Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

The story I've heard from Vint Cerf about the TOS field is that it was put in for AUTODIN-II, a defense network that had multiple service levels to accommodate the requirements of interactive apps vs. bulk data apps. Jon Postel wrote RFC 795 - Service mappings on the mapping of TOS bits to service levels for ARPANET, PRNET, SATNET, and AUTODIN-II. AUTODIN-II never graduated from beta to production status. The Autodin story is told at , http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/autodin.html

RB

On 9/13/2010 1:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

    > From: todd glassey <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>

    > Why not simply ask Len Klienrock the answer to this question.

Umm, OK idea, wrong person: Len wasn't around the early Internet development.

I actually vaguely recall discussions about the TOS field (including how many
bits to give to each sub-field), but I can't recall very much of the content
of the discussions. If anyone cares, some of the IENs which document the early
meetings might say more.

Frankly, I doubt we understood the issues that well back then. Remember, this
was the same time period when we put in the 'Source Quench' ICMP message...

	Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

-- 
Richard Bennett

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf