27.
  143. "An OSI Model for Cloud". Cisco Blogs. 2017-02-24. Retrieved 2020-05-16.
  144. Taylor, Steve; Metzler, Jim (2008-09-23). "Why it's time to let the OSI model die". Network World. Retrieved 2020-05-16.
  145. Holenstein, Bruce; Highleyman, Bill; Holenstein, Paul J. (2007). Breaking the Availability Barrier II: Achieving Century Uptimes with Active/Active Systems. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1-4343-1603-5. The protocol wars that were waged into the late 20th century are over, and the winner for now is IP (Internet Protocol). Though not relegated to the dustbin, contenders such as X.25 and SNA have become niche players.
  146. Trinkle, Dennis A. (2000). "Inventing the Internet (Janet Abbate)". Journal of the Association for History and Computing. 3 (3).
  147. Alger, Jeff (1999). "Book Reviews: Inventing the Internet". Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (24). doi:10.5062/F4222RR4.
  148. "General Communication". Communication Booknotes Quarterly. 31 (1): 55–59. 2000. doi:10.1207/S15326896CBQ3101_11. S2CID 218576599.
  149. Abbate, Janet (2 January 2017). "What and where is the Internet? (Re)defining Internet histories". Internet Histories. 1 (1–2): 8–14. doi:10.1080/24701475.2017.1305836. S2CID 64975758.
  150. "Lecture: Andrew L. Russell, The Open Internet: An Exploration in Network Archaeology". Penn State Digital Culture + Media Initiative of the Department of English. Retrieved 2022-12-14.
  151. Russell, Andrew (2012). Histories of Networking vs. the History of the Internet (PDF). 2012 SIGCIS Workshop.
  152. Russell, Andrew L. (2 January 2017). "Hagiography, revisionism & blasphemy in Internet histories". Internet Histories. 1 (1–2): 15–25. doi:10.1080/24701475.2017.1298229. S2CID 193825139.

Sources

Further reading
  • Kerssens, Niels (2020). "Rethinking legacies in internet history: Euronet, lost (inter)networks, EU politics". Internet Histories. 4 (1): 32–48. doi:10.1080/24701475.2019.1701919. S2CID 213678397.
  • Kim, Byung-Keun (2005). Internationalizing the Internet: The Co-evolution of Influence and Technology. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84542-675-0.
  • Pelkey, James L.; Russell, Andrew L.; Robbins, Loring G. (2022). Circuits, Packets, and Protocols: Entrepreneurs and Computer Communications, 1968-1988. Morgan & Claypool. ISBN 978-1-4503-9729-2.
  • Rosenzweig, Roy (1998). "Wizards, Bureaucrats, Warriors, and Hackers: Writing the History of the Internet". The American Historical Review. 103 (5): 1530–1552. doi:10.2307/2649970. JSTOR 2649970.
  • Russell, Andrew L. (2014). Open Standards and the Digital Age: History, Ideology, and Networks. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-91661-5.

Primary sources
  • Stokes, A. V. (2014) [1986]. Communications Standards: State of the Art Report 14:3. Elsevier. ISBN 978-1-4831-6093-1.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.