RFC 240 UNKNOWN NETWORK OPERATIONS · ARPANET

Site Status

A corrected reissue of BBN's first ARPANET site status report

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
September 1971
AUTHORS
A.M. McKenzie
STREAM
Legacy
BUILDS ON
RFC 235 — Site status
OBSOLETED BY
RFC 252 — Network host status
REPORT PERIOD
September 13 through September 24
REPORTING INTERVAL PLANNED BY BBN
Approximately once every two weeks
STATUS CODES
O, D, R, T, 1/2 O
DOI
10.17487/RFC0240

RFC text

Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Networking Group                             A. McKenzie
Request for Comments: 240                    BBN
NIC #7665                                    30 September 1971
Categories: F, G.3                           Rand 50ctu
Updates:  none
Obsoletes:  RFC 235


                              SITE STATUS

     Due to extensive typographic errors in RFC #235, I have
decided to reissue the first of our experimental site status reports.

     In compiling RFC #235, I followed the principle that
timeliness was somewhat more important than extremely careful editing;
this seemed to me to be in keeping with the original RFC philosophy.  I
am sorry for any embarrassment this may have caused to anyone associated
with the Network, and accept full responsibility for the content of RFC
#235.  I will try to do a better job in the future.


Alex McKenzie


                              SITE STATUS


     Beginning with this RFC, BBN will report on the status of
most Network Hosts approximately once every two weeks.  The information
for these reports will be gained from talking to people at each site,
and from experimental "data".  These data will be the results of daily
attempts to log into each of the Hosts which might be accessible to a
Network user; the attempts will have been made from the BBN prototype
Terminal IMP at a random time each weekday.

     Several Hosts are currently excluded from the daily testing.
These Hosts fall into two categories:

     1)   Hosts which are note expected to be functioning on the
          Network as servers (available for use from other sites) for at
          least a month.  Included here are:

               Network        Site      Computer
               Address

                 71           Rand      PDP-10
                 74           Lincoln   TX2
                 11           Stanford  PDP-10

RFC #240


                 13           Case      PDP-10
                 14           Carnegie  PDP-10
                 15           Paoli     B6500

     2)   Hosts which are currently intended to be users only.
          Included here are the Terminal IMPs presently in the Network
          (AMES, MITRE, and BBN[1]).  This category also includes the
          Network Control Center computer (Network Address 5) which is
          use solely for gathering statistics from the Network.
          Finally, included among these Hosts are the following:

               Network        Site      Computer
               Address

                  7           Rand      IBM-360/65
                 73           Harvard   PDP-1
                 12           Illinois  PDP-11

     The tables on the next two pages condense the information on
Host status for September 13 through September 24.

                                                        PREDICTIONS
NETWORK SITE         COMPUTER   STATUS or PREDICTION    OBTAINED
ADDRESS                                                 FROM

 1      UCLA         SIGMA - 7  Server                  Jon Postel
65      UCLA         IBM-360/91 Remote Job Service now,
                                Time-sharing in January Steve Wolf
 2      SRI(NIC)     PDP-10     October 11              John Melvin
66      SRI(AI)      PDP-10     November                Len Chaiten
 3      UCSB         IBM-360-75 Server                  Jim White
 4      UTAH         PDP-10     "Soon"                  Barry Wessler
 5      BBN          DDP-516    NCC                     Alex McKenzie
69      BBN          PDP-10     Server                  Dan Murphy
 6      MIT(Multics) H-645      "Soon"                  Mike Padlipsky
70      MIT(DM)      PDP-10     Server                  Bob Bressler
 7      RAND         IBM 360/65 User only               Eric Harslem
71      RAND         PDP-10     January                 Eric Harslem
 8      SDC          IBM-360/67 October 11              Bob Long
 9      HARVARD      PDP-10     "Soon"                  Bob Sundberg
73      HARVARD      PDP-1      User only               Bob Sundberg
10      LINCOLN      IBM-360/67 "Soon"                  Joel Winnet
74      LINCOLN      TX2        Uncertain               Tom Barkalow
11      STANFORD     PDP-10     November                Andy Moorer
12      ILLINOIS     PDP-11     User only               John Cravits
13      CASE         PDP-10     December 15             Charles Rose
14      CARNEGIE     PDP-10     January                 Hal VanZoeren
15      PAOLI        B6500      Uncertain               John Cravits

RFC #240


16      AMES         TIP        Installed
17      MITRE        TIP        Installed
30      BBN          TIP        Prototype


NETWORK   SITE      COMPUTER                DATE AND TIME (P.M.)
ADDRESS                         9/13  9/14  9/15  9/16  9/17  9/20
                                4:30  3:30  6:00  10:30 1:30  12:30
 1        UCLA      SIGMA-7      O     O     O     D     D     D
65[2]     UCLA      IBM 360/91   O     O     O     O     O     D
 2        SRI(NIC)  PDP-10       D     D     D     D     D     D
66        SRI(AI)   PDP-10       D     D     D     D     D     D
 3        UCSB      IBM-360/75   O     O     O     O     O     O
 4        UTAH      PDP-10       D     D     D     D     D     D
69        BBN       PDP-10       O   1/2 0   O     T   1/2 O   O
 6        MIT(Multics) H-645     R     R     R     D   1/2 O   D
70        MIT(DM)   PDP-10       T     T     T     O     O     T
 8        SDC       IBM-360/67   D     D     D     D     T     D
 9        HARVARD   PDP-10       T     D     T     T     T     T
10        LINCOLN   IBM-360/67   D   1/2 0 1/2 0   D     T     D


NETWORK   SITE      COMPUTER     DATE AND TIME (P.M.)
ADDRESS                         9/21  9/22  9/23  9/24
                                4:30  3:30  2:00  5:00

 1        UCLA      SIGMA-7      O     D     T     O
65[2]     UCLA      IBM 360/91   O     O     O     O
 2        SRI(NIC)  PDP-10       D     O     D     D
66        SRI(AI)   PDP-10       D     D     D     D
 3        UCSB      IBM-360/75   O     O     O     O
 4        UTAH      PDP-10       D     D     D     D
69        BBN       PDP-10       O   1/2 O   O     O
 6        MIT(Multics) H-645   1/2 O   T     T     R
70        MIT(DM)   PDP-10     1/2 O   O     D     D
 8        SDC       IBM-360/67   D     D     D     D
 9        HARVARD   PDP-10       D     T     D     D
10        LINCOLN   IBM-360/67   D     D   1/2 0   D

RFC #240


where
  D = Dead.  (Destination Host either dead orinaccessible (due to
             network partitioning or local IMP failure) from the BBN
             Terminal IMP).
  R = Refused.  (Destination Host returned a CLS to the initial RFC.) T
  = Timed Out.  (Destination Host did not respond in any way to the
             initial RFC, although not dead.)
  1/2 0 = 1/2 Open.  (Destination Host opened a connection but then
             either immediately close it, or did not respond any
             further.)
  O = Open.  (Destination Host opened a connection and was
             accessible to users.)

Endnotes

   [1] The BBN Terminal IMP (Network Address 158) is a prototype, and as
   such is frequently not connected to the Network, but being used to
   refine and debug the Terminal IMP programs.

   [2] The UCLA IBM-360 is at the moment only able to handle Remote Job
   Service.  BBN is not equipped to test this, but is assuming that
   receipt of their canned message indicates that RJS is also
   functioning.



         [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
            [ into the online RFC archives by Roy Zimmer 9/97 ]

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMRFC 235 had extensive typographical errors and needed a corrected reissue.
MECHANISMRFC 240 republishes the report and presents daily host login-test results from the BBN prototype Terminal IMP.
A CORRECTED REPORTIt begins BBN's planned series of reports about most Network Hosts, approximately once every two weeks; RFC 252 later replaced it.

§1Why the Report Was Reissued

The author reissued the first experimental site status report because RFC 235 contained extensive typographical errors. The note apologizes for the earlier document and says the author would try to do better.

RFC 240 says BBN will report on the status of most Network Hosts approximately once every two weeks. Information comes from conversations with people at each site and from test data.

This is a corrected copy of a report with many typing errors. BBN says it plans to publish host status reports about every two weeks.

§2Daily Host Tests

The test data come from attempts to log into hosts that might be accessible to a network user. The attempts are made from the BBN prototype Terminal IMP at a random time each weekday. The tables report results from September 13 through September 24.

Five codes describe the result: O means open and accessible; D means dead or inaccessible from the test point; R means refused; T means timed out; and 1/2 O means the host opened a connection but then closed it or stopped responding.

The tables record the result of each attempted login. Their codes distinguish an accessible host from one that was unreachable, refused the request, timed out or only partly opened a connection.

§3Excluded Hosts and Predictions

Some hosts are excluded from daily tests because they are not expected to act as servers for at least a month. Others are intended to be users only, including Terminal IMPs and the Network Control Center computer. The report also lists operator predictions about when hosts might become servers.

RFC 240 is later listed as obsoleted by RFC 252 in the unit metadata.

Not every host was tested: some were not expected to become servers soon, and some were intended only as users. RFC 252 later replaced this report.