Leonard Kleinrock On The Origins of Packet Switching 137
An Anonymous Coward writes: "From Ben Sullivan's Tech Blog (http://www.techblog.com). An email from Leonard Kleinrock on why he really was the brains behind packet switching. It's a first-hand account from Kleinrock in a blog. A neat little journalistic scoop for bloggers, and some insights for techheads on Internet history."
everyone knows... (Score:2, Funny)
-Al Gore
Re:everyone knows... (Score:2, Informative)
It is a shame that the GOP have to pay dweebs to sit in front of computers to repeat lies. Gore never claimed to invent the Internet.
Gore correctly and truthfully took credit for getting us the money to develop the Internet. He was also very helpful in the development of the Web. The endorsement of the Web by the Whitehouse had a massive effect on commercial use. It was also the final nail in the coffin for 'Interactive TV'.
Of course if a lie is repeated often enough people will eventually mistake it for the truth. This particular lie was invented because the GOP was frightened of the comparison between Gore who had achieve a lot and their empty suit of whom the best they could say was he would not interfere with his advisers.
Re:everyone knows... (Score:2)
"It appears that Gore has not only invented the internet but the Calculator as well."
That was a rather witty comeback. Being a president is about having a good sense of humor, eloquence, and people skills. The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't take everything too seriously, or whatever.
Re:everyone knows... (Score:1)
Re:everyone knows... (Score:2)
Re:everyone knows... (Score:2)
Time Magazine quotes Al (Score:1, Informative)
Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet.
Re:everyone knows... (Score:2)
Right. I suppose you also believe that President Clinton did not perjure himself because he consciously defined "is" differently than his questioner.
Let's quote Al Gore...
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet." I'll grant that he didn't use the word "invent." I'll also suggest this analogy...
You work 70-hour weeks for a year to develop THE software technology that will rocket your startup into the ranks of the Fortune 500. Your manager goes to the CEO and says "I should be given money and power because I took the initiative in creating this new technology." Did he lie? According to you, no. Did he choose his words carefully so that the uninformed would be led to believe a mistruth? Absolutely.
Re:everyone knows... (Score:3, Informative)
Finding a different meaning of a word which doesn't apply is simply obfuscation.
Re:everyone knows... (Score:1)
Re:everyone knows... (Score:2)
Re:everyone knows... (Score:1, Offtopic)
There is a very determined group of people who want to project their particular version of events as 'the truth'. So someone at GOP spin control thinks the issue important enough to tell their people to log into slashdot, see ifthey have mod points and mod people down. And no, I am not making this up, they really do do that sorta thing these days, pretty pathetic eh?
Kinda makes the pissing contest between Kleinrock et. al. over who was the sole inventor of packet switching sound small beer. I mean who actually cares who did what? None of them invented the whole thing, the fact that there are three possible contenders points to the fact that however necessary the design step was, it would have been discovered somehow at that time. It is not like Hawking radiation or Einstein's relativity which could easily have waited several decades longer but for a flash of inspiration.
Re:everyone knows... (Score:1, Insightful)
Prove it. Provide evidence for this claim, other than just "well, some anti-Gore stuff [which could have been posted by Naderines] appeared on /.".
Failing to do so, we can all conclude that you're a liar for saying "I am not making this up".
From last time (Score:3, Informative)
Re:From last time (Score:1)
Fortunately somebody remembered it! I thought I had deja vu!
Re:Is it really that clever? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it really that clever? (Score:1)
Multiple routes, switches, hubs, semaphore signals. fragmenting a large train to fit between highway crossings or to go up a hill...
Re:Is it really that clever? (Score:2)
Re:Is it really that clever? (Score:2)
Your sig says "There is one thing humans can never do: be descendant from apes."
Computers descended from humans, and humans descended from apes. Therefore computers descended from apes.
emphasize the totality? (Score:1)
"I must emphasize that the totality of understanding the full picture, and not just the issue of packetization (i.e., chopping messages into small pieces) had to be developed before a convincing body of knowledge could be amassed to prove the case for data networks."
Wow. Maybe this guy would get more credit for his discoveries if he could describe them in English
Re:emphasize the totality? (Score:1)
Correction (Score:1)
So he invented l33t speak too?
An Alternate History (Score:2)
That would have been interesting. Britain as the home of the Internet.
The possibilities of an alternate history are fascinating.
In any case some of it is a matter of research being done in parallel, which means that these sort of debates will take place as a matter of course.
None of the above (Score:1)
Every other time that someone has claimed to have "invented" an obvious electronic analogue of a well-established mechanism, we've laughed; why is this any different? Packet switching has been used in the (snail) mail system for over a century.
Re:No (Score:1)
Re:No (Score:3)
I've known a number of people to send two postcards because what they want to write doesn't fit on one; and they helpfully write "continued on next postcard", exactly the way that IP fragments do. And, somewhat rarer but an even closer analogue, when there has been a weight limit on lettermail, people have sent (for example) the first five pages of a long letter in one envelope, and the last three pages in a second envelope.
And then there's all the furniture which is shipped in parts for the recipient to assemble...
Re:No (Score:2)
Multi-chapter book, sent a chapter at a time.
Newspaper serials, sent a column at a time.
I'm sure somebody has sent a longer missive, written on the back of postcards.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:Mod parent up (Score:1)
It's a lot older than 1960 (Score:1)
Hogwash to the lot of them.... The ideas they call packet switching were clearly being used by the Romans, the only difference was the transport involved people and horses not electrical signals but the transport if totally irrelevant to all the concepts they claim are packet switching. Odds are good it was used well before the Romans.
Re:It's a lot older than 1960 (Score:1)
No but I suspect that's how they dealt with lost packets.
based on "aloha" radio network in Hawaii (Score:2)
Off-topic (Score:2)
Re:based on "aloha" radio network in Hawaii (Score:2)
His own webpage (Score:3, Informative)
US Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US Law (Score:2)
In the USA, the law is "first to invent" not "first to file".
This means that if you invent something, but don't file until after someone else does, and your invention date is prior to the invention date of the first filer, and you can prove it (with lab notebooks, witnesses, etc.), you win.
There are limitations on this -- you can't have publicly disclosed the invention more than one year before filing, for example, nor can you invent something and sit on it indefinitely without filing unless you are "actively developing" it.
In other countries, "first to file" is typically the rule.
(note, I am not a lawyer, so don't rely on this and sue me later!)
Freedman Doc (Score:2)
BR~z
Academician SmackDown!!! (Score:1)
How about Donald Davies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about Donald Davies (Score:1)
Re:How about Donald Davies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about Donald Davies (Score:2, Informative)
The article covers Davies' involvement. Kleinrock repeats again and again that there is cold hard evidence that he created packet switching before Davies (in his dissertation). This has nothing to do with whether Davies is around to defend himself or not. You really should have read the article.
Re:How about Donald Davies (Score:2, Informative)
the early nets did exist in the seventies, but these were research institutions and universities running on top of GPO leased circuits. They were vital for research infrastructure, but there wasn't much interest from other sources with deeper pockets, i.e., the military or commercial interests. The GPO eventially got some of the research switches rebuilt as products by GEC and it launched EPSS (Experimental Packet Switched Service) in the mid seventies.
The commercial PSS net didn't start until later. A lot of the early X.25 work was done in the UK and by that time other interests were getting involved, but now we are talking about the late seventies.
Effectively, the UK was running almost ten years behind the UK by then. Many companies started moving to X.25 nets but the initiative had been lost. I guess if defence interests had got interested in the technology, thst would have given it a financial boost.
Davies, though was not just an expert on packet switched networks, he also had quite a lot to do with computer security. Perhaps he didn't 'discover' PSS, but he certainly contributed a lot there as well as in other areas.
Re:How about Donald Davies (Score:2)
Come on, read the article, find a flaw in his statements, and refute them. Kleinrock states that he analyzed packet switching mathematically in his 1962 thesis, something that Davies never did. Is he overstating? Does Davies have a publication that predates this? Did he develop/discover independently and then parlay that into the current technology? The latter would be a particularly cunning argument, if you can support it. But don't tell us "Oh, everybody says
Re:How about Donald Davies (Score:2)
The first instance of "Packet" and '"acket Switching" was in Davies' 1967 paper "A digital Communications Network for Computers", which was presented at a conference in Tennessee, at the same conference Lawrence Roberts of ARPA presented a design for creating a computer network. He had also made presentations before ARPA a year before on the concepts of 'packet switching'.
Re:How about Donald Davies (Score:1)
Again, something mentioned in the article. It has a link. It's okay for you to read it. There must be innumerable inventions that did not have a popular name until much later after they were invented.
Re:How about Donald Davies (Score:3, Insightful)
He credits Davies with coining the term "packet switching." You seem to be saying that if you don't use the currently popular name when you first describe your idea, then you're not the originator of the idea...the guy who thinks up the popular name is the inventor.
By your reasoning, Newton, who coined the term "calculus" should get all the credit for the development of that branch of mathematics, and Leibniz should get none, since the German-speaking Leibniz didn't use the term "calculus." (In case you're not up on your history of mathematics, Leibniz independently co-developed calculus and is credited in many non-English speaking countries as the developer of that branch of mathematics.)
Your rhetorical skills are sorely lacking. First Davies is the inventor because everyone knows he is, and now he's the inventor because he was the first to name it by the name you know it by. Here's my question:
What's your evidence for your belief that Davies either developed the concepts prior to Kleinrock, did more significant development work than Kleinrock, or for some other reason has a stronger term to the title "Inventor of Packet Switchng"?
My position is that the title is about as valid as "Inventor of the World Wide Web" and that all these guys should take a lesson from Newton..."If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants...
Re:How about Donald Davies (Score:1)
Or...
... his MG broke down on the way to the patent office.
... he tried to phone it in over BT
... his design called for packets to travel on the left side of the Net
For the less clueful... (Score:2)
Packet switching refers to protocols in which messages are divided into packets before they are sent. Each packet is then transmitted individually and can even follow different routes to its destination. Once all the packets forming a message arrive at the destination, they are recompiled into the original message.
Most modern Wide Area Network (WAN) protocols, including TCP/IP, X.25, and Frame Relay, are based on packet-switching technologies. In contrast, normal telephone service is based on a circuit-switching technology, in which a dedicated line is allocated for transmission between two parties. Circuit-switching is ideal when data must be transmitted quickly and must arrive in the same order in which it's sent. This is the case with most real-time data, such as live audio and video. Packet switching is more efficient and robust for data that can withstand some delays in transmission, such as e-mail messages and Web pages.
A new technology, ATM, attempts to combine the best of both worlds -- the guaranteed delivery of circuit-switched networks and the robustness and efficiency of packet-switching networks.
...courtesy of Webopedia [webopedia.com]
If you are karma whoring... (Score:1, Insightful)
Bbbbrrrr, calling ATM "a new technology".
Master of Innovation (Score:1, Troll)
Digital transmission before packet switching (Score:2)
The big breakthrough needed for the ARPANET was the militarized DDP-516 minicomputer, which was the first computer you could just ship someplace and expect it to work when turned on.
Re:Digital transmission before packet switching (Score:1)
Uh oh - Flashback
3420, 3480, TSO, CICS, JES, Netview!
5250!
T Tur Tt ttur turw...
TWINAX!
NOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo!
Re:Digital transmission before packet switching (Score:2)
Plan 55 was basically Sendmail built out of paper tape equipment and telephone relays. Messages came in on teletype links and were saved on incoming queues built from pairs of paper tape punches and readers, connected by a big bin for the paper tape. The header of each message was read, an outgoing link selected by looking up the destination address automatically, and a telephone switch was used to establish a cross-office link to an outgoing buffer. The message, including header, was then copied to the outgoing paper tape buffer across the room, via the telephone switch, at a higher rate than the incoming and outgoing lines to avoid internal congestion within the switching system. Outgoing paper tape buffers, when not empty, were transmitted on their associated lines.
Crude though this seems, all the basics of a store and forward network had been fully automated. Incoming buffers, message header parsing, determination of outgoing route from destination address, message queuing for output on the proper route, and forwarding were all present in Plan 55. Plan 55 centers were distributed and networked, with redundant routes. Messages were often forwarded multiple times, with the original header and content preserved. So all the basics of networking were present.
All this required building-sized installations, consumed vast amounts of paper tape (every forwarded message was punched twice per node, and the tape went directly from the reader to a trash can), and was slow. But all the crucial ideas were there.
Plan 55 message format lives on in NOAA weather forecasts and some FEMA emergency message systems. Messages that begin "ZCZC" and end "NNNN" are in Plan 55 format. The letters and numbers between "ZCZC" and the next CR are the address; everything else up to the NNNN is the message text.
IP packet fragmentation was a mistake (Score:1)
the IP mechanism of IP packet fragmentation and
reassembly was a big mistake. In other words, you
don't want to break up packets. The original idea was that the MTU (minimum transmission unit) was
unknown, so that you should be able to have
routers which break a single IP packet into smaller fragments and have someone reassemble them elsewhere in the network. It added loads of hair and performance penalties, and really
broke the whole "end to end" model. Here in the future, I believe that people now think you can use end-to-end MTU discovery, and just keep notching the packet size down until you get reliable transmission. Anyone know if IP packet fragmentation is still part of IPV6?
Re:IP packet fragmentation was a mistake (Score:1)
of an IP packet, only that you should optimize it
at 'runtime' when you're actually talking to
another host end to end, rather than tossing something
arbitrary into the network and letting all the routers along the way pick up the mess. Start with
something standard, say 512 bytes maximum or something, and if you get greedy, try upping it, if you can't get through, try making it smaller.
Analysis isn't invention (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yes, his work on queueing theory is important, at least to people concerned with math and network analytics. And if anybody gives a damn about analyzing the performance of a packet-switched network mathematically, then it'll fall back onto Kleinrock's work.
But what passes for packet switching nowadays -- "The Internet" -- is most certainly not the result of careful analysis! It works by brute force. It's inefficient. It is badly monitored and mostly unmetered. So Kleinrock's analysis, which might be useful, is ignored.
Anybody with half a sense of the math wouldn't dare try to cram constant-rate streaming traffic, like telephony or broadcasting, onto the IP Internet. It's inefficient as hell. Economy of scale is what makes it seem to work, compared to economy of specialization (what ATM would excel at). But that's the Internet's current ruling ethos -- if it seems to work, do it, even to excess.
The original inventors -- Davies, Baran, and the BBN crew -- were not doing mathematical optimization. They were hacking (in the good sense) something together and observing what worked. Kleinrock is like a guy who invents a great network management system that never gets turned on, but who still claims credit for the network that his system might have been able to manage.
And puh-LEEZ, don't give Vint any of the credit. He's made a great living as the Chauncy Gardiner of the Internet.
Re:Analysis isn't invention (Score:1)
When you do your most basic "hacking together", you stand on the shoulders of many very much academicians, even if do not realise it fully. Nothing works just by "brute force" - you use multitude of concepts, from basic like search or hashing or graphs, to advanced once, such as queuing theory and network analysis, carefully designed, analysed and implemented, and only then you add your "observing what worked". Do not dismiss theory, it is jsut as important as implementation..
Re:Analysis isn't invention (Score:2)
Re:Analysis isn't invention (Score:1)
Re:Analysis isn't invention (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Analysis isn't invention (Score:1)
internet does not work on brute force -- it would
not make it very far that way. it works because
lots of people invested lots of time into thinking about it.
Re:Analysis isn't invention (Score:2)
Kleinrock's analysis...is ignored
Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Analysis has been a major part of networking from the very beginning, in no small part due to Kleinrock's influence.
Kleinrock is like a guy who invents a great network...that never gets turned on, but who still claims credit
Again, wrong. UCLA was one of the first three nodes on the ARPANET These issues have been discussed in great detail on the computer history mailing list. The general consensus as I recall it is that all of Kleinrock, Baran, and Larry Roberts made major contributions. None can really claim to be the sole inventor. All can claim that without them, the ARPANET wouldn't have happened.
Interview with Paul Baran (Score:1)
Corruption of language (Score:1)
You could even have detailed diagrams and equations for weight/displacement, etc. But the trick is in details like figuring out how to make the engine powerful enough achieve lift off but light enough to achieve lift off.
Re:Corruption of language (Score:1)
None of these guys invented packet switching ... (Score:1)
The fact is, NOBODY, NOT EVEN KLEINROCK, DAVIES, AND BAREN, IN SUM OR SEPARATELY, INVENTED PACKET SWITCHING. You see, the idea did not work for almost 25 years after it was "supposedly" invented by Kleinrock et. al. It wasn't until Van Jacobsen and Karels applied optimal queuing theory and tight feedback control to exponential backoff and "slow start" to TCP feedback congestion control that packet switching was worth a damn.
I was a user of the Arpanet from 1980-1984, and the dang thing almost never worked. It would take a whole minute just to open a pair of TCP connections in order to download a single RFC. The Arpanet was badly, badly broken. Kleinrock was not responsible for making the Internet scale. What Kleinrock invented was a broke piece of crud in 1985, 1986, etc.
Do we attribute the invention of the computer to Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley (hint : given in order of true technical contribution) because these guys invented the transistor ?? No, those guys only invented a "piece" of the modern computer - it was up to others to finish the puzzle. And it's similarly unfair to try to attribute the invention of packet switching to any ONE person, since it took 25 years to get all of the bugs out.
But X.25 was working . . . (Score:1)
Re:Not the first Time (Score:1)
Does this make me a troll? I've never been one yet.
Moderator IQ test (Score:2, Insightful)
Whichever idiot moderated it up deserves eternal ridicule.
Re:Moderator IQ test (Score:1)
When I used to moderate, I certainly didn't give a rats arse what it made other moderators look like. The only moderators that even mightslashdot editors. [slashdot.org]
Re:Moderator IQ test (Score:1)
I think there'd be some amusement to be had from
I always got the impression the IP-banning business was more to do with how many negative mods you recieved in a short space of time...
Re:Moderator IQ test (Score:2)
I always got the impression the IP-banning business was more to do with how many negative mods you recieved in a short space of time...
Yeah, it has nothing to do with AC posts, I was just quite fond of my 42 karma so posting as AC and planning to continue that way. Anyway, out of my five posts -including this- to this thread, two has already been -rightfully I must add- modded down as offtopic. I expect these three will soon follow. That is plenty of down moderation in a short amount of time but I don't know how much it really takes to be banned.
Re:ok once and for all..... (Score:2)
Seriously, it's typical for English to remove significant parts of words provided that the pronounciation doesn't change much. Also it's typical not to consider whether the new word is similar to already existing words. English speakers are very simple-minded in this regard.
If somebody, say, in Poland came to the market with a product called "Hot Dogs" (in Polish), they would go out of business immediately. And nobody would give a respectable site a name so closely reminding "bloated log".