See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234792183
`
`The Past and Future History of the Internet
`
`Article in Communications of the ACM · February 1997
`
`Impact Factor: 3.62 · DOI: 10.1145/253671.253741
`
`CITATIONS
`125
`
`READS
`44
`
`9 authors, including:
`
`Vinton G. Cerf
`Google Inc.
`
`L. Kleinrock
`University of California, Los Angeles
`
`121 PUBLICATIONS 2,872 CITATIONS
`
`228 PUBLICATIONS 19,484 CITATIONS
`
`SEE PROFILE
`
`SEE PROFILE
`
`Lawrence Roberts
`
`31 PUBLICATIONS 2,530 CITATIONS
`
`SEE PROFILE
`
`Stephen Wolff
`Internet2
`
`20 PUBLICATIONS 367 CITATIONS
`
`SEE PROFILE
`
`All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
`letting you access and read them immediately.
`
`Available from: Stephen Wolff
`Retrieved on: 21 June 2016
`
`Ex. 1014
`YMax Corporation
`Page 1 of 8
`
`

`
`Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn,
`Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel,
`Lawrence G. Roberts, Stephen S. Wolff
`
`The Past and Future History
`
`t h e s c i e n c e o f f u t u r e t e c h n o l o g y
`
`of theINTERNET
`T HE INTERNET HAS REVOLUTIONIZED THE COMPUTER AND COMMUNICA-
`
`tions world like nothing before. The telegraph, telephone, radio, and
`computer have all set the stage for the Internet’s unprecedented inte-
`gration of capabilities. The Internet is at once a worldwide broadcasting
`capability, a mechanism for information dissemination, and a medium for
`collaboration and interaction between individuals and their computers with-
`out regard for geographic location.
`
`The Internet also represents one of the most suc-
`cessful examples of sustained investment and commit-
`ment to research and development in information
`infrastructure. Beginning with early research in packet
`switching, the government, industry, and academia
`have been partners in evolving and deploying this
`exciting new
`technology. Today,
`terms
`like
`“leiner@mcc.com” and “http://www.acm.org” trip
`lightly off the tongue of random people on the street.1
`The Internet today is a widespread information
`infrastructure, the initial prototype of what is often
`called the National (or Global or Galactic) Information
`Infrastructure. Its history is complex and involves
`
`many aspects—technological, organizational, and
`community. And its influence reaches not only to the
`technical fields of computer communications but
`throughout society as we move toward increasing use
`of online tools to accomplish electronic commerce,
`information acquisition, and community operations.2
`
`Origins
`The first recorded description of the social interactions
`that could be enabled through networking was a series
`of memos written August 1962 by J.C.R. Licklider of
`MIT, discussing his “Galactic Network” concept [6].
`Licklider envisioned a globally interconnected set of
`
`1
`
`Perhaps this is an exaggeration due to the lead author’s residence in Silicon Valley.
`
`2For a more detailed version of this article, see http://www.isoc.org/internet-history.
`
`102
`
`February 1997/Vol. 40, No. 2 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
`
`Ex. 1014
`YMax Corporation
`Page 2 of 8
`
`

`
`computers through which everyone could quickly
`access data and programs from any site. In spirit, the
`concept was much like the Internet today. While at
`DARPA,3 he convinced the people who would be his
`successors there—Ivan Sutherland, Bob Taylor, and
`MIT researcher Lawrence G. Roberts—of the impor-
`tance of this networking concept.
`Leonard Kleinrock of MIT published the first paper
`on packet switching theory in July 1961 [5]. Klein-
`rock convinced Roberts of the theoretical feasibility of
`communications using packets rather than circuits—a
`major step toward computer networking. The other
`key step was to make the computers talk to each other.
`Exploring this idea in 1965 while working with
`Thomas Merrill, Roberts connected the TX-2 com-
`puter in Massachusetts to the Q-32 in California
`through a low-speed dial-up telephone line [8], creat-
`ing the first-ever (though small) wide-area computer
`network. The result of this experiment: confirmation
`that time-sharing computers could work well
`together, running programs and retrieving data as nec-
`essary on remote machines, but that the circuit-
`switched telephone system was totally inadequate for
`the job. Thus confirmed was Kleinrock’s conviction of
`the need for packet switching.
`In late 1966, Roberts went to DARPA to develop
`the computer network concept and quickly put
`together a plan for the ARPANET, publishing it in
`1967 [7]. Bolt, Beranek and Newman Corp. (BBN),
`under Frank Heart’s leadership, developed the
`ARPANET switches (called IMPs), with Robert Kahn
`responsible for overall system design. Howard Frank
`and his team at Network Analysis Corp. worked with
`Roberts to optimize the network topology and eco-
`nomics. Due to Kleinrock’s early development of
`packet switching theory and his focus on analysis,
`design, and measurement, his Network Measurement
`Center at UCLA was selected as the first node on the
`ARPANET. All this came together September 1969
`when BBN installed the first switch at UCLA and the
`first host computer was connected. In December 1970,
`the Network Working Group (NWG) under Steve
`Crocker finished the initial ARPANET host-to-host
`protocol, called the Network Control Protocol (NCP).
`As the ARPANET sites completed implementing
`NCP during 1971–1972, network users finally could
`begin to develop applications.
`In October 1972, a large, successful demonstration
`of the ARPANET took place—the first public demon-
`
`3The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) changed its name to Defense
`Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 1971, back to ARPA in 1993, and
`back to DARPA in 1996. We refer throughout to DARPA, the current name.
`
`stration of this new network technology. Also in 1972,
`electronic mail, the initial “hot” application, was intro-
`duced. In March, Ray Tomlinson of BBN wrote the
`basic email message send-and-read software, motivated
`by ARPANET developers’ need for an easy coordina-
`tion mechanism. From there, email took off as the most
`popular network application and as a harbinger of the
`kind of people-to-people communication activity we
`see on the World-Wide Web today.
`
`Initial Internetting Concepts
`The original ARPANET grew into the Internet based
`on the idea that there would be multiple independent
`networks of rather arbitrary design. Beginning with
`the ARPANET as the pioneering packet-switching
`network, it soon grew to include packet satellite net-
`works, ground-based packet radio networks, and other
`networks. Today’s Internet embodies a key underlying
`technical idea: open-architecture networking. In this
`approach, the choice of any individual network tech-
`nology is not dictated by a particular network archi-
`tecture but can be selected freely by a provider and
`made to interwork with the other networks through a
`meta-level “internetworking architecture.” Each net-
`work can be designed to fit a specific environment and
`user requirements.
`The idea of open-architecture networking—intro-
`duced by Kahn in late 1972 shortly after arriving at
`DARPA—was guided by four critical ground rules:
`
`The Internet was conceived
`in the era of time-sharing,
`but has survived into the era of
`personal computers, client/server
`and peer-to-peer computing,
`and the network computer.
`
`• Each distinct network had to stand on its own, and
`no internal changes could be required of any such
`network before being connected to the Internet.
`• Communications would be on a best-effort basis. If
`a packet didn’t make it to the final destination, it
`would quickly be retransmitted from the source.
`• Black boxes (later called gateways and routers)
`would be used to connect the networks. No infor-
`
`COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM February 1997/Vol. 40, No. 2
`
`103
`
`Ex. 1014
`YMax Corporation
`Page 3 of 8
`
`

`
`mation would be retained by the gateways about
`individual flows of packets passing through them,
`keeping them simple and avoiding complicated
`adaptation and recovery from various failure modes.
`• There would be no global control at the operations
`level.
`
`Kahn first began work on a communications-ori-
`ented set of operating system principles while at BBN
`[4]. After joining DARPA and initiating the Internet
`program, he asked Vinton Cerf (then at Stanford Uni-
`versity) to work with him on the detailed design of the
`protocol. Cerf had been deeply involved in the original
`NCP design and development and was already knowl-
`edgeable about interfacing to existing operating sys-
`tems. So, armed with Kahn’s architectural approach to
`communications and with Cerf’s NCP experience,
`these two teamed up to spell out the details of what
`became the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
`
`The most pressing question for the
`future of the Internet is not how
`the technology will change, but
`how the process of change and
`evolution itself will be managed.
`
`Protocol (TCP/IP).
`The original Cerf/Kahn paper [1] on the Internet
`described a protocol, called TCP, providing all the
`Internet’s transport and forwarding services. Kahn had
`intended that TCP would support a range of transport
`services—from the totally reliable sequenced delivery
`of data (virtual circuit model) to a datagram service in
`which the application made direct use of the underly-
`ing network service, a process that could imply occa-
`sional lost, corrupted, or reordered packets.
`However, the initial effort to implement TCP
`resulted in a version allowing only virtual circuits.
`This model worked fine for file transfer and remote
`login applications, but some of the early work on
`advanced network applications, particularly packet
`voice in the 1970s, made clear that in some cases
`packet losses should not be corrected by TCP but left
`to the application to deal with. This insight led to a
`reorganization of the original TCP into two proto-
`cols—the simple IP providing only for addressing and
`
`104
`
`February 1997/Vol. 40, No. 2 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
`
`forwarding of individual packets and the separate TCP
`concerned with such service features as flow control
`and recovery from lost packets. For applications that
`did not want the services of TCP, an alternative called
`the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) was added to pro-
`vide direct access to the basic IP service.
`In addition to email, file transfer, and remote login,
`other applications were proposed in the early days of the
`Internet, including packet-based voice communication
`(the precursor of Internet telephony), various models of
`file and disk sharing, and early “worm” programs illus-
`trating the concept of agents (and viruses). The Internet
`was not designed for just one application but as a gen-
`eral infrastructure on which new applications could be
`conceived, exemplified later by the emergence of the
`Web. The general-purpose nature of the service pro-
`vided by TCP and IP makes this possible.
`
`Proving the Ideas
`DARPA funded three efforts to implement TCP: Stan-
`ford (Cerf), BBN (Tomlinson), and University College
`London (Peter Kirstein). The Stanford team produced a
`detailed specification, yielding within about a year three
`independent interoperable implementations of TCP.
`This was the beginning of long-term experimenta-
`tion and development of Internet concepts and tech-
`nology—along with the constituent networking
`technologies [3]. Each expansion has involved new
`challenges. For example, the early implementations of
`TCP were done for large time-sharing systems. When
`desktop computers first appeared, it was thought by
`some that TCP was too big and complex to run on a
`personal computer. But David Clark and his research
`group at MIT produced an implementation first for
`the Xerox Alto (the early personal workstation devel-
`oped at Xerox PARC) and then for the IBM PC, show-
`ing that workstations, as well as large time-sharing
`systems, could be part of the Internet.
`Widespread development of local-area networks
`(LANs), PCs, and workstations in the 1980s allowed
`the nascent Internet to flourish. Ethernet technology
`(developed by Bob Metcalfe at Xerox PARC in 1973)
`is now probably the dominant network technology in
`the Internet and PCs and workstations the dominant
`computers. The increasing scale of the Internet also
`resulted in several new approaches. For example, the
`Domain Name System was invented (by Paul Mock-
`apetris, then at USC’s Information Sciences Institute)
`to provide a scalable mechanism for resolving hierar-
`chical host names (e.g., www.acm.org) into Internet
`addresses. The requirement for scalable routing
`
`Ex. 1014
`YMax Corporation
`Page 4 of 8
`
`

`
`approaches led to a hierarchical model of routing, with
`an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) used inside each
`region of the Internet and an Exterior Gateway Proto-
`col (EGP) used to tie the regions together. New
`approaches for address aggregation, particularly class-
`less interdomain routing (CIDR), were recently intro-
`duced to control the size of router tables.
`Another major challenge was how to propagate the
`changes to the software, particularly host software.
`DARPA supported the University of California at
`Berkeley to investigate modifications to the Unix oper-
`ating system, including incorporating TCP/IP devel-
`oped at BBN. Although Berkeley later rewrote the
`BBN code to more efficiently fit into the Unix system
`and kernel, incorporation of TCP/IP into the Unix
`BSD system proved a critical element in dispersing the
`protocols to the research community. Much of the
`computer science community began using Unix BSD
`in their day-to-day computing environments. Looking
`back, the strategy of incorporating Internet protocols
`into a supported operating system for the research
`community was a key element in the Internet’s suc-
`cessful widespread adoption.
`TCP/IP was adopted as a defense standard in 1980,
`enabling the defense community to begin sharing the
`DARPA Internet technology base and leading directly
`to the partitioning of the military and non-military
`communities. By 1983, ARPANET was being used by
`a significant number of defense R&D and operational
`organizations. The transition of ARPANET from NCP
`to TCP/IP in 1983 permitted it to be split into a MIL-
`NET supporting operational requirements and an
`ARPANET supporting research needs.
`Thus, by 1985, the Internet was established as a
`technology supporting a broad community of
`researchers and developers and was beginning to be
`used by other communities for daily computer com-
`munications. Email was being used broadly across sev-
`eral communities, often with different systems,
`demonstrating the utility of broad-based electronic
`communications between people.
`
`Transition to Widespread Infrastructure
`At the same time Internet technology was being exper-
`imentally validated and widely used by a subset of
`computer science researchers, other networks and net-
`working technologies were being pursued. The useful-
`ness
`of
`computer
`networking—especially
`email—demonstrated by DARPA and Department of
`Defense contractors on the ARPANET was not lost on
`other communities and disciplines, so that by the mid-
`
`1970s computer networks began springing up wher-
`ever funding was found for the purpose, including the
`Department of Energy’s MFENET and HEPNET,
`NASA’s SPAN, the computer science community’s
`CSNET, the academic community’s BITNET, and
`USENET based on Unix UUCP protocols. Commer-
`cial networking technologies were being pursued as
`well, including IBM’s SNA, Xerox’s XNS, and Digital
`Equipment Corp.’s DECNET.
`It remained for the British JANET (1984) and U.S.
`NSFNET (1985) programs to explicitly announce their
`intent to serve the entire higher education community,
`regardless of discipline. In 1985, Dennis Jennings came
`from Ireland for a year to lead the National Science
`Foundation’s NSFNET program. He helped NSF make
`a critical decision—that TCP/IP would be mandatory
`for NSFNET. And when Stephen Wolff took over the
`NSFNET program in 1986, he recognized the need for
`a wide-area networking infrastructure to support the
`general academic and research community, as well as
`the need to develop a strategy for establishing such
`infrastructure to ultimately be independent of direct
`federal funding.
`Policies and strategies were adopted to achieve that
`end. So while federal agencies shared the cost of common
`infrastructure, such as trans-oceanic circuits, NSF
`encouraged regional networks of the NSFNET to seek
`commercial, non-academic customers. And NSF
`enforced an acceptable-use policy, prohibiting Backbone
`use for purposes “not in support of research and educa-
`tion.” The predictable (and intended) result of encour-
`aging commercial network traffic at the local and
`regional levels, while denying its access to national-scale
`transport, was the emergence and growth of “private,”
`competitive, long-haul networks, such as PSI, UUNET,
`ANS CO+RE, and (later) others.
`NSF’s privatization policy culminated in April
`1995 with the defunding of the NSFNET Backbone.
`The funds thereby recovered were (competitively)
`redistributed to regional networks to buy national-
`scale Internet connectivity from the now numerous,
`private, long-haul networks. The Backbone had made
`the transition from a network built from routers out of
`the research community (David Mills’s “Fuzzball”
`routers) to commercial equipment. In its eight-and-a-
`half-year lifespan, the Backbone had grown from six
`nodes with 56Kbps links to 21 nodes with multiple
`45Mbps. It also saw the Internet grow to more than
`50,000 networks on all seven continents and outer
`space (with 29,000 networks in the U.S.).
`Such was the weight of the NSFNET program’s
`
`COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM February 1997/Vol. 40, No. 2
`
`105
`
`Ex. 1014
`YMax Corporation
`Page 5 of 8
`
`

`
`ecumenism and funding ($200 million, 1986–1995)
`and the quality of the protocols themselves that by
`1990 when the ARPANET itself was finally decom-
`missioned, TCP/IP had supplanted or marginalized
`most other wide-area computer network protocols
`worldwide, and IP was on its way to becoming
`the bearer service for the Global Information
`Infrastructure.
`
`Documentation’s Key Role
`A key to the rapid growth of the Internet has been free
`and open access to the basic documents, especially the
`specifications of the protocols. The beginnings of the
`ARPANET and the Internet in the university research
`community promoted the academic tradition of open
`publication of ideas and results. However, the normal
`cycle of traditional academic publication was too for-
`mal and too slow for the dynamic exchange of ideas
`essential to creating networks. In 1969, a key step was
`taken by S. Crocker (then at UCLA) in establishing the
`request for comments (or RFC) series of notes
`[2].These memos were intended to be an informal fast
`means of distribution for sharing ideas among network
`researchers. At first the RFCs were printed on paper
`and distributed via postal mail. As the File Transfer
`Protocol (FTP) came into use, the RFCs were prepared
`as online files and accessed via FTP. Now, the RFCs are
`easily accessed via the Web at dozens of sites around
`the world. SRI, in its role as Network Information
`Center, maintained the online directories. Jon Postel
`acted as RFC editor and as manager of centralized
`administration of required protocol number assign-
`ments—roles he continues to this day.
`The effect of the RFCs was to create a positive feed-
`back loop, so ideas or proposals presented in one RFC
`would trigger other RFCs. When consensus (or a least
`a consistent set of ideas) would come together, a spec-
`ification document would be prepared; such specifica-
`tions would then be used as the basis
`for
`implementations by the various research teams. The
`RFCs are now viewed as the “documents of record” in
`the Internet engineering and standards community
`and will continue to be critical to future net evolution
`while furthering the net’s initial role of sharing infor-
`mation about its own design and operations.
`
`Formation of a Broad Community
`The Internet is as much a collection of communities as
`a collection of technologies, and its success is largely
`attributable to satisfying basic community needs as
`well as utilizing the community effectively to push the
`
`106
`
`February 1997/Vol. 40, No. 2 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
`
`infrastructure forward. Community spirit has a long
`history, beginning with the early ARPANET, whose
`early researchers worked as a close-knit community
`(the ARPANET Working Group) to accomplish the
`initial demonstrations of packet switching technology.
`Likewise, the packet satellite, packet radio, and other
`DARPA computer science research programs were
`multi-contractor collaborative activities that used any
`available mechanisms to coordinate their efforts, start-
`ing with email, and adding file sharing, remote access,
`and eventually Web capabilities.
`In the late 1970s, recognizing that the growth of
`the Internet was accompanied by the growth of the
`interested research community and therefore an
`increased need for coordination mechanisms, Cerf,
`then manager of the DARPA Internet program,
`formed several coordination bodies, including the
`Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB), chaired
`by Clark. The ICCB was an invitation-only body
`assisting Cerf in managing the burgeoning Internet
`activity.
`In 1983, when Barry Leiner took over management
`of the Internet program at DARPA, he and Clark rec-
`ognized that the continuing growth of the Internet
`community demanded a restructuring of the coordina-
`tion mechanisms.
`The ICCB was disbanded and replaced by a struc-
`ture of Task Forces, each focused on a particular area of
`the technology (e.g., routers and end-to-end proto-
`cols). The Internet Activities Board (IAB) included the
`chairs of the Task Forces.
`After some changing membership on the IAB, Phill
`Gross became chair of a revitalized Internet Engineer-
`ing Task Force (IETF)—at the time only one of the
`IAB Task Forces. The growth of the Internet in the
`mid-1980s resulted in vastly increased attendance at
`IETF meetings, and Gross had to create substructure
`to the IETF in the form of working groups.
`The expanded community also meant that DARPA
`was no longer the only major player when it came to
`funding the Internet. In addition to NSFNET and the
`various U.S. and international government-funded
`activities, interest in the commercial sector was begin-
`ning to grow. And in 1985, when both Kahn and
`Leiner left DARPA, there was a significant decrease in
`DARPA's Internet activity. The IAB was left without
`a primary sponsor and so increasingly assumed the
`mantle of leadership.
`Continued growth resulted in even further sub-
`structure within both the IAB and IETF, while growth
`in the commercial sector brought increased concern
`
`Ex. 1014
`YMax Corporation
`Page 6 of 8
`
`

`
`“In the future, computers will shop for us. You will log into
`
`a virtual supermarket and order food, they will send it to you
`the next day. School will change too. You could have school
`at home and fax your homework in, but you won’t make any
`friends that way. We will have to make friends on the
`Internet. Libraries will still be there, but not many people will
`
`visit them anymore and they will be knocked down. ”
`
`—Nicholas Phibbs, age 12
`Surrey, UK
`
`regarding the standards process. The twin motivations
`of making the process open and fair and the need to
`win Internet community support eventually led in
`1991 to formation of the Internet Society, under the
`auspices of Kahn’s Corporation for National Research
`Initiatives (CNRI) and the leadership of Cerf, who was
`then with CNRI.
`In 1992, yet another reorganization took place. The
`IAB was reorganized and renamed the Internet Archi-
`tecture Board. A more peer-like relationship was
`defined between the new IAB and Internet Engineer-
`ing Steering Group (IESG), with the IETF and IESG
`taking greater responsibility for approving standards.
`Ultimately, a cooperative and mutually supportive
`relationship was formed among the IAB, IETF, and the
`Internet Society.
`The Web’s recent development and widespread
`deployment brings a new community, as many of the
`people now working on the Web didn’t view them-
`selves primarily as network researchers and developers.
`Therefore, in 1995, a new coordination organization
`was formed—the World-Wide Web Consortium
`(W3C), initially led from MIT’s Laboratory for Com-
`puter Science by Al Vezza and Tim Berners-Lee, the
`Web’s inventor. Today, the W3C is responsible for
`evolving the various protocols and standards associated
`with the Web.
`
`Commercialization
`Commercialization of the Internet has involved not
`only development of competitive, private network ser-
`vices, but commercial products implementing Internet
`
`technology. In the early 1980s, dozens of vendors were
`incorporating TCP/IP into their products because they
`saw buyers for that approach to networking. Unfortu-
`nately, they lacked real information about how the
`technology was supposed to work and how their cus-
`tomers planned to use the approach.
`In 1985, recognizing the lack of available informa-
`tion and appropriate training, Daniel Lynch in cooper-
`ation with the IAB arranged a three-day workshop for
`all vendors to learn how TCP/IP worked and what it
`still could not do well. Speakers were mostly from the
`DARPA research community where they had devel-
`oped these protocols and used them in day-to-day
`work. Approximately 250 vendor representatives heard
`50 inventors and experimenters.
`The first Interop trade show, September 1988,
`demonstrated interoperability between vendor prod-
`ucts and was attended by 50 companies and 5,000
`engineers from potential customer organizations.
`Interop has grown immensely since then, and today is
`an annual event in seven locations around the world for
`an audience of more than 250,000 who want to learn
`which products seamlessly work with which other
`products and about the latest technology.
`In the last few years, we have seen a new phase of
`commercialization. Originally, commercial efforts
`mainly comprised vendors providing the basic net-
`working products and service providers offering
`connectivity and basic Internet services. The Inter-
`net has now become almost a “commodity” service,
`and much of the latest attention has been on the use
`of this global information infrastructure as support
`
`COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM February 1997/Vol. 40, No. 2
`
`107
`
`Ex. 1014
`YMax Corporation
`Page 7 of 8
`
`

`
`for other commercial services.
`This activity has been accelerated by the widespread
`and rapid adoption of browsers and Web technology,
`giving users easy access to information linked around
`the globe. Products are available for finding, sending,
`and retrieving that information, and many of the latest
`developments seek to provide increasingly sophisti-
`cated information services on top of basic Internet data
`communications.
`
`History of the Future
`The Internet was conceived in the era of time-sharing,
`but has survived into the era of personal computers,
`client/server and peer-to-peer computing, and the net-
`work computer. It was designed before LANs existed,
`but has evolved to accommodate LANs as well as more
`recent ATM and frame-switched services. It was envi-
`sioned as supporting a range of functions—from file
`sharing and remote login to resource sharing and col-
`laboration, and has spawned email and more recently
`the Web. But most important, it started as the cre-
`ation of a small band of dedicated researchers and has
`grown to be a commercial success with billions of dol-
`lars invested annually.
`One should not conclude that the Internet is com-
`plete. The Internet is a creature of the computer, not
`the traditional networks of the telephone or television
`industries. It will—indeed it must—continue chang-
`ing at the speed of the computer industry to remain rel-
`evant. It is now changing to provide such new services
`as real-time transport, supporting, for example, audio
`and video streams. The availability of pervasive net-
`working—that is, the Internet itself—along with pow-
`erful affordable computing and communications in
`portable form (e.g., laptop computers, two-way pagers,
`PDAs, cellular phones) makes possible a new paradigm
`of nomadic computing and communications.
`This evolution will bring us new applications—
`Internet telephone and, further out, Internet televi-
`sion. It will also permit more sophisticated forms of
`pricing and cost recovery, a perhaps painful require-
`ment in this commercial world. It is changing to
`accommodate yet another generation of underlying
`network technologies with different characteristics and
`requirements—from broadband residential access to
`satellites. New modes of access and new forms of ser-
`vice will spawn new applications that in turn will
`drive further evolution of the net itself.
`The most pressing question for the future of the
`Internet is not how the technology will change, but
`how the process of change and evolution itself will be
`
`108
`
`February 1997/Vol. 40, No. 2 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
`
`managed. Internet architecture has always been driven
`by a core group of designers, but the form of that group
`has changed as the number of interested outside parties
`has grown. With the success of the Internet has come a
`proliferation of stakeholders—now with an economic as
`well as an intellectual investment in the network. We
`see, for example, in the debates over control of the
`domain namespace and the form of the next-generation
`IP addresses a struggle to find the next social structure
`to guide the Internet. However, that structure is more
`difficult to define, given the large number of stake-
`holders. The industry also struggles to find the eco-
`nomic rationale for the huge investment needed for
`future growth to, for example, upgrade residential
`access to more suitable technology. If the Internet
`stumbles, it will not be because we lack technology,
`vision, or motivation but because we cannot set a direc-
`tion and march collectively into the future.
`C
`
`References
`1. Cerf, V.G., and Kahn, R.E. A protocol for packet network interconnection.
`IEEE Trans. Comm. Tech 5 (May 1974), 627–641.
`2. Crocker, S. Host software. RFC 001. Apr. 7, 1969.
`3. Kahn, R. guest ed., Uncapher, K., van Trees, H., assoc. guest eds. Special
`Issue on Packet Communication Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE 66, 11
`(Nov. 1978).
`4. Kahn., R. Communications Principles for Operating Systems. Internal
`BBN memorandum, Jan. 1972.
`5. Kleinrock, L. Information Flow in Large Communication Nets. RLE
`Quarterly Progress Report, July 1961.
`6. Licklider, J.C.R., and Clark, W. On-Line Man-Computer Communica-
`tion. Aug. 1962.
`7. Roberts, L. Multiple Computer Networks and Intercomputer Communi-
`cation. In Proceedings of the ACM Gatlinburg Conference (Oct. 1967).
`8. Roberts, L., and Merrill, T. Toward a Cooperative Network of Time-
`Shared Computers. In Proceedings of the Fall AFIPS Conference (Oct. 1966).
`
`Barry M. Leiner (leiner@mcc.com) is Vice President of
`Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corp.
`Vinton G. Cerf (vcerf@mci.net) is Senior Vice President,
`Internet Architecture and Engineering, at MCI Communications
`Corp.
`David D. Clark (ddc@lcs.mit.edu) is a senior research scientist
`at the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science.
`Robert E. Kahn (rkahn@cnri.reston.va.us) is President of the
`Corporation for National Research Initiatives.
`Leonard Kleinrock (lk@cs.ucla.edu) is a professor of computer
`science at the University of California, Los Angeles.
`Daniel C. Lynch (dlynch@cybercash.com) is Chairman of
`CyberCash Inc. and founder of the Interop networking trade show
`and conferences.
`Jon Postel (postel@isi.edu) is the Director of the Computer
`Networks Division of the Information Sciences Institute of the
`University of Southern California.
`Lawrence G. Roberts (lroberts@atmsys.com) is the President
`of ATM Systems Division of Connectware Inc.
`Stephen S. Wolff (swolff@cisco.com) is with Cisco Systems,
`Inc.
`
`Copyright held by the authors
`
`Ex. 1014
`YMax Corporation
`Page 8 of 8