Re: [irtf-discuss] [Internet Policy] Why the World Must Resist Calls to Undermine the Internet

[vinton cerf <[e-mail]>]

"UUCP routing" versus "UUNET routing"? UUNET did indeed offer UUCP as its
primary service but UUCP was implemented widely on all (?) UNIX-based
systems and likely on non-UNIX systems for interoperability.

v


On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 9:00 AM Steve Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Adding to Vint's comments:
>
> I was at (D)ARPA from mid 1971 to mid 1974.  Bob Kahn arrived in late
> 1972.  Vint came a few years after I left.
>
> The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was created in 1958 in
> response to the launch of Sputnik.  It was placed within the Defense
> Department's Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).  I believe OSD was
> about 2,000 people.  ARPA was approximately 150 people.  It was
> purposefully structured as an agile operation, authorized to define its own
> projects and get them moving quickly.  Its authority and operation were
> overseen by both DoD management and the relevant Congressional committees
> and subcommittees.  "Slush fund" is a pejorative term that mischaracterizes
> the organization.
>
> In 1972, following a decision to reduce the size of OSD, ARPA was moved
> out of OSD and became a Defense agency.  This put it in the same status as
> the other Defense agencies, e.g., Defense Mapping Agency (DMA), Defense
> Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA), et al.  In the
> process, "ARPA" acquired the "D" and became DARPA.  There was no
> appreciable change in the mission, structure or operation of the agency.
> On paper, the director of DARPA now reported directly to the Secretary of
> Defense instead of the Defense Director for Research and Engineering
> (DDR&E).  In practice, the reporting lines remained the same.  I don't
> believe the transition had anything to do with the Mansfield amendment.
> (D)ARPA was unabashedly doing work on a wide range of military technologies
> both before and after the transition.  Each internal funding  memo included
> a section describing the relevance of the effort being funded to the
> overall DoD mission.  I wrote my share of these, as did every program
> manager.  See the next paragraphs for a key point related to this.
>
> Internally, (D)ARPA is divided into a handful of Offices.  Each Office
> focuses on specific technologies.  Offices are created, folded down, and
> renamed at various times.  In the beginning, ARPA focused on the space
> program.  In 1962, the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) was
> formed to focus on advanced computer science technology.  JCR Licklider was
> the first director.  The Office funded research across a broad spectrum of
> computer science topics ranging from time-sharing systems, graphics,
> multiprocessor architectures, and artificial intelligence.  Many of these
> ideas had already been articulated and pursued in a few labs around the
> country.  IPTO was able to put considerably more money into these areas.
>
> The Offices were how the agency was structured from a personnel point of
> view.  From a budget point of view, the agency was structured in terms of
> "programs."  Each program had a budget and an objective.  These were
> documented and reported to DoD management and Congress each year.
>
> Most of the Offices had programs that were intended to yield results
> within a few years.  However, IPTO, the Materials Science Office, and the
> Behavioral Sciences Office funded research with a *much* longer time
> horizon.  These were considered "basic research" offices, in contrast to
> the other "development" Offices.  The aggregate funding for basic research
> was just a small fraction of the overall (D)ARPA budget, which meant that
> most of (D)ARPA's funding was producing visible results fairly regularly.
> The budgets and progress of the basic research Offices were still reviewed
> annually, but the expectations were adjusted.
>
> The terms "basic research" and "development" correspond to the budget
> designations "6.1" and "6.2."  Line 6 in McNamara's famous reorganization
> of the Defense budget was Research, Development, Test and Engineering
> (RDT&E), with designations of 6.1 through 6.4.  The funding levels were
> significantly different, i.e. 6.1 << 6.2 << 6.3 << 6.4.  (D)ARPA's funding
> was limited to just 6.1 and 6.2 programs.
>
> In terms of its budget, IPTO evolved and became a hybrid Office with two
> programs, one with 6.1 funding and one with 6.2 funding.  The artificial
> intelligence work was part of the 6.1 budget.  The big system developments,
> e.g., Illiac IV and Multics, were part of the 6.2 budget.
>
> As noted, the idea of a network had been written about and was definitely
> part of the vision.  There were a handful of small efforts to connect two
> or three computers.  The Arpanet was conceived and initiated in 1965-66.
> After a couple of years of planning, the Request for Quotation for the IMPs
> was released in 1968.  Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) in Cambridge, MA was
> selected, and work began in 1969.  The first IMP was delivered to UCLA at
> the beginning of September that year.
>
> When the Arpanet was up and running, IPTO began to look at packet radio
> and packet satellite networking.  With strong support from the director of
> the agency, Steve Lukasik, a third budget line item was created, also
> within the overall 6.2 budget, that focused on communications.
>
> ============================
>
> I believe the use of the exclamation point (!), informally called "bang,"
> was part of the UUNET routing scheme, not the Arpanet routing or email
> addressing.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:59 AM vinton cerf via InternetPolicy <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 1. Arpanet was never called "Darpanet"
>> 2. I don't think we ever "numbered" users since getting on the Arpanet
>> was mostly by having an account on a time-sharing computer at a university
>> (or research lab) that had an ARPA contract.
>> 3. "bangs" were at email level, not Arpanet (or Internet) level of
>> routing. The "bang" email addresses aided routing through application level
>> gateways.
>> 4. Bob Kahn, Dave Walden, Frank Heart and many others at BBN did the
>> Arpanet IMP design. The Arpanet Host-Host NCP effort was led by Steve
>> Crocker (Jon Postel and I and others helped) and stabilized enough to
>> support email in 1971 and a public demonstration in October 1972. The
>> Internet work started the next year in 1973. Since Internet was conceived
>> as a network of networks, you needed more than one network to make an
>> Internet. There were three to begin with: Arpanet, Packet Radio Net and
>> Packet Satellite Net, all funded by ARPA.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:50 AM David Lloyd-Jones via InternetPolicy <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Willi,
>>>
>>> You have shown us that you are full of good sentiments. Quite a lot of
>>> them. Very good ones. I assume that you know something about the start and
>>> development of the Internet but no such knowledge has found its way into
>>> your long post.
>>> .
>>> First proposed by Bacon in the fifteenth century or so, the 'Net was a
>>> solid policy proposal made by Vannevar Bush in 1945. It was made possible
>>> by the invention of packet-switching in the mid-1960 to 70s. Johnny Foster,
>>> JFK's science advisor in 1961, was the first person I know of to have done
>>> solid financing of the effort.  Bush was working on wide-scale computer
>>> networking, along with many other things, when I met him in his
>>> utterly false "retirement" in Lexington, Mass. in 1976. This was well
>>> before your Reagan Administration.
>>>
>>> The original present "internet" was ARPAnet  (on which I was user #300
>>> in 1971). This was financed before it really existed by ARPA when that
>>> "Agency" was more-or-less a slush fund passed around at random in the
>>> Pentagon. It continued as DARPAnet after they added that "D," for defence,
>>> to pretend compliance with the Mansfield Amendment. I worked on this on
>>> Congressional staff in 1969-71 and at MIT in '72. The D was tacked on in
>>> December '71 or January '72, I forget, but had been in the works ever since
>>> Mansfied, as Senator, had tried to prevent military money from corrupting
>>> civilian research. Unfortunately, civilian researchers cried piteously that
>>> they wanted to be corrupted. By then, Mansfied was ambassador to Japan....
>>>
>>> When the scalability of the internetted nets, DARPAnet, began to seem
>>> limited, -- all those !!! "bangs," -- its growth was smoothed by the
>>> development of the present TCP/IP, credited to Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf. When
>>> Cerf later went to work for MCI, a hapless little phone company, their PR
>>> department tub-thumped that he was "the" founder of "the" Internet. Many
>>> people seem to have believed this inanity. More recently this has been
>>> toned down to "a" founder of the Internet. In fact packet-switching, the
>>> key invention, was largely the work of Lenny Kleinrock, under whom Cerf
>>> studied as a university student. Their much later contribution to TCP/IP
>>> has certainly been useful.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 13:07, willi uebelherr via InternetPolicy <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why the World Must Resist Calls to Undermine the Internet
>>>> Andrew Sullivan, 02.03.2022
>>>>
>>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls-to-undermine-the-internet/
>>>>
>>>> Dear friends,
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Sullivan rightly pointed out in his text that "the Internet is
>>>> for everyone". Absolutely right in the idea.
>>>>
>>>> But the reality is different. The technical players acting today are
>>>> not
>>>> interested in a free global communication of people, but in a
>>>> commercialization and capitalization of their needs for communication.
>>>>
>>>> This result did not come about by chance, but was already the essential
>>>> guiding principle at the beginning by the government of the USA under
>>>> Ronald Reagan. The original concept of "the inter-connection of local
>>>> Net-works", which is necessarily based on local networks, became a
>>>> privately and state organized system of interconnected star-systems,
>>>> "the inter-connection of private Star-Systems".
>>>>
>>>> This interconnection of star-systems creates the possibility to
>>>> organize
>>>> access and exclusion according to arbitrary criteria. And we see today
>>>> that the system of a free global communication has turned into a field
>>>> of censorship and private control mania, organized by countries calling
>>>> themselves "the West". Already the naming points to organized bullshit,
>>>> because the planet is a sphere and not a disk and thus any directions
>>>> can lead to the same goal.
>>>>
>>>> The actors of this fragmentation and breaking of a free human
>>>> communication "without borders" are those who call themselves
>>>> representatives of a "free world", but in fact trample every diversity
>>>> with military boots. Every form of racial mania a'la Cecil Rhodes is
>>>> put
>>>> back on the table. Lying and hypocrisy is the form of communication
>>>> that
>>>> is now elevated to the absolute.
>>>>
>>>> The idea of telecommunication in the form of an Internet that does not
>>>> adhere to private or governmental or geographical boundaries, as we saw
>>>> with Jonathan Postel, was destroyed at the very beginning of the life
>>>> of
>>>> an Internet. Today we see what a monster of small-minded power madness
>>>> it has developed into, where only private profit interests and state
>>>> delusions of control apply.
>>>>
>>>> The alternative always remains. A telecommunication in the form of an
>>>> internet, which rests on local networks and thus enables free access to
>>>> all people of our planet, independent of their social situation and
>>>> geographical position.
>>>>
>>>> That and only that is a "net of nets".
>>>>
>>>> with kind regards, willi
>>>> Asuncion, Paraguay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in german -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Liebe freunde,
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Sullivan hat zu Recht in seinem Text darauf hingewiesen, "the
>>>> Internet is for everyone". Absolut richtig in der Idee.
>>>>
>>>> Aber die Wirklichkeit sieht anders aus. Die heute agierenden
>>>> technischen
>>>> Akteure sind nicht an einer freien globalen Kommunikation der Menschen
>>>> interessiert, sondern an einer Kommerzialisierung und Kapitalisierung
>>>> ihrer Beduerfnisse nach Kommunikation.
>>>>
>>>> Dieses Resultat ist nicht zufaellig entstanden, sondern war bereits zu
>>>> Anfang das wesentliche Leitmotiv durch die Regierung der USA unter
>>>> Ronald Reagan. Das urspruengliche Konzept "the Inter-connection of
>>>> local
>>>> Net-works", das ja notwendig auf lokalen Netzwerken ruht, wurde zu
>>>> einem
>>>> privat und staatlich organisierten System von verbundenen
>>>> Sternsystemen,
>>>> "the inter-connection of private Star-Systems".
>>>>
>>>> Diese Verbindung von Stern-Systemen schafft die Moeglichkeit, nach
>>>> beliebigsten Kriterien den Zugang und Ausschluss zu organisieren. Und
>>>> wir sehen heute, dass sich das System einer freien globalen
>>>> Kommunikation zu einem Feld der Zensur und privatem Kontrollwahn
>>>> entwickelt hat, das von Laendern organisiert wird, die sich "der
>>>> Westen"
>>>> nennen. Schon die Namensgebung deutet auf organisierten Schwachsinn,
>>>> weil der Planet eine Kugel und keine Scheibe ist und damit beliebige
>>>> Richtungen zum gleichen Ziel fuehren koennen.
>>>>
>>>> Die Akteure dieser Zersplitterung und Zerbrechung einer freien
>>>> menschlichen Kommunikation "ohne Grenzen" sind jene, die sich als
>>>> Vertreter einer "freien Welt" bezeichnen, tatsaechlich aber jede
>>>> Diversitaet mit militaerischen Stiefeln zertrampeln. Jede Form des
>>>> Rassenwahns a'la Cecil Rhodes wird wieder auf den Tisch gestellt. Die
>>>> Luege und Heuchelei ist diejenige Form der Kommunikation, die nun zum
>>>> absoluten Mass erhoben wird.
>>>>
>>>> Die Idee einer Telekommunikation in Form eines Internet, das sich nicht
>>>> an private oder staatliche oder geografische Grenzen haelt, wie wir es
>>>> bei Jonathan Postel sahen, wurde schon zu Beginn der Lebensphase eines
>>>> Internet zerstoert. Heute sehen wir, zu welchem Monster kleingeistigem
>>>> Machtwahns es sich entwickelt hat, wo nur noch private Profitinteressen
>>>> und staatlicher Kontrollwahn gelten.
>>>>
>>>> Die Alternative bleibt immer existent. Eine Telekommunikation in Form
>>>> eines internet, das auf lokalen Netzwerken ruht und so allen Menschen
>>>> unseres Planeten den freien Zugang ermoeglicht, unabhaengig von ihrer
>>>> sozialen Lage und geografischen Position.
>>>>
>>>> Das und nur das ist ein "Netz der Netze".
>>>>
>>>> mit lieben gruessen, willi
>>>> Asuncion, Paraguay
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
>>>> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
>>>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>>>> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
>>>> -
>>>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
>>> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
>>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>>> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
>>> -
>>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
>> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
>> -
>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>
>