21-Apr-83 09:37:50-PST,11733;000000000001 Return-path: Mail-From: SMTP created at 20-Apr-83 19:11:48 Received: FROM BRL-VGR BY USC-ISIF.ARPA WITH TCP ; 20 Apr 83 19:12:05 PST Received: From Brl-Vgr.ARPA by BRL-VGR via smtp; 20 Apr 83 6:56 EST Sender: Mike Muuss From: TCP-IP@Brl.ARPA To: TCP-IP@Brl.ARPA Date: 20 Apr 1983 00:00 EST Subject: TCP-IP Digest, Vol 2 #4 TCP/IP Digest Wednesday, 20 Apr 1983 Volume 2 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: TCP/IP -vs- Xerox NS Merging Protocol Sets? MIT-CSR TCP/IP on non-I/D UNIX 3Com UNET on non-I/D UNIX systems BBN TCP/IP on non-I/D UNIX systems DEC Equipment & TCP/IP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TCP/IP Digest --- The InterNet Digest LIMITED DISTRIBUTION For Research Use Only --- Not for Public Distribution ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 83 10:34 PST From: Taft.PA@parc-maxc.arpa Subject: TCP/IP vs Xerox NS To: TCP-IP@brl.arpa Let me suggest that there is not much point in engaging in a "TCP vs. NS" debate, since there's far more to discuss than can reasonably be presented in this forum. People who want more information about NS would be better served by reading the open literature (references below) and forming their own judgements. The Xerox NS family of protocols are a re-engineered version of the Pup protocols. NS and Pup are true internet protocols, architecturally very similar to TCP/IP. This is not accidental, as there was considerable cross-fertilization between the Xerox and ARPA internet projects. Of course, there are also many differences. Some are a reflection of differing technical judgements made by the designers, while others are of no significance. But the fundamental similarities are far more important than the detailed differences. So why is Xerox pushing NS rather than TCP/IP? Well, why do similar but incompatible products appear in any marketplace? Xerox has a big investment in NS, and had to make product plans based on it long before TCP/IP had solidified to its present form. NS is not really "new". Though the protocol specifications were published only a little over a year ago, NS has been around for several years, and its predecessor, Pup, has been in active use since 1975. Ed Taft References (there are many others; these are the ones that come immediately to mind): D. R. Boggs, J. F. Shoch, E. A. Taft, R. M. Metcalfe, "Pup: an internetwork architecture", IEEE Transactions on Communication, vol. COM-28, no. 4, April 1980. (This was a special issue on network architectures and protocols; it contains many interesting papers.) Y. K. Dalal, "Use of multiple networks in the Xerox Network System", IEEE Computer magazine, 15(10), October 1982. J. E. White, Y. K. Dalal, "Higher-level protocols enhance Ethernet", Electronic Design, 30(8), April 1982. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 1983 0823-PST Subject: TCP/IP vs. XNS From: Dan To: tcp-ip@Brl.ARPA ISI has decided to purchase a bunch of Xerox 8010 workstations and will be implementing TCP/IP on them in the next 6 months. We will be in a position to comment on the relative merits of each protocol suite after we have our TCP/IP implementation running. The first task we face is to figure out where to make the cut. We will have enough access to the low level drivers to be able to make the cut anywhere we choose, but we are not sure that is the best way to "merge" the functionality of these two "similar" protocols. The whole insanity of "layered" protocols becomes quite apparent when one considers what we are about to delve into -- one from culumn A and one from column B and then two from column A, etc??? Dan Lynch ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 1983 1026-EST (Tuesday) From: lwa@Mit-Csr.ARPA Subject: Re: Paul Milazzo's TCP request To: TCP-IP@Brl.ARPA Our TCP/IP implementation is running on one LSI-11/23 that I know of. It's pretty tight, though, and certain pieces (like the Internet reassembly code) had to be omitted. It's going to take some amount of work on the part of whoever brings it up to get it to fit. Regarding the earlier user-only implementations (eg. BBN's): we actually had the BBN implementation running on an 11/40 at one point, but there were only three disk buffers left, so it wasn't very useful... regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: 12-Apr-83 10:32:43-EST From: gc@Bnl.ARPA Subject: TCP/IP for nonsplit I/D systems To: milazzo.rice@Rand-Relay.ARPA Cc: tcp-ip@Brl.ARPA We are currently running the 3Com Unet implementation of TCP/IP on a v7 system on an 11/44, however there are installation directions in our manual for installing on non-split I/D systems and on BSD 2.8 systems also. From our experience, it might be a tight fit but probably worth a try. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 1983 0943-PST From: DEDWARDS@Usc-Isi.ARPA Subject: re' TCP/IP for UNIX LSI-11/23 To: milazzo.rice@Rand-Relay.ARPA cc: tcp-ip@Brl.ARPA As it turns out I am running TCP/IP on my 11/34 and 11/23 - this is the external to the kernel version done at BBN several years ago. The underlying UNIX is a BBN version 6, but it should be movable to V7. It does require that you have portions of the old NCP buffering mechanism installed though, so you do need to have room to add stuff to your kernel (also needs Rand ports, await/ capac, pty, etc). With only a couple of users and full memory, the 11/34 does pretty well on the ARPAnet - the 11/23 is somewhat slower. Howard Weiss DoD Computer Security Center ------------------------------ From: smb%mhb5b@brl-bmd Date: 13 Apr 83 11:26:51 EST (Wed) Subject: TCP/IP for UNIX LSI-11/23 To: unc!milazzo.rice@Rand-Relay.ARPA, unc!tcp-ip@brl-bmd.arpa Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin I'm pretty sure that 3Com's UNET will run on 11/23s, under either v7 or 2.8BSD. A source license is about $5000, I believe. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 83 20:51:19 PST (Thu) From: unisoft!billn@Ucb-Vax.ARPA Subject: tcp on 11/23 To: milazzo.rice@Rand-Relay.ARPA Cc: tcp-ip@Brl.ARPA UNET from 3com runs on an 11/23. At least they say so; I've never tried it. I suspect it does, since they developed much of UNET on 11/23's. There are alot of options you can turn off to get sizes down in user programs. Kernel size is a bit of a problem, but solvable, using the kernel overlay scheme ("kov's") from Ken Harrenstein (klh@sri-nic) The new version (UNET 2.0) is reputed to be up-to-date arpa compatable, including smtp. They include, naturally, a driver for their q-bus ethernet controller. /bill ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1982 1653-PST Subject: DEC equipment and IP/TCP From: Joel Goldberger To: TCP-IP@BRL I can tell you what the situation is regarding IP/TCP implementations on most DEC equipment. There are basically four operating systems that people run on DEC 10/20's and two operating systems that are run on Vaxes. On the 10/20's people are running: TOPS-10 TENEX TOPS-20 and ITS (The MIT Incompatible Timesharing System) BBN has had an implementation of IP/TCP for TENEX and TOPS-20 for some time and that is what we are running. Very few other sites were willing to run this software though. DEC proposed a much cleaner user-interface to TCP for TOPS-20 that most of the TOPS-20 sites decided to wait for. This code was originally scheduled to be made available to ISI at the beginning of July, since then the date has been slipping. Monday the person working on it at DEC (Kevin Paetzold) announced over the TOPS-20 distribution list that he would be making the code available on 1 December. Obviously once the code is delivered there will be some lag before the support software gets written and debugged, and I seriously doubt that all of that can be accomplished in the one month before the switchover. I don't believe that anything besides the present BBN implementation of IP/TCP will ever be available for TENEX systems, and most of the TENEXes on the Network already have this code up and running. There is some work needed to make the support programs run under TENEX, but I believe Henry Miller at NIC is doing this. Ken Harrenstein has been (re-)hired by MIT to implement IP/TCP on the ITS machines (MIT-AI/DM/ML/MC). I believe he is already back at MIT doing this. I know of no implementation for TOPS-10 (or WAITS), either available or in development. On VAXes people mostly run either VMS or UNIX (primarily Berkeley UNIX). For VMS there are two implementations available: Digital Technology Incorporated offers a comercial product called ACCESS-T in a Binary only distribution that includes all the usual servers and user programs (FTP/TELNET/SMTP), as well as a library of user callable routines for establishing and controlling IP and TCP connections. We ordered this product for our VMS system and were given a very early Beta-Test version that was essentially unusable (It crashed VMS every time a TELNET connection was closed). They did some debugging on our system and fixed most of the problems, but we still chose not to run it for the time being. This decision was mostly due to the way they had implemented MAIL; sending and receiving were two disjoint programs and there was no way to REPLY or FORWARD messages conveniently. They have just announced a new version of their software that will run under version 3.0 of VMS; The previous release would not. We will be evaluating this latest version when we bring up version 3.0 on our VAX. David Kashtan at SRI has been working on porting the Berkeley 4.1aBsd (UNIX) implementation of IP/TCP to run under the EUNICE UNIX compatibility package that he authored and SRI distributes. (We are currently running his ported version of the Berkeley NCP code on our VAX.) I received a message from him on Friday (19 November) that he had succeeded in bringing up IP/TCP, and was now running his VAX (SRI-IU) with both NCP and TCP. We will be getting a copy of his code in the next week or so and hope to use that on our VMS system. I assume he will make it available to anyone who wants it. Under Berkeley UNIX there are also two choices: BBN (Rob Gurwitz) has an implementation for Berkeley 4.1Bsd which many sites are running (including us). It comes complete with user and server processes, source code, and again a library of user-callable routines for establishing connections. We have found it to be very stable and Rob is very good about bug-fixes and general support. I don't know if he plans on offering an implementation for Berkeley's future releases. Berkeley (Bill Joy) essentially re-wrote the BBN implementation for Berkeley 4.1aBsd, and the soon to be released 4.2 Bsd. We have been running this version on VAX 11/750's connected to a 10MBit EtherNet and have found it also very stable. 4.1a & 4.2 include a set of network utilities that allow access to remote file-systems and remote command execution, features not directly available with the BBN implementation. I hope this has been of some help to you. - Joel Goldberger - ------------------------------ END OF TCP-IP DIGEST ********************