|
The story I've heard from Vint Cerf about the TOS field is that it
was put in for AUTODIN-II, a defense network that had multiple
service levels to accommodate the requirements of interactive apps
vs. bulk data apps. Jon Postel wrote RFC 795 - Service mappings on
the mapping of TOS bits to service levels for ARPANET, PRNET,
SATNET, and AUTODIN-II. AUTODIN-II never graduated from beta to
production status. The Autodin story is told at
, http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/autodin.html RB On 9/13/2010 1:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Why not simply ask Len Klienrock the answer to this question. Umm, OK idea, wrong person: Len wasn't around the early Internet development. I actually vaguely recall discussions about the TOS field (including how many bits to give to each sub-field), but I can't recall very much of the content of the discussions. If anyone cares, some of the IENs which document the early meetings might say more. Frankly, I doubt we understood the issues that well back then. Remember, this was the same time period when we put in the 'Source Quench' ICMP message... Noel _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Richard Bennett |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf