November, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers
A December 1974 survey of new-protocol Telnet server support across ARPANET hosts.
Dodds, D.W., "November, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers", RFC 669, DOI 10.17487/RFC0669, December 1974, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc669>.
@misc{rfc669,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 669,
howpublished = {RFC 669},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0669},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc669},
author = {D.W. Dodds},
title = {{November, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 1974,
month = dec,
} RFC text
Network Working Group D.W. Dodds
Request for Comments: 669 BBN-TENEXA
NIC: 31435 December 4, 1974
November, 1974, Survey of New-Protocol TELNET Servers
Two months have elapsed since our last survey, and the appearance of
additional New-Protocol servers has progressed at the usual snail's
pace. The changes in this list are (with host numbers in octal):
SRI-AI (102) now has a New-Protocol server;
SDC-LAB (10) is back on the net and the list;
SDC-CC (110) is coming on the net but status is as yet unknown;
USC-ISI (126) and USC-ISIB (226) (formerly ISI-DEVTENEX) now have
New-Protocol servers;
SDAC-44 (32) has been removed -- no longer classed as a server host;
HAWAII-500 (344) is coming on the net, status presently unknown;
LONDON (52) has been added;
BBN-TENEXD is now host 162 (formerly 205).
What follows is an update of the summary and tabulation that appeared
in RFC #702.* Is there light at the end of the tunnel?
total server hosts 37 100%
no New-Prot server 19 51%
unknown status (new host) 2 6%
total New-Prot implem. 16 43%
New-Prot on socket 27,
Old on socket 1 (2) 9 24%
New-Prot on 1 and 27 (3) 6 16%
New-Prot on 1 only (3) 1 3%
Notes:
* All data in this report were gathered via a surveying program run
at various times, plus a few manual checks to fill out the data.
What is reported here is the way the various servers work as seen
by the new-Protocol User Telnet at BBNA, as of 4 Dec. 1974.
(2) These are the sites whose operation is 100% correct according to
all protocols and conventions, as I understand them.
(3) We realize that some of the servers that appear here as New-
Protocol servers on socket 1 are actually servers which attempt
to communicate with both Old- and New-Protocol User TELNETs
according to what control sequences are received.
Tabulation of server status for all server sites:
Host Host Socket Socket New-Prot, Options
No. Name 1 27 Implementation (if any)
101 UCLA-CCN Old X
201 UCLA-CCBS Old X
2 SRI-ARC Old X
102 SRI-AI Old New I1,3,6; O3
3 UCSB-MOD75 Old X
4 UTAH-10 Old X
105 BBN-TENEX Old New I1,3,6; O3
305 BBN-TENEXA Old New I1,3,6; O3
106 MIT-DMS New New I1,3; O3
206 MIT-AI Old X
306 MIT-ML Old X
7 RAND-RCC Old X
10 SDC-LAB Old X
110 SDC-CC ? ?
11 HARV-10 New X I1,3; O3
12 LL-67 Old* X
112 LL-TX-2 Old X
13 SU-AI New* New* I1,3
15 CASE-10 Old X
16 CMU-10B New New I1,3; O3
116 CMU-10A New New I1,3; O3
17 I4-TENEX Old X
217 KI4B-TENEX Old X
20 AMES-67 New New None
126 USC-ISI Old New I1,3,6; O3
226 USC-ISIB Old New I1,3,6; O3
27 USC-44 Old X
327 USC-ECL Old X
37 CCA-TENEX Old X
40 PARC-MAXC Old New I1,3,6; O3
43 UCSD-CC Old New I0(!),3; O0,3
344 HAWAII-500 ? ?
52 LONDON Old* X
53 OFFICE-1 Old X
54 MIT-MULTICS New New None
61 BBN-TENEXB Old New I1,3,6; O3
162 BBN-TENEXD Old New I1,3,6; O3
Key: X No server at this socket
? Status not ascertained -- unable to connect to host
I# Option # implemented incoming to user (Server says "Will #")
O# Option # implemented outgoing from user (Server says "Do #")
(# is option number in new Protocol. All options implemented
by anyone are:
0 Transmit-Binary
1 Echo
3 Suppress-Go-Ahead
6 Timing-Mark )
Note: * These servers return improper responses to some TELNET option
requests.
[ 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. 2/2000 ]
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Changes Since the Earlier Survey
The author says the appearance of new-protocol servers has progressed slowly. The listed changes include new servers at SRI-AI, USC-ISI and USC-ISIB; SDC-LAB returning to the network; and additions or changes to the host list.
SDC-CC and HAWAII-500 were listed as coming onto the network with unknown status. SDAC-44 was removed from the server-host list, LONDON was added, and BBN-TENEXD became host 162 instead of 205.
The report first lists hosts that joined, returned, changed number or left the server list. Some new hosts could not yet be checked.
§2Survey Results
The summary counts 37 server hosts. Of these, 16 had a new-protocol implementation, 19 had none and two had unknown status. Among the 16 implementations, nine used the new protocol on socket 27 and the old one on socket 1; six used the new protocol on both sockets; and one used it only on socket 1.
The results came from a survey program run at various times and a few manual checks. They show how the servers appeared to the survey program at BBNA on December 4, 1974.
16 of the 37 listed servers had the new protocol. 19 did not, and the survey could not determine the status of two.
§3Sockets and Telnet Options
The table shows each server's host number and name, its protocol on socket 1 and socket 27, and any new-protocol options. X means there is no server at that socket, and a question mark means the status was not ascertained.
I followed by a number marks an option the server implements incoming to the user; O marks an option outgoing from the user. The report lists options 0 Transmit-Binary, 1 Echo, 3 Suppress-Go-Ahead and 6 Timing-Mark. An asterisk notes a server that gives improper responses to some option requests.
The table is a checklist for each host. It shows which Telnet version and options the survey found on each socket.