Cerf and Kahn receive Turing award 81

Morten Reistad tion, and say that the Internet constructions.

my wife has her name on an (international-pto) token pbutting (lan) patent from the 70s.

when almaden was built in the mid-80s, it was provisioned w-cat5 ... but when they actually connected it up ... they found that twisted-pair enet hardware had lower latency and higher thruput than 16mbit t-r.

we found something similar ... and took a lot of heat from the saa-token-ring crowd when we pitched it (along with the original 3-layer architecture & middle laywer) in customer executive presentations.

ibm mainframe tcp-ip stack was done in pascal-vs ... it had some thruput issues ... on 3090, it could use a whole 3090 processor getting 44kbytes-sec. I added rfc1044 support to the stack ... and in tests at cray research between a 4341-clone and a cray ... was getting 1mbyte-sec using only a modest amount of the processor

however, outside of technology ... while the NSFNET1 RFP provided the venue for the backbone ... the folklore is that the actual provisioning by commercial companies was something like 4-5 times that of what the gov. funded. the conjecture was that (at least for the telcos) there was a substantial amount of dark-fiber and they had never figured out a transition program. telcos have certain fixed run-rate ... if they dropped the price of all bit transmission (say by a factor of ten times) as a strategy to promote new applications ... they could never cover their fixed run-rate during the multi-year transition period. the donation of enormous excess resources for the backbone could help promote the evolution of new bandwith use paradigms ... w-o directly impacting their existing revenue.

at supercomputer in austin ('90?, '91?) there were some lessor known router vendors supporting full long-haul T3 ... with more modern router architectures. There was some conjecture that the more mainstream router vendors weren't very motivated in developing new architectures and technologies ... because they were already selling everything they made. This continued well thru the 90s with things like support for really robust packet filtering capability (various of the lessor known vendors had substantially more robust implementations than the market leaders).

somewhat side-track was that in the late 80s and early 90s ... many of the world govs. were mandating the elimination of the internet and transition to OSI (including US gov. with GOSIP). interop 88

there were substantial amount of OSI products from commercial vendors (attempting to conform with the gov. mandates).

my 'oft repeated story was that ISO compounded the problem by mandating that ISO and ISO-chartered standards organization could work on networking standards that violated the OSI model. HSP in ansi x3s3.3 was going directly from transport-layer4 to LAN-MAC interface.

this was rejected because it violated OSI model:

1) going direct from transport to LAN-MAC bypbutted the level3-level4 interface, violating OSI model

2) HSP would support internetworking (aka IP). IP doesn't exist in the OSI model, so supporting IP violates the OSI model

3) HSP would support LAN-MAC interface, the LAN-MAC interface sits somewhere in the middle of networking-level3. LAN-MACs violate OSI model, so supporting LAN-MACs also violates OSI.