Re- TCP broadcast storm

[Bob Braden]

*>
*> Bob:
*>
*> The Morris Worm did not bring down the Internet. The Internet was very
*> efficient and effective in delivering the Worm attack to numerous end
*> hosts, many of which became too busy to do useful work, and were re-attacked
*> when local efforts were made to clear them. However, neither the Internet
*> routers, nor the lines were in anyway attacked or out of service due to the
*> Morris Worm.
*>
*> --jon.
*>

Jon,

Thanks for correcting me. I know that well, of course. I was using
"Internet" in the colloquial sense, to mean the service seen by users.
As an Internet user, I was unable to carry on my usual business until
all the worm-caused host knots were untied, perhaps a day of lost
work. Do broadcast storms caused by faulty host software fall into the
same grey area?

Bob

[Phil Karn]

This confusion between the Internet itself and the hosts attached to
it continues. Last week, during the Houston IETF, the New York Times
carried an article titled "Traffic Jams on the Information Highway"
(or words to that effect, this is from memory). The article was
clearly about the extreme loads that certain popular *server machines*
on the net have been experiencing, but the title metaphor obviously
gives the (mis)impression that the NSF backbone communication links are
overloaded. As far as I have been able to observe, they are not.

Phil

[Bob Braden]

*> From ka...@qualcomm.com Wed Nov 10 21:17:57 1993
*> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 21:17:02 -0800
*> From: ka...@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
*> To: pos...@ISI.EDU
*> Cc: bra...@ISI.EDU, ietf-...@ISI.EDU, TCP-...@ucsd.edu,
*> MGau...@iit.nrc.ca
*> In-Reply-To: Jon Postel's message of Mon, 8 Nov 1993 08:43:10 -0800 <1993110816...@zephyr.isi.edu>
*> Subject: Re- TCP broadcast storm
*> Content-Length: 553
*> X-Lines: 11
*>
*> This confusion between the Internet itself and the hosts attached to
*> it continues. Last week, during the Houston IETF, the New York Times
*> carried an article titled "Traffic Jams on the Information Highway"
*> (or words to that effect, this is from memory). The article was
*> clearly about the extreme loads that certain popular *server machines*
*> on the net have been experiencing, but the title metaphor obviously
*> gives the (mis)impression that the NSF backbone communication links are
*> overloaded. As far as I have been able to observe, they are not.
*>
*> Phil
*>
*>

Phil,

Yeah, that was noted by a number of people. Dave Sincoskie (you know
him, I suspect!) twigged John Markoff personally about it, and John
said essentially that yes, he understood the distinction, but as a user
he did not care. The main point of the article was the need to charge
for services, and I guess he thought the issue of host/net services
was secondary.

Bob