1 What Is the Internet (And What Makes It Work)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Interplanetary Internet a New Way of Thinking About Deep Space Communications"
”The InterPlaNetary Internet a new way of thinking about deep space communications" Scott Burleigh Ed Greenberg Adrian J. Hooke InterPlanetary Network and Information Systems Directorate DESCANSO Seminar, JPL, Pasadena 19 July, 2001 May 1974 In the beginning…. 1970 1980 1990 2000 NASA Telemetry Standardization “Packet” Spacecraft Telemetry and Telecommand NASA/ESA Working Group Basic Space/Ground Communications Standards for Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) Space Missions } Extension of International Standards for Space More Complex Station Space Missions } Extension of the Terrestrial Internet Evolution of space standards into Space Evolution of the terrestrial Internet Model of Space/Ground Communications User Applications A1 A2 An A1 A2 An Constrained Weight, power, Applications volume: Your • CPU Father’s • Storage Space Ground Internet Terrestrial • Reliability Onboard Ground • Cost to qualify Constrained Networks NetworkingHighly NetworksInternet Resource Constrained Environment • Delay Telemetry • Noise • Asymmetry Radio Constrained Radio Links Links Links Telecommand Current Standardization Options Space Constrained Task Applications Force IPNRG Constrained Networking Constrained Links The Consultative Committee for Member Agencies Space Data Systems (CCSDS) is an Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI)/Italy. British National Space Centre (BNSC)/United Kingdom. international voluntary consensus Canadian Space Agency (CSA)/Canada. organization of space agencies and Central Research Institute of Machine Building industrial associates interested in (TsNIIMash)/Russian Federation. Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)/France. mutually developing standard data Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR)/Germany. handling techniques to support space European Space Agency (ESA)/Europe. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)/Brazil. research, including space science and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA HQ)/USA. -
The Internet Development Process Stockholm October 2010
The Internet development Process Stockholm October 2010 Pål Spilling What I would talk about? • The main Norwegian contributions • Competitions between alternatives • Did Norway benefit from its participation? • Some observations and reflections • Conclusion A historical timeline 1981/82 TCP/IP accepted standard for US 1993 Web browser Mosaic Defence became available 1980 TCP/IP fully 2000 developed 1975 Start of the Internet Project; 1974 Preliminary specificaons of TCP 1977 First 3 – network Demonstration Mid 1973 ARPANET covers US, Hawaii, FFI Kjeller, and UCL London 1950 1955 ‐1960, End 1968 Ideas of resource Start of the ARPANET sharing networks project Norway and UK on ARPANET 1973 London o SATNET o Kjeller Norwegian Contributions • SATNET development – Simulations – Performance measurements • Internet performance measurements • Packet speech experiments over the Internet • Improved PRNET protocol architecture Competitions between alternatives • X.25 (ITU) • ISO standards (committee work) • DECNET (proprietary) • IBM (proprietary) • TCP/IP demonstrated its usefullness i 1977 accepted as a standard for US defence Norwegian benefits • Enabled me to create a small Norwegian internet • Got access to UNIX, with TCP/IP and user services integrated • Gave research scientists early exposure to internet and its services • Early curriculum in computer communications; Oslo University Observations and reflections • Norwegian Arpanet Committee; dissolved itself due to lack of interest • IP address space too small for todays use • TCP split in -
The Internet and "Telecommunications Services," Universal Service Mechanisms, Access Charges, and Other Flotsam of the Regulatory System
The Internet and "Telecommunications Services," Universal Service Mechanisms, Access Charges, and Other Flotsam of the Regulatory System Jonathan Weinbergt In troduction .............................................................................................. 2 11 I. B ackground ...................................................................................... 2 14 A . InternetA rchitecture................................................................ 215 B . Telephone Regulation .............................................................. 217 1. The Federal-State Divide ................................................. 218 2. Comp uter II ...................................................................... 220 3. The 1996 Telecommunications Act ................................. 222 II. The Internet and Universal Service Mechanisms ............................ 225 A. The Report to Congress on Universal Service ......................... 225 B. The Breakdown of the Telecommunications/InformationService D istinction................................................................................ 227 C. Why the Telecommunications/InformationService D istinction Doesn't Work ........................................................ 232 D. Universal Service Redux .......................................................... 234 III. The Internet and Access Charges .................................................... 239 A . The Status Q uo ......................................................................... 239 B . Beyond the -
Telecommunication Provider 5Linx Accessline Communications ACN Communications Services, Inc
Telecommunication Provider 5Linx Accessline Communications ACN Communications Services, Inc. AmeriVision Communications, Inc. dba Affinity 4 and Lifeline Communications Airnex Communications, Inc. Allvoi Americatel Corporation ANPI Business, LLC fka Zone Telecom, LLC AT Conference, Inc. AT&T Corp. BA Telecom, Inc. BBG Communications, Inc. Billing Concepts, Inc. (Refered us to AT&T as provider) Birch Telcom of the West Inc. dba Birch Communications BullsEye Telecom Cbeyond Communications LLC Century Link Communications Cincinnati Bell Any Distance Consumer Cellular Convergia Cox California Telecom, LLC Cricket Communications, Inc./AT&T Mobility Earthlink Business, LLC ‐ Earthlink, LLC ‐ Earthlink, Inc. Enhanced Communications Network INC. E. / Everything Wireless First Communications Flash Wireless Globalstar USA LLC Granite Telecommunications LLC GreatCall, Inc. dba Jitterbug IBM Global Network Systems IDT Domestic Telecom inContact, Inc. Intellicall Operator Services Intelafone LLC Intermedia Voice Services I‐Wireless LDMI Telecommunications, Inc. Level 3 Communications LightYear Network Solutions Lingo, Inc Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership Matrix Telecom, Inc. Mitel Net Solutions Page 1 of 2 Telecommunication Provider MCI Communications Services, Inc. Mpower Communications Corp. Network Innovations New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC NTT Docomo USA Nextel of California nexVortex, Inc. Nobel Tel, LLC OnStar LLC Ooma, Inc. Opex Communications, Inc. Pacific Bell Telephone Company PAETEC Communications Payment One Corp Phone.com, Inc. Pioneer Telephone PNG Telecommunications, Inc. Primus Telecommunications Ready Wireless SBC Long Distance, LLC Securus Technologies, Inc. Sonic Telecom, LLC Sprint Communications Company, L.P. Sprint Nextel/Spectrum Sprint Telephony PCS, LP Talk America, Inc. Telscape Communications, Inc. TING Globalinx Enterprise, Inc. fka Tri‐M Communications, Inc. T‐Mobile West LLC Metro PCS California, LLC Total Call International, Inc. -
MCI Communications Services, Inc. D/B/A Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No
MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2 (Enterprise Current Services) Effective August 8, 2016 Fourth Revision MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2 (Enterprise Current Services) This Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2 (Enterprise Current Services) sets forth the rates, terms and conditions of certain recent offerings available to enterprise customers (i.e., non-mass markets) of Verizon Business which are not otherwise described in the Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 3 (Enterprise Non-Current Services), or described in the tariff on file with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Where applicable, the retail services described in this document were previously set forth in the Ohio Interexchange Services Tariff No. 2 of MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services. For ease of reference, where applicable the prior section numbers contained in the prior Tariff No. 2 has been retained. Also, the term “tariff” as used in this document, refers to this Catalog Schedule, unless context indicates otherwise. Any questions regarding this Catalog Schedule, please call 1-866-665-7586. ____________________________________ MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2 (Enterprise Current Services) Effective August 8, 2016 CHANGE SHEET This sheet details the most recent revisions made to this Catalog Schedule. Any questions regarding this Catalog Schedule, please call 1-866-665-7586. Revisions to Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2, Effective 8/8/16 Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.1 and 5 Effective on or after August 8, 2016, MCI Communications Services, Inc. -
EFFICIENT ROUTING PROTOCOL in DELAY TOLERANT NETWORKS (Dtns)
Degree Programme in Communication Engineering MORTEZA KARIMZADEH EFFICIENT ROUTING PROTOCOL IN DELAY TOLERANT NETWORKS (DTNs) MASTER OF SCIENCE THESIS Examiners: Prof. Yevgeni Koucheryavy Dr. Dmitri Moltchanov Examiners and topic approved in the Computing and Electrical Engineering Faculty Council meeting on 6th April, 2011 II Abstract TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Master’s Degree Programme in Information Technology, Department of Communication Engineering Karimzadeh, Morteza: Efficient Routing Protocol in Delay Tolerant Networks (DTNs) Master of Science Thesis, 47 pages May 2011 Major: Communication Engineering Examiners: Professor Yevgeni Koucheryavy and Dr. Dmitri Moltchanov Keywords: Delay Tolerant Networks, Opportunistic networking, Forwarding mechanism, Routing protocol, Epidemic routing, Network coding Modern Internet protocols demonstrate inefficient performance in those networks where the connectivity between end nodes has intermittent property due to dynamic topology or resource constraints. Network environments where the nodes are characterized by opportunistic connectivity are referred to as Delay Tolerant Networks (DTNs). Highly usable in numerous practical applications such as low-density mobile ad hoc networks, command/response military networks and wireless sensor networks, DTNs have been one of the growing topics of interest characterized by significant amount of research efforts invested in this area over the past decade. Routing is one of the major components significantly affecting the overall performance of DTN networks in terms of resource consumption, data delivery and latency. Over the past few years a number of routing protocols have been proposed. The focus of this thesis is on description, classification and comparison of these protocols. We discuss the state-of- the-art routing schemes and methods in opportunistic networks and classify them into two main deterministic and stochastic routing categories. -
David D. Clark
Designs for an Internet David D. Clark Dra Version 3.0 of Jan 1, 2017 David D. Clark Designs for an Internet Status is version of the book is a pre-release intended to get feedback and comments from members of the network research community and other interested readers. Readers should assume that the book will receive substantial revision. e chapters on economics, management and meeting the needs of society are preliminary, and comments are particularly solicited on these chapters. Suggestions as to how to improve the descriptions of the various architectures I have discussed are particularly solicited, as are suggestions about additional citations to relevant material. For those with a technical background, note that the appendix contains a further review of relevant architectural work, beyond what is in Chapter 5. I am particularly interesting in learning which parts of the book non-technical readers nd hard to follow. Revision history Version 1.1 rst pre-release May 9 2016. Version 2.0 October 2016. Addition of appendix with further review of related work. Addition of a ”Chapter zero”, which provides an introduction to the Internet for non-technical readers. Substantial revision to several chapters. Version 3.0 Jan 2017 Addition of discussion of Active Nets Still missing–discussion of SDN in management chapter. ii 178 David D. Clark Designs for an Internet A note on the cover e picture I used on the cover is not strictly “architecture”. It is a picture of the Memorial to the Mur- dered Jews of Europe, in Berlin, which I photographed in 2006. -
JPL Contributes to Chernobyl Analysis
Laboratory Pasadena, California Vol. 28, No. 16 August 7, 1998 Jet Propulsion Universe Lab to develop interplanetary Internet ‘Father of the Internet’ Dr. Vinton Cerf named JPL Distinguished Visiting Scientist from the Internet community, other NASA cen- By MARK WHALEN ters, universities and the private sector to Internet pioneer Dr. Vinton Cerf has been explore ways to merge the work of the Internet named a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at JPL and space communications communities. to help develop an interplanetary Internet. The first job of the team will develop a new Cerf will serve a two-year post that will be interplanetary Internet architecture that can in addition to his regular duties as senior vice cope with the long transmission delays and president of Internet Architecture and noisy, intermittent data links inherent today in Engineering at MCI Communications Corp. deep space communications. The traditional “It took 20 years for the Internet to take off framework of TCP/IP will have to be radically here on Earth,” said Cerf, widely known as the adapted for interplanetary communications. “Father of the Internet” for co-developing the Other challenges include the construction of TCP/IP protocol, the computer language that interplanetary gateways and perhaps methods gave birth to the communications medium. “It’s to provide for local caching of content—much my guess that in the next 20 years, we will want in the same manner as many World Wide Web to interact with systems and people visiting the sites are mirrored in different geographic areas moon, Mars and possibly other celestial bod- to optimize performance. -
Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History
Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History kc claffy and David D. Clark [email protected] and [email protected] September 7, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Related technical concepts 4 2.1 What does “enhanced services” mean? . 4 2.2 Using enhanced services to mitigate congestion . 5 2.3 Quality of Service (QoS) vs. Quality of Experience (QoE) . 6 2.4 Limiting the use of enhanced services via regulation . 7 3 Early history of enhanced services: technology and operations (1980s) 7 3.1 Early 1980s: Initial specification of Type-of-Service in the Internet Protocol suite . 7 3.2 Mid 1980s: Reactive use of service differentation to mitigate NSFNET congestion . 10 3.3 Late 1980s: TCP protocol algorithmic support for dampening congestion . 10 4 Formalizing support for enhanced services across ISPs (1990s) 11 4.1 Proposed short-term solution: formalize use of IP Precedence field . 11 4.2 Proposed long-term solution: standardizing support for enhanced services . 12 4.3 Standardization of enhanced service in the IETF . 13 4.4 Revealing moments: the greater obstacle is economics not technology . 15 5 Non-technical barriers to enhanced services on the Internet (2000s) 15 5.1Early2000s:afuneralwakeforQoS............................ 15 5.2 Mid 2000s: Working with industry to gain insight . 16 5.3 Late 2000s: QoS becomes a public policy issue . 17 6 Evolving interconnection structure and implications for enhanced services (2010s) 20 6.1 Expansion of network interconnection scale and scope . 20 6.2 Emergence of private IP-based platforms to support enhanced services . 22 6.3 Advancing our empirical understanding of performance impairments . -
Features of the Internet History the Norwegian Contribution to the Development PAAL SPILLING and YNGVAR LUNDH
Features of the Internet history The Norwegian contribution to the development PAAL SPILLING AND YNGVAR LUNDH This article provides a short historical and personal view on the development of packet-switching, computer communications and Internet technology, from its inception around 1969 until the full- fledged Internet became operational in 1983. In the early 1990s, the internet backbone at that time, the National Science Foundation network – NSFNET, was opened up for commercial purposes. At that time there were already several operators providing commercial services outside the internet. This presentation is based on the authors’ participation during parts of the development and on literature Paal Spilling is studies. This provides a setting in which the Norwegian participation and contribution may be better professor at the understood. Department of informatics, Univ. of Oslo and University 1 Introduction Defense (DOD). It is uncertain when DoD really Graduate Center The concept of computer networking started in the standardized on the entire protocol suite built around at Kjeller early 1960s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technol- TCP/IP, since for several years they also followed the ogy (MIT) with the vision of an “On-line community ISO standards track. of people”. Computers should facilitate communica- tions between people and be a support for human The development of the Internet, as we know it today, decision processes. In 1961 an MIT PhD thesis by went through three phases. The first one was the Leonard Kleinrock introduced some of the earliest research and development phase, sponsored and theoretical results on queuing networks. Around the supervised by ARPA. Research groups that actively same time a series of Rand Corporation papers, contributed to the development process and many mainly authored by Paul Baran, sketched a hypotheti- who explored its potential for resource sharing were cal system for communication while under attack that permitted to connect to and use the network. -
To Link Telephones with Cable TV
TOP OF THE WEEK t said the impact of the CRT's action would that cable should pay for the use of pro- they can get away with it -for originating be minimal -at least as far as United graming it imports. or terminating the long- distance traffic." Video is concerned. Although WGN -TV Carolyn Chambers, an executive vice He said MCI now pays the local telephone would be dropped by a few systems, he president at Liberty Communications, companies $200 million a year to dis- said, most cable operators faced with drop- Eugene, Ore., said Liberty is looking at tribute its long- distance calls. ping signals would dump signals imported paying $4.50 per subscriber per year in McGowan said MCI will launch a major from nearby cities and towns rather than royalty payments for a distant signal on a public relations campaign bound to stimu- any of the superstations. $10 basic tier. Liberty is taking a long hard late interest in cable television. He said The executives at Turner Broadcasting look, she said, at the signals it intends to MCI will demonstrate the potential of ca- System, owner of superstation wTBS(TV) keep. While 1.5% of its revenue now ble systems as a means by which Atlanta, were not as sanguine as Bliss. TBS goes to pay for distant signals, under the customers can reach the company's net- head Ted Turner called the CRT action a new rates the figure would jump to 7 %. work without having to go through "the "devastating decision." Unless the CRT uneconomic networks of the monopoly decision is modified or overturned, said held by local phone companies." TBS Vice President Terry McGuirk, wTBs MCI hopes At present, he said MCI customers "are may lose 100,000 to 200,000 viewers subjected to unnecessary expense and has- across the country. -
MCI Communications Services, Inc. D/B/A Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No
MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 3 (Enterprise Non-Current Services) Effective October 1, 2017 Eighth Revision MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 3 (Enterprise Non-Current Services) This Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 3 (Enterprise Non-Current Services) sets forth the rates, terms and conditions of certain non-current offerings for enterprise customers (i.e., non-mass markets) of Verizon Business which are not otherwise described in the Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 2 (Enterprise Current Services). Where applicable, the retail services described in this document were previously set forth in the retail portions of Ohio Interexchange Services Tariff Nos. 1 and 2 of MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services. For ease of reference, where applicable the prior section numbers contained in the prior Tariff Nos. 1 and 2 have been retained. Also, the term “tariff” as used in this document, refers to this Catalog Schedule, unless context indicates otherwise. Any questions regarding this Catalog Schedule, please call 1-866-665-7586. ____________________________________ MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services Ohio Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 3 (Enterprise Non-Current Services) Effective October 1, 2017 CHANGE SHEET This sheet details the most recent revisions made to this Catalog Schedule. Any questions regarding this Catalog Schedule, please call 1-866-665-7586. Revisions to Interexchange Services Catalog Schedule No. 3, Effective 10/1/17 SUBSECTION USING PREVIOUS MCI COMMUNICATIONS PUCO TARIFF NO.