|
|
Posted by Gene on 02/12/07 19:52
LOL - I could have a faulty memory chip :-)
There seems to be MORE than one account of
the history of the internet...
Here is how I remember it:
http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.shtml
I did some contract systems work at NASA in the beginning
of the space program, and I swear I remember a system
that sent 1/2 one way,and 1/2 the other - but I could be wrong,
it could have been multi-packets...
Gene
"Gene E. Bloch" <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.629f7d728a680259.1980@nobody.invalid...
> On 2/09/2007, Gene posted this:
>
> [...]
>
>> I was not aware that the internet protocol had changed, I thought that
>> everything was still in multi-packets, and over different paths. It's
>> probably
>> silly to keep the old security protocol, given that the net is no longer
>> a national
>> security thing. Guess packet verification is no longer really all that
>> necessary.
>> Geesh, I have not seen a parity check in years:-)
>
> [...]
> "Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ws2dnb9h_s5DclHYnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> [...]
>
>>> Well you got the transmission by packets right - but the truth is that
>>> the odds are HUGE that each packet will in fact take the same path.
>
> [...]
>
> Just a few comments here for clarity.
>
> 1. The transmission by packets is NOT for security, Gene. It is because it
> is hard (impossible?) to transmit a whole lot of bits in a huge single
> block without any errors. So you send a lot of small blocks, each with
> error checking data. If the received block is incorrect, the receiving
> stations asks the sender for a retransmission. This has been the norm for
> decades (e.g., xmodem, zmodem).
>
> 2. A corollary of that is that, in the multi-connected net of today, these
> packets don't all have to take the same path to get to the final
> destination. This would happen for sure if one of the intermediate nodes
> failed during a long series of blocks. I have no idea how rare it is for
> one collection of data to get to you by varied paths, but I would tend to
> agree a little with Rick Merrill. I would just say it's usual for the data
> to all use the same path, but not at all impossible for paths to vary.
>
> 3. I don't chink the Internet Protocol has changed. I *do* think your
> understanding of it is changing :-)
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
> letters617blochg3251
> (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|