DOCSLIB.ORG

'Rough Consensus and Running Code' and the Internet-OSI

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'Rough Consensus and Running Code' and the Internet-OSI ‘Rough Consensus and Running Code’ and the Internet-OSI Standards War Andrew L. Russell The Johns Hopkins University Internet historians recognize the technical achievements but often overlook the bureaucratic innovations of Internet pioneers. The phrase, “We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code,” was coined by David Clark in 1992. This article explains how the phrase captured the technical and political values of Internet engineers during a crucial phase in the Internet’s growth. Historians interested in conflict and consensus overlooked, however, is the extent to which the in technological systems stand much to gain success of the Internet depended on organiza- from examining standardization—the process- tional innovations directed by Cerf, Kahn, and es of creating and implementing technical stan- other Internet pioneers such as Jon Postel and dards. Standardization requires sophisticated David Clark. Starting in the 1970s, researchers technical work as well as organizational and in groups such as the Internet Configuration strategic coordination. In the late 1970s, it was Control Board (ICCB), the Internet Activities reasonable to assume that formal standards-set- Board (IAB), and the Internet Engineering Task ting institutions, such as the International Force (IETF) coordinated Internet standards Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the and architectural development. These institu- International Organization for Standardization tions deserve special attention not only for (ISO), would lead the coordination and stan- their technical achievements, but also because dardization of information services, much as they fostered a voluntary international con- they did for international telecommunications. sensus during a period of intense technical Beginning in 1977, ISO oversaw a large, ambi- and institutional change in computing and tious attempt to define a network architecture telecommunications. called Open Systems Interconnection (OSI). These organizational innovations emerged Between the late 1970s and the early 1990s, the as responses to external competition from ISO OSI seven-layer model became enshrined in as well as to internal strains in the processes of computer science curricula and endorsed by Internet standardization. As the Internet grew governments around the world. Competing rapidly in the late 1980s and 1990s, groups such networks—including experimental TCP/IP net- as the IAB and IETF started to become victims works—were expected to fade away once OSI of their own success and struggled to preserve protocols were standardized and implemented their founding principles. If we understand by users and manufacturers. “politics” to mean relations of control between By the mid-1990s, however, ISO’s slow stan- individuals and groups, the political values of dardization process had failed to keep up with Internet architects and engineers were especial- alternative, informal mechanisms that were ly evident as these people built political struc- more effective at coordinating rapid techno- tures—standards bodies—from scratch.3 logical change.1 These informal mechanisms— Standardization is technically and organiza- the focus of this article—provided vital tionally complex as well as deeply value-laden.4 institutional support for the eventual success Leaders and participants in the IAB and IETF and global deployment of the Internet archi- articulated institutional rules, cultural tradi- tecture and Internet standards such as TCP/IP. tions, and versions of their own history as they In most existing histories of the Internet, responded to challenges from within and with- leaders such as Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn out. A memorable phrase encapsulates the pre- receive plaudits for their technical work, espe- vailing technical and organizational values of cially for their roles in the creation of the core those who were involved in the Internet stan- Internet standards TCP and IP.2 What is often dards process from the mid-1970s to the pres- 48 IEEE Annals of the History of Computing Published by the IEEE Computer Society 1058-6180/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE ent: “We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. Arpanet (PRnet was developed in Hawaii), but We believe in: rough consensus and running faced a problem of trying to connect what he code.”5 This article explains how this phrase— later called “two radically different networks” which became a motto for Internet standardi- with different network capacities, protocols, zation—articulated a common set of beliefs and routing systems.10 ARPA’s concurrent about the work culture and engineering style of development of satellite packet switching in Internet standardization. SATnet further compounded this problem, In 1999, law professor Lawrence Lessig leading Kahn to conclude that network inter- declared that “rough consensus and running connection could not be achieved on an ad code” had broad significance as “a manifesto hoc, network-to-network level. that will define our generation.”6 An examina- To overcome this problem, Kahn in 1973 tion of the origins of this credo—coined by rekindled an effective partnership with Vint David Clark in 1992—illustrates some techni- Cerf—the two had worked together on the first cal, rhetorical, and philosophical differences nodes of the Arpanet in 1969—and proposed a between the Internet standards process and the new way to transport data packets. This mech- competing ISO process. Most participants in the anism was a simple technical protocol (trans- Internet standards process today consider mission control protocol, or TCP) and system “rough consensus and running code” to be a of gateways (now known as routers) to transfer succinct and accurate description of the data packets between the dissimilar networks.11 Internet standards process.7 For historians, Kahn’s ultimate goal was to make the network “rough consensus and running code” stands as transparent, “a seamless whole,” invisible to a revealing depiction of the international poli- the user who would be more interested in tics of computer internetworking in the last accessing information over the network instead quarter of the 20th century, as well as a point of of the operation of the network itself.12 This entry for investigating why contemporaries basic principle—interconnection via standard described the competition between the Internet protocols—is the Internet’s fundamental struc- and OSI as “the Internet religious war.”8 ture and defining feature.13 In 1978, Cerf and two other DARPA-funded network researchers, Internet architecture: TCP/IP and the Danny Cohen and Jon Postel, split the func- end-to-end argument tions of TCP into two protocols, TCP and the In 1996, the Internet Architecture Board Internet Protocol (IP), that worked together in (IAB) published RFC 1958, “Architectural the now-familiar combination of TCP/IP.14 Principles of the Internet,” to record aspects of Network transparency and application architectural approach practiced in the Internet autonomy are the two key elements of a design community over the previous 25 years. They philosophy first articulated in 1981 by David wrote: “in very general terms, the community Clark, Jerome Saltzer, and David Reed, three believes that the goal is connectivity, the tool veterans of ARPA-sponsored networking exper- is the Internet Protocol, and the intelligence is iments at the Massachusetts Institute of end to end rather than hidden in the net- Technology’s (MIT’s) Laboratory for Computer work.”9 This section provides a brief overview Science. Their paper, “End-To-End Arguments of the distinctive aspects of Internet architec- in System Design,” was written to explore a ture by exploring these three principles: inter- design principle that they claimed had “been connection, the Internet Protocol, and the used for many years with[out] explicit recog- “end-to-end” argument. nition.”15 An outgrowth of substantial experi- After initial networking experiments with ence with TCP/IP networking, the end-to-end the Arpanet beginning in 1969, the Advanced principle held that the Internet’s complex Projects Research Agency (ARPA) continued to functions should be performed at the end- explore networking concepts for satellite and points, leaving only the (relatively) simple radio. The problem of how to enable commu- tasks of interconnection and data transport to nication between technically disparate systems the network. The authors commended the also had implications for mobile military com- technical merits and simplicity of the end-to- munications. In the early 1970s, ARPA devel- end model by concluding, “end-to-end argu- oped a packet radio network (known as PRnet) ments are a kind of ‘Occam’s razor’ when it based on the same packet-switching technolo- comes to choosing the functions to be provid- gy being tested in the Arpanet. Robert Kahn, as ed in a communications subsystem.”16 program manager for this project, identified The end-to-end design principle thus calls the need to connect packet radio networks to for a simple standard for data transfer that large computers in the continental US via the allows new innovations to be added at the July–September 2006 49 ‘Rough Consensus and Running Code’ edges and on top of the “stupid network.”17 sion formally to expand the involvement of the From this distributed design follows decentral- research community in making decisions about ized control, both over the functionality of the the network: network and over the content of the network traffic. Marjory
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet and Isi: Four Decades of Innovation
    THE INTERNET AND ISI: FOUR DECADES OF INNOVATION ROD BECKSTROM President and Chief Executive Officer Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 40th Anniversary of USC Information Sciences Institute 26 April 2012 As prepared for delivery It’s an honor to be here today to mark the 40th anniversary of the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute. Thank you to Herb Schorr for inviting me to speak with you today and participate in the day’s events. When he steps down he will leave some very large shoes to fill. When I received Herb’s invitation, I seized upon it as an opportunity to come before you to express the sincere gratitude that my colleagues and I feel for the work and support of ISI. When I think of ICANN and its development, and all we have accomplished, I never forget that we stand upon the shoulders of giants, many of whom contributed to my remarks today. In fact, I owe a special debt of gratitude to Bob Kahn, who has been a mentor to me. I am honored that he took the time to walk through a number of details in the history I have been asked to relate. The organizers asked me to speak about the history of ISI and ICANN. They also invited me to talk a bit about the future of the Internet. In my role as President and CEO of ICANN, I have many speaking engagements that are forward looking. They are opportunities to talk about ICANN’s work and how it will usher in the next phase in the history of the global, unified Internet that many of you have helped to create.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet
    The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 02:49:54 UTC Contents Articles History of the Internet 1 Barry Appelman 26 Paul Baran 28 Vint Cerf 33 Danny Cohen (engineer) 41 David D. Clark 44 Steve Crocker 45 Donald Davies 47 Douglas Engelbart 49 Charles M. Herzfeld 56 Internet Engineering Task Force 58 Bob Kahn 61 Peter T. Kirstein 65 Leonard Kleinrock 66 John Klensin 70 J. C. R. Licklider 71 Jon Postel 77 Louis Pouzin 80 Lawrence Roberts (scientist) 81 John Romkey 84 Ivan Sutherland 85 Robert Taylor (computer scientist) 89 Ray Tomlinson 92 Oleg Vishnepolsky 94 Phil Zimmermann 96 References Article Sources and Contributors 99 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 102 Article Licenses License 103 History of the Internet 1 History of the Internet The history of the Internet began with the development of electronic computers in the 1950s. This began with point-to-point communication between mainframe computers and terminals, expanded to point-to-point connections between computers and then early research into packet switching. Packet switched networks such as ARPANET, Mark I at NPL in the UK, CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks. In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • 829 DARPA November 1982 PACKET SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY
    Network Working Group V. Cerf Request for Comments: 829 DARPA November 1982 PACKET SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY REFERENCE SOURCES Vinton G. Cerf Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ABSTRACT This paper describes briefly the packet satellite technology developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and several other participating organizations in the U.K. and Norway and provides a biblography of relevant papers for researchers interested in experimental and operational experience with this dynamic satellite-sharing technique. INTRODUCTION Packet Satellite technology was an outgrowth of early work in packet switching on multiaccess radio channels carried out at the University of Hawaii with the support of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The primary difference between the earlier packet-switched ARPANET [1, 2] and the ALOHA system developed at the University of Hawaii [3] was the concept of multiple transmitters dynamically sharing a common and directly-accessible radio channel. In the ARPANET, sources of traffic inserted packets of data into the network through packet switches called Interface Message Processors (IMPs). The IMPs used high speed point-to-point full-duplex telephone circuits [4] on a store-and-forward basis. All packet traffic for a given telephone circuit was queued, if necessary, in the IMP and transmitted as soon as the packet reached the head of the queue. On such full duplex circuits there is exactly one transmitter and one receiver in each direction. The ALOHA system, on the other hand, assigned a common transmit channel frequency to ALL radio terminals. A computer at the University of Hawaii received packet bursts from the remote terminals which shared the "multi-access" channel.
    [Show full text]
  • (Jake) Feinler
    Oral History of Elizabeth (Jake) Feinler Interviewed by: Marc Weber Recorded: September 10, 2009 Mountain View, California Editor’s note: Material in [square brackets] has been added by Jake Feinler CHM Reference number: X5378.2009 © 2009 Computer History Museum Oral History of Elizabeth (Jake) Feinler Marc Weber: I’m Marc Weber from the Computer History Museum, and I’m here today, September 10th, 2009, with “Jake” Elizabeth Feinler, who was the director of the Network Information Systems Center at SRI. [This group provided the Network Information Center (NIC) for the Arpanet and the Defense Data Network (DDN), a project for which she was the principal investigator from 1973 until 1991. Earlier she was a member of Douglas Engelbart’s Augmentation Research Center (ARC) at SRI [which [housed] the second computer on the Arpanet. It was on this computer that the NIC resided initially.] Jake is also a volunteer here at the museum. [She has donated an extensive collection of early Internet papers to the museum, and has been working on organizing this collection for some time.] Thank you for joining us. Elizabeth (Jake) Feinler: My pleasure. Weber: I really just wanted to start with where did you grow up and what got you interested in technical things or things related to this. Feinler: [Originally I hoped to pursue a career in advertising design, but could not afford the freshman room and board away from home, so I began attending West Liberty State College (now West Liberty University) close to my home. West Liberty was very small then, and the] art department [wasn’t very good.
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet Development Process: Observations and Reflections
    The Internet Development Process: Observations and Reflections Pål Spilling University Graduate Center (UNIK), Kjeller, Norway [email protected] Abstract. Based on the experience of being part of the team that developed the internet, the author will look back and provide a history of the Norwegian participation. The author will attempt to answer a number of questions such as why was The Norwegian Defense Research Establishment (FFI) invited to participate in the development process, what did Norway contribute to in the project, and what did Norway benefit from its participation? Keywords: ARPANET, DARPA, Ethernet, Internet, PRNET. 1 A Short Historical Résumé The development of the internet went through two main phases. The first one laid the foundation for packet switching in a single network called ARPANET. The main idea behind the development of ARPANET was resource sharing [1]. At that time computers, software, and communication lines were very expensive, meaning that these resources had to be shared among as many users as possible. The development started at the end of 1968. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) funded and directed it in a national project. It became operational in 1970; in a few years, it spanned the U.S. from west to east with one arm westward to Hawaii and one arm eastward to Kjeller, Norway, and then onwards to London. The next phase, the “internet project,” started in the latter half of 1974 [2]. The purpose of the project was to develop technologies to interconnect networks based on different communication principles, enabling end-to-end communications between computers connected to different networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Securing the Border Gateway Protocol by Stephen T
    September 2003 Volume 6, Number 3 A Quarterly Technical Publication for From The Editor Internet and Intranet Professionals In This Issue The task of adding security to Internet protocols and applications is a large and complex one. From a user’s point of view, the security- enhanced version of any given component should behave just like the From the Editor .......................1 old version, just be “better and more secure.” In some cases this is simple. Many of us now use a Secure Shell Protocol (SSH) client in place of Telnet, and shop online using the secure version of HTTP. But Securing BGP: S-BGP...............2 there is still work to be done to ensure that all of our protocols and associated applications provide security. In this issue we will look at Securing BGP: soBGP ............15 routing, specifically the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) and efforts that are underway to provide security for this critical component of the Internet infrastructure. As is often the case with emerging Internet Virus Trends ..........................23 technologies, there exists more than one proposed solution for securing BGP. Two solutions, S-BGP and soBGP, are described by Steve Kent and Russ White, respectively. IPv6 Behind the Wall .............34 The Internet gets attacked by various forms of viruses and worms with Call for Papers .......................40 some regularity. Some of these attacks have been quite sophisticated and have caused a great deal of nuisance in recent months. The effects following the Sobig.F virus are still very much being felt as I write this. Fragments ..............................41 Tom Chen gives us an overview of the trends surrounding viruses and worms.
    [Show full text]
  • Steve Crocker Resume
    STEPHEN D. CROCKER 5110 Edgemoor Lane Bethesda, MD 20814 Mobile: (301) 526-4569 [email protected] SUMMARY Over 50 years of experience in the industrial, academic and government environments involving a wide range of computing and network technologies with specialization in networking and security. Strong background in formal methods, including PhD thesis creating a new logic for reasoning about the correct operation of machine language programs and the development of a program verification system to demonstrate the method. Managed numerous innovative research and development efforts benefiting private industry and government interests. Extensive involvement in the development of the Internet, including development of the initial suite of protocols for the Arpanet, the creation of the RFC series of documents, and multiple involvements in the IETF, ISOC and ICANN organizations. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE BBQ Group 2018-present Founder, leader Development of framework and model for expressing possible, desired and existing registration data directory services policies governing collection, labeling and responses to authorized requests. Shinkuro, Inc., Bethesda, MD 2002-present Co-founder, Chief Executive Officer Development of information-sharing, collaboration and related tools for peer-to-peer cooperative work and inter-platform information management. Coordination of deployment of the DNS security protocol, DNSSEC, throughout the Internet. Longitude Systems, Inc., Chantilly, VA 1999-2001 Co-founder, Chief Executive Officer Development and sale of infrastructure tools for ISPs. Overall direction and management of the company including P&L responsibility, funding, marketing, and technical direction. Executive DSL, LLC, Bethesda, MD 1999-2001 Founder, Chief Executive Officer Creation and operation of DSL-based ISP using Covad and Bell Atlantic DSL circuits.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Internet Pioneers
    List of Internet pioneers Instead of a single "inventor", the Internet was developed by many people over many years. The following are some Internet pioneers who contributed to its early development. These include early theoretical foundations, specifying original protocols, and expansion beyond a research tool to wide deployment. The pioneers Contents Claude Shannon The pioneers Claude Shannon Claude Shannon (1916–2001) called the "father of modern information Vannevar Bush theory", published "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" in J. C. R. Licklider 1948. His paper gave a formal way of studying communication channels. It established fundamental limits on the efficiency of Paul Baran communication over noisy channels, and presented the challenge of Donald Davies finding families of codes to achieve capacity.[1] Charles M. Herzfeld Bob Taylor Vannevar Bush Larry Roberts Leonard Kleinrock Vannevar Bush (1890–1974) helped to establish a partnership between Bob Kahn U.S. military, university research, and independent think tanks. He was Douglas Engelbart appointed Chairman of the National Defense Research Committee in Elizabeth Feinler 1940 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, appointed Director of the Louis Pouzin Office of Scientific Research and Development in 1941, and from 1946 John Klensin to 1947, he served as chairman of the Joint Research and Development Vint Cerf Board. Out of this would come DARPA, which in turn would lead to the ARPANET Project.[2] His July 1945 Atlantic Monthly article "As We Yogen Dalal May Think" proposed Memex, a theoretical proto-hypertext computer Peter Kirstein system in which an individual compresses and stores all of their books, Steve Crocker records, and communications, which is then mechanized so that it may Jon Postel [3] be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility.
    [Show full text]
  • ETS Reference Manual for the Lantronix ETS Family of Multiport Device Servers the Information in This Guide May Change Without Notice
    ETS Reference Manual For the Lantronix ETS Family of Multiport Device Servers The information in this guide may change without notice. The manufacturer assumes no responsibility for any errors which may appear in this guide. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group. Ethernet is a trademark of XEROX Corporation. DEC and LAT are trademarks of Digital Equipment Corporation. Centronics is a registered trademark of Centronics Data Computer Corp. PostScript is a trademark of Adobe Systems, Inc. NetWare is a trademark of Novell Corp. AppleTalk, Chooser, and Macintosh are trademarks of Apple Computer Corp. LaserJet and Bitronics are trademarks of Hewlett Packard. Windows is a trademark of Microsoft. Copyright 2000, Lantronix. All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be transmitted or reproduced in any form or by any means without the written permission of Lantronix. Printed in the United States of America. The revision date for this manual is October 23, 2000. Part Number: 900-065 Rev. A WARNING This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class A digital device pursuant to Part 15 of FCC Rules. These limits are designed to provide reasonable protection against such interference when operating in a commercial environment. This equipment generates, uses, and can radiate radio frequency energy, and if not installed and used in accordance with this guide, may cause harmful interference to radio communications. Operation of this equipment in a residential area is likely to cause interference in which case the user, at his or her own expense, will be required to take whatever measures may be required to correct the interference.
    [Show full text]