On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I think it's actually pretty easy to make the case that a circuit-switched
protocol with a sliding window is superior to a stop-and-wait system that
required the RFNM from the receiver before every message. In that sense, X.25
was an upgrade over the ARPANET. One problem with coax-based Ethernet was the
absence of flow control, which caused bad things to happen to the Internet
when IMPs were replaced by Ethernets.
Well that's one way of looking at it. Others might draw different conclusions.
This discussion reminds me of the discussion at BBN of X.25 style packet
switching vs. the Internet datagram approach. I think the outcome was clear.
Bob
RB
On 9/15/2010 12:04 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Sep 14, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I wonder how many people realize that X.25 was a direct descendant of
ARPANET, and that BB&N became a leading supplier of X.25 hardware simply by
continuing the IMP down its evolutionary path.
I was at BBN at the time this was going on. BBN implemented X.25 because it
needed a "standardized" interface to the network instead of BBN's
proprietary 1822 interface and choose X.25. X.25 was developed in parallel
to the Arpanet and I disagree that it "was a direct descendant of ARPANET".
It has a very different interface (connection oriented vs. message oriented)
that IMHO was not an improvement.
Bob
p.s. I suggest that BBN use Ethernet instead but that didn't get any
traction. I am pretty sure the world would be different had they followed
my suggestion.
--
Richard Bennett
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf