Response to RFC 597: Host status

J.D. Burchfiel

doi:10.17487/RFC0603

[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

This is a modified version of the Internet RFC suitable for machine-translating. Original version is available here: RFC603

UNKNOWN
Updated by: 613

Network Working Group                                  J.D. Burchfiel
RFC # 603                                              BBN-TENEX
NIC # 21022                                            31 December, 1973

Response to RFC # 597: Host Status

I have several questions about the November 1973 ARPANET
topographical map:

1. AMES is 4-connected, i.e. four network connections will go down if the IMP fails. Is there some aspiration that IMPs should be no more than three connected?

2. The seven IMPS in the Washington area are arranged into a loop. This guarantees that local communication can take place even if one connection fails, and is probably a worthwhile preparation for area routing. On the other hand, for example, a break between MIT-IPC and MIT-MAC will require them to communicate through a 12-hop path through Washington. This can be remedied by a short (inexpensive) connection between Harvard and Lincoln Labs. Is there a plan to pull the Boston area, the San Francisco area, and the Los Angeles area into loops like the Washington area?

[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ] [ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with ] [ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 10/99 ]

Burchfiel [Page 1]

Translate documents to 日本語, svenska, Nederlands, Deutsch, français, русский, italiano, español, Tiếng Việt, polski, português, 中文, українська, català, norsk, فارسی, suomi, Bahasa Indonesia, العربية, čeština, 한국어, Bahasa Melayu, magyar, română, српски and other languages.