Talk:Network Control Protocol (ARPANET)

message: If you look at the NCP as described in the Protocol Handbook, it is obvious that it runs on the same host as the rest of the protocol stack. And, incidentally, I saw many examples of that (including Unix implementations). While it is true that NCP (and the whole ARPANET) was limited to 256 hosts originally, it was expanded in the late 70s to 4,096 hosts (ref: BBN 1822). So I'm deleting that whole weird sentence based on the BSDTalk interview. As a practical matter, TCP/IP incorporates bits of both NCP and the BBN 1822 protocol, and the latter did indeed reside on a special purpose box (the IMP). That must be the source of the confusion. Rick Smith 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misinterpreted (?) BSDTalk info 

message: This article says nothing about the use of NCP by IBM. See my comments at Talk:systems Network ArchitectureRdmoore6 20:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably by "the use of NCP by IBM" you're referring to the use of the initialism "NCP" by IBM, because the IBM Network Control Program is different from the ARPANET Network Control Protocol and the "Network Control Program(s)" that implemented that protocol on ARPANET hosts. Guy Harris (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And both the IBM Network Control Program NCP and the NetWare Core Protocol NCP are now mentioned in notes at the top of the page ("hatnotes"). Guy Harris (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Information

message: I tried to make clear that ARPANET NCP executed on a host rather than a "specialized processor". RFC36 seems to make the host residence of NCP clear. I inserted the link to RFC36 in further reading.
Perusal of the first thirty Google hits on "Network Control Protocol" suggested that it iss not often confused with the RFC36 context of NCP and so I deleted that sentence.
The link to the BSDTalk Interview doesn't seem to work quite right but I have left it for now.Rdmoore6 05:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NCP location

message: The text as I found it was very confusing; it was talking about the lower layers (physical, data link) being implemented on the IMP, versus the host, and I think that's wrong. The IMP-host interface, as spec'd in 1822, included all three (physical, data-link, and network), and the host had to implement all three in/on the host to be able to communicate with an IMP. I suspect that what the author was trying to say was that the IMP-IMP protocols were different from the host-IMP protocols, so I have modified the text to say that directly.
Also, when I wrote "usually connected to the IMP using another kind of interface, with different physical, data link and network layer specifications", that's because of the rare VDH (Very Distant Host) interfaces. Local Host and Distant Host (LH and DH) used custom bit-serial interfaces with interlocked signalling (with the "there's-your-bit", "ready-for-next-bit" lines), and were essentially identical (except that LH was a TTL interface, whereas DH used differential pair). Nothing about a host-IMP interface using LH or DH looked anything like an IMP-IMP connection. VDH was totally different; it looked a lot more like the IMP-IMP protocol. VDH operated over a modem, and so VDH hosts could be a long way from their IMP (hundreds of miles in some cases, IIRC). The protocol between the modem interface on the host and that on the IMP was identical to the IMP-IMP protocol for that application. I.e. the VDH host-IMP connection shared the physical, and some of the data link, protocol specifications of the IMP-IMP interface. 
But none of this is about NCPs, so this is really the wrong place for this anyway... Noel (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layer locations

message: The last part of the 'Transition' section is completely confused. NCP did not "provide[] a slightly different service ... by forming a network of networks" - the ARPANET was a single network, and its constituent data-carrying parts were all point-point links. And as for the "the transition meant a loss of functionality and increased complexity in TCP/IP", that's complete crap. TCP/IP operates from a completely different design philosophy, one suited to building an 'internet' (in the technical sense) out of a wide array of underlying technologies. All the "complexity" in TCP (sequence numbers, timeouts, checksums, etc) is there for a good reason, and none of it can be removed.
I know there's a citation there to a Day presentation (which, ironically enough, has a quote from me on the cover page), but whoever added this text (and, I assume, the reference) completely misunderstood Day's presentation (if that's what it's based on), because it doesn't say any of the above. And I can't be bothered to fix it; I've given up on trying to keep Wikipedia content accurate. Someone else might want to tilt at this particular windmill, though. Noel (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tired of seeing this erroneous content; since nobody has seen fit to fix it, I will just dike it. Noel (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Transition' section nonsense 

message: No need for a separate article, this text can be a section in the Network Control Protocol (ARPANET) article as per WP:MERGEREASON. Whizz40 (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Network Control Program (ARPANET)]] into [[Network Control Protocol (ARPANET)]]