Talk:Internet Protocol

message: I described ST as a "stream" protocol rather than "multicast" since IPv4 supports multicast too; the essential difference in ST is that it requires setup in the switches/routers before any data can be sent.
Noel 05:09, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: "stream" rather than "multicast"

message: IP is clearly a winner (see Next Generation Networking/all-IP) but how about a section on why. Your thoughts...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.115.183 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed at Next-generation_network#Underlying_technology_components. Probably not necessary here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The advantages of IP/ Packet based networking 

message: There are actually two serious third-party proposals/developments for IPv8 and IPv10:
* https://github.com/Tribler/py-ipv8
* https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-omar-ipv10-11.txt
Though I'm not sure if that has any place in this article.
77.191.117.22 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPv8 & IPv10 

message: The article currently says
If "the original Transmission Control Program introduced by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn in 1974" refers to the "Transmission Control Program" in "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication", that paper appears to discuss a single protocol that incorporates packet forwarding, segmentation/desegmentation, and end-to-end reliability functions.  I'm not sure whether that protocol was intended to be used by hosts communicating with packet switches, with the switches possibly using an unrelated protocol to route packets from the switch to which the packet was delivered by the sending host to the switch that should deliver the packet to the receiving host.
Jon Postel, in IEN 2, says
In the introduction, Postel says
[1] is "Cerf, V. "Specification of TCP version 2," March 1977", which is presumably IEN 5 (probably added as an IEN after IEN 2 was written, given that the date on IEN 5 is earlier than the date of IEN 2).  That paper does separate the "internetwork header" and the "TCP header", with the internetwork header having a 4-bit "Format" field indicating whether the packet is a "Raw internet packet", a TCP packet, a "Secure TCP" packet, or an "Internet debugger (XNET)" packet, with the other values reserved.  The part of the header that ends with the "Format" field is somewhat like an IP header, with the "Format" field being a "next protocol" field, with what comes after it with a TCP packet being somewhat like a TCP header.  So there was some notion of a split between IP and TCP functions, albeit without explicitly layering the protocols in the TCP/IP sense.
The 1974 Cerf/Kahn paper doesn't give as much detail as "Specification of TCP version 2" does, so I'm not sure how much separation of function there was in that paper, and there doesn't seem to be any protocol split there.
So at what point was there an "IP", separate from "TCP"? Guy Harris (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I found and added the following to Internet protocol suite#History: "In version 3 of TCP, written in 1978, the Transmission Control Program was split into two distinct protocols, the Internet Protocol as connectionless layer and the Transmission Control Protocol as a reliable connection-oriented service." There's some further history at Transmission_Control_Protocol#Historical_origin, History_of_the_Internet#TCP/IP and Protocol_Wars#DoD_model_vs_X.25_and_proprietary_standards. Whizz40 (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP in "the original Transmission Control Program"?