On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:35:56 -0400 > From: John C Klensin <klensin@xxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <60CBF25E851513F3E437727D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > | As others have pointed out, the first international connections > | were to the UK and Norway, not The Netherlands. > > The UK and NO links were really arpanet links, not internet, and > were subject to all of the arpanet restrictions. For example, I am > reasonably sure that mail from janet users to arpanet users did not > travel over the arpnet's UK link. I suspect the same was true of Norway. Initially, yes, but TCP/IP was introduced in 1983. We certainly had connections between SATNET, UNINETT in Norway and networks on the other side of the Atlantic around that time. (I worked at NDRE and later at NTARE). The initial connection to Norway was at NORSAR, the Norwegian Seismic Array, to measure all those frequent and strong earthquakes we have in Norway --- not ;=) > > So, while it was technically true that there were those international > arpanet links, they (like all the private intra-company links, whether > they used IP or something else) don't really count as internet links. The claim was that the first international [Internet] link was created by the Netherlands and happened in 1988, that's certainly not true. It's at least 5 years too late, and it wasn't the first anyway. > > I would certainly count the NL link (really, EU link, that happened to > terminate in Amsterdam) as the first international true internet link > (in that it connected other networks, not just an end system or two). > See above. > But wrt ccTLDs you're right, NL certainly wasn't first - excluding US > and UK (which were registered before registrations opened...) I think > the first was IL (and it would have been 1985 - before the 1986 reg > date cited for NL). Ignoring UK, NL might well have been the first > European TLD registered though. > Of course UK should have been GB as per the ISO code, but Postel granted them an exception. Lots of good history to tell here, but this is probably the wrong list :-) > | I really wish that we could somehow restore the spirit of a > | collaborative effort, one with many cooperating contributors to > > It would be good, but it is too big for that now, and includes all those > people whose primary interest is publicity (including politicians of > course) - for whom outlandish claims and self promotion are normal. > > kre > > > Ole