On 9/15/2010 12:04 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
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.
Right.
There were Arpanet folk who participated in standardizing X.25. But as
technology comparisons go, X.25 versus Arpanet were probably as far as you can
get apart and still be doing packet switching. Per-packet routing versus
virtual circuits with fixed routing (in the network) are clearly the major point
of disparity. But reliability in the network, versus none, was another as I recall.
d/
ps. There also were Arpanet folk who participated in creating X.400, but it
reflected essentially nothing from Arpanet/Internet mail.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf