[ih] TCP fat pipe chronology (was Ken Olsen's impact on the Internet)

[galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes)]

Craig et al.,
   With regard to TCP and fat pipes, there were (at least) two kinds of 
things going on:
<> changes to algorithms while leaving the TCP protocol untouched (e.g., 
improved retransmit timers and VJ's wonderful congestion window work), and
<> eventual changes in the TCP protocol (e.g., window scaling)

   In this context, how did DECnet Phase-IV fit in?  Was it more 
capable, less so, or about the same as TCP?  I know the HEPnet and SPAN 
folks were making heavy use shipping (what then passed for) large files 
around the world.

   Separate question: how would OSI (=?? DECnet Phase-V??) have compared?

   Curious,
	-- Guy

On 2/10/11 8:02 AM, Craig Partridge wrote:
>> The general understanding among computer companies in the mid-80s was
>> that TCP/IP was a fine proof-of-concept, but the real network was going
>> to be OSI. This wasn't any sort of conspiracy as much as it was a
>> recognition that large scale networks needed a different kind of system
>> for addressing and routing than the one that IPv4 provided, and that TCP
>> would have problems on fatter pipes.
>
> Didn't want to let the error in chronology of TCP on fatter pipes slip past.
>
> TCP fat pipe issues arose in 1988 as people were starting to envision
> working on substantially faster channels (about that time Ira Richer of
> DARPA started sprinkling a little money to look at gigabit issues in advance
> of Kahn's gigabit testbed effort).  1988 is almost precisely when OSI was
> swept from the US market and shortly before it became OBE in Europe as well.
>
> No one in the mid-80s has any clue that there was an issue.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Craig
>