Response to RFC 597: Host status
RFC 603

Document Type RFC - Unknown (December 1973; No errata)
Updated by RFC 613
Updates RFC 597
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream Legacy
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Legacy state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state RFC 603 (Unknown)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
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]