Aucbvax.4889
fa.tcp-ip
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!tcp-ip
Sun Nov 1 22:16:27 1981
TCP-IP Digest, Vol 1 #5
>From tcp-ip@brl Sun Nov 1 21:56:45 1981
TCP/IP Digest Sunday, 1 November 1981 Volume 1 : Issue 5
Today's Topics:
Solicitation for More Contributions
More on BBN TCP for TOPS-20
Z8000 based TCP and IP Front End Machine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Muuss
Reply-to: tcp-ip@brl
Subject: More Contributions?
Nearly a week has passed since the last issue, so I am publishing the
three letters that have arrived in the interim . Considering the size of
the mailing list, I can hardly immagine that we have heard from
everybody who is working on networking implementations. C'mon! Lets
hear from everybody.
Cheers,
-Mike
------------------------------
Date: 27 Oct 1981 1810-EST
From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSOL AT RUTGERS>
Subject: List maintainence
You can announce [Rutgers]<TCP>MAIL.TXT as an archive point if you like.
------------------------------
Date: 26 Oct 1981 0013-PST
From: Mark Crispin <ADMIN.MRC AT SU-SCORE>
Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: (415) 497-1407 (Stanford); (415) 968-1052 (residence)
Subject: Re: TCP-IP Digest, Vol 1 #4
I'd like to answer a few confusions about my position
regarding the TOPS-20 implementation of TCP available from BBN.
I am not, nor have I ever been, opposed to the TCP protocol. I
was very impressed with the work done at the DoD Protocol
Standards conference a year ago. I've been urging the managers
of the Stanford local network effort to adopt TCP/IP as the local
network protocol for the past two years now. It is the software
that is presently available for TOPS-20 that I find distasteful.
I have had some preliminary discussions with various people
at DEC about this issue, and I have determined that they are
addressing at least some of the objections. If the product DEC
releases is less than what we would like, it is because of their
rush to meet the deadline. It's a safe assumption that there is
no way that DEC can possibly have a rewritten TCP implementation
for TOPS-20 out in the field by the deadline date. I believe
that DEC is doing its best. DEC's customers are probably best
off encouraging the current project but being firm in stating
that we must have a rewrite which addresses the performance
problems of BBN's TCP.
So far as the comments on how to "help/force people [to]
implement TCP/IP" go:
(1) There are those of us who would feel that not being able to
reach our systems from a TIP is a feature, and not a problem at
all! Entirely too many high school kids abuse the network from
TIPs.
(2) "Getting the mail through" can be accomplished by other
means than implementing TCP.
(3) Services only accessible via TCP/IP are a good reason for
implementing TCP/IP. The example given was not a good one, but I
can see other valuable resources being TCP/IP only. I hope by
the time such resources exist there will be a better
implementation of TCP/IP available.
(4) The last point is patently ridiculous. US mail existed
before electronic mail, and is still a commonly used method for
communication between Investigators and their Sponsors.
The whole tone of "forcing" is itself inane. The intent of
my message was to discuss getting things moving towards solving
the software situation, not to create an anti-TCP/IP lobby. The
present TCP/IP software for TOPS-20 is unpalatable for most
sites; if "forced" to implement TCP/IP on our systems we will
probably have to write the software ourselves. Of course that
would keep us from completing the projects our Network Sponsors
are supporting us to do...
-- Mark --
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1981 2236-EST
From: steve at MITRE
Subject: Z8000 TCP and IP
Mike,
I have been watching your digest with great interest. We
have produced a micro-based TCP/IP here at MITRE which your
readers may find useful.
We have been involved in a series of projects whose focus
was to make network access (both local and long haul) as
straightforward as using common computer peripherals. The idea
was that just as hardware controllers handle the particulars of a
disk cylinder centerline or an end of tape sensor, some of the
new microprocessors, in our case the Zilog Z8000, should make it
possible to construct a "network controller" to handle the par-
ticulars of packet ordering and flow control. To a large extent
we have succeeded with a TCP/IP network controller supported by a
Z8000 microprocessor box. The box is currently interfaced to our
UNIX system via a UMC-Z80. It is accessed from the users point
of view as a set of I/O like management calls (open, close, read,
write, and special) which are transported via a network access
protocol to the outboard box.
The box has 64K bytes of Ram, 32K bytes of Rom, a Z8002
micro, and a serial Usart (880K BPS max). All of the software
was written in C using a locally brewed version of the portable C
compiler. The interesting aspect of the box is that it inter-
faces as easily to a local network (in our case a the MITRE RF
cable backbone) as it does to the ARPA network. Other than dif-
ferent round trip delays, host user-level software sees no dis-
tinction between the two networks. The long haul metamorphosis
involves a new device driver in the Z8000 and the addition of an
ACC 1822 hardware interface (yes, ACC makes one). The resulting
set of building blocks allows us to interface a host, a terminal
concentrator version and other units to a local net and have a
gateway to the arpanet.
While a custom protocol would be faster, we believe that
the longer term interoperability of TCP/IP will be well worth
some short term overhead. The performance even with TCP/IP isn't
that bad in that we have measured two user processes talking via
TCP/IP over the cable at 350K BPS. We have measured rates as
high at 450K BPS when user I/O buffer sizes are set at 8K bytes
per I/O. The Internet Protocol contains our lowest level of
addressing. This allows us to address local units in the same
way we address remote units two or three networks away. We have
been experimenting with a version of TCP/IP which allows the
optional specification of some TCP and IP mechanisms. The basic
conclusion is that cable signalling rates are so fast that the
effect of 300 bit TCP/IP headers has negligible impact on perfor-
mance.
Our work this year involves constructing a new version
10M BPS controller with multi-microprocessor capabilities. We
believe the resulting effective TCP/IP communications rates
should be well above 1M BPS and that the multi-microprocessor
capabilities should make for an interesting distributed process-
ing base.
There a couple of reports available if people are in-
terested.
Regards
Steve Holmgren
END OF TCP-IP DIGEST
********************
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
