Posted by Gene on 02/14/07 15:55

I think we are all saying the same thing:-)

The point that I was making was that the packets were
not to be sent out as a contiguous stream of data that
could be easily reassembled by an enemy, should the
enemy be successful in getting a copy of one or more
individual packets. I was of the understanding that the
packets were encrypted in some way, then further divided
into one or more packets that contained no more
than 1/2 of the original encrypted packet data.

It was not until the BBSs that I even gave a hoot ~ it.
It seemed to me at the time to be just another expensive
government program - for universities to chat. But glad
we have it now, one more benefit of the NASA program,
of which there are many...

This is how I remember it happening:
http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.shtml

Gene





"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_t-dnY-SJN-2gE7YnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> hey, you made my day ;-)
>
>
> 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 :-)
>>

[Back to original message]