Network host status
A report of ARPANET host status from January 31 to February 11, 1972.
Westheimer, E., "Network host status", RFC 306, DOI 10.17487/RFC0306, February 1972, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc306>.
@misc{rfc306,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 306,
howpublished = {RFC 306},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0306},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc306},
author = {E. Westheimer},
title = {{Network host status}},
pagetotal = 4,
year = 1972,
month = feb,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group E. Westheimer
Request for Comments: 306 BBN
NIC: 9257 February 15, 1972
Obsoletes: None
NETWORK HOST STATUS
This RFC reports on the status of most Network Hosts from January 31
to February 11.
Several Hosts are currently excluded from the daily testing. These
Hosts fall into two categories:
1) Hosts which are not expected to be functioning on the Network
as servers (available for use from other sites) on a regular
basis for at least two weeks. Included here are:
NETWORK SITE COMPUTER
ADDRESS
133 BBN PDP-10 (B)
13 Case PDP-10
15 Ames/(Paoli) ILLIAC/(B6500)
2) Hosts which are currently intended to be users only. Included
here are the Terminal IMPs, which are presently in the Network
(AMES, MITRE, NBS and BBN*). This category also includes the
Network Control Center computer (Network Address 5) which is
used 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
19 NBS PDP-11
The tables on the next two pages summarize the Host status for this
period.
________
*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.
"STATUS OR
SITE SITE COMPUTER STATUS OR PREDICTIONS"
ADDRESS PREDICTION OBTAINED FROM
1 UCLA SIGMA-7 Server # Limited Jon Postel
65 UCLA IBM-360/91 NETRJS now Bob Braden
(Telnet in April)
2 SRI(NIC) PDP-10 Server John Melvin
66 SRI(AI) PDP-10 SOON Len Chaiten
3 UCSB IBM-360/75 Server Jim White
4 UTAH PDP-10 Server Barry Wessler
*5 BBN(NCC) DDP-516 Never Alex McKenzie
69 BBN(TENEX-A) PDP-10 Server Dan Murphy
*133 BBN(TENEX-B) PDP-10 Server(Exper.) Dan Murphy
6 MIT(Multics) H-645 Server Mike Padlipsky
70 MIT(DM) PDP-10 Server Bob Bressler
*7 RAND IBM-360/65 User only Eric Harslem
71 RAND PDP-10 Server Eric Harslem
*8 SDC IBM-370/155 Server Bob Long
9 HARVARD PDP-10 Server Bob Sundberg
*73 HARVARD PDP-1 User only Bob Sundberg
10 LINCOLN IBM-360/67 SOON Joel Winnet
74 LINCOLN TX-2 Server Will Kantrowitz
11 STANFORD PDP-10 SOON Andy Moorer
*12 ILLINOIS PDP-11 User only John Cravits
*13 CASE PDP-10 March Charles Rose
14 CARNEGIE PDP-10 SOON Hal VanZoeren
15 AMES/(PAOLI) ILLIAC September John McConnell
(B6500)
16 AMES IBM-360/67 SOON Wayne Hathaway
*144 AMES TIP User only
*145 MITRE TIP User only
*19 NBS PDP-11 User only Robert Rosenthal
*147 NBS TIP User only
*158 BBN TIP User only
(Prototype)
________
* Host not included in daily testing.
# The NMC is a research site and would like to have prior arrangement
with each user.
SITE SITE DATE AND TIME (EASTERN)
NO. 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11
1430 1530 1430 1630 1530 1830 1500 1730 1000 1230
1 UCLA-NMC H O O O O O O O O #D
65 UCLA-CCN O O O O D O O O D #D
2 SRI-ARC O O D O O O O T H O
66 SRI-AI D D D D D D D D D D
3 UCSB-MOD75 O O H O H D O O O O
4 UTAH-10 D O T O D D D O D D
69 BBN-TENEX T O O O O D O O O O
6 MIT-Multics O O D O O D R D O O
MIT-DMCG H D D D D D H D O O
71 RAND-CSG T T T D D D D D T T
8 SDC-ADEPT #D #D #D #D #D D #D D #D #D
9 HARVARD O O O O #D #T O O D #D
10 L.L.-67 T H H D H D H H H H
74 L.L.-TX-2 D D D T T #D O #D D #T
11 SU-AI D D D D D D D D D D
14 CMU-10 D H H H H D D D D H
16 AMES-67 D D D D D D D D D D
where
D = Dead (Destination Host either dead or inaccessible [due to
network partitioning or local IMP failure] from the BBN Terminal
IMP.)
H = 1/2 Open (Destination Host opened a connection but then either
immediately closed it, or did not respond any further.)
O = Open (Destination Host opened a connection and was accessible to
users.)
R = Refused (Destination Host returned a CLS to the initial RFC.)
T = Time out (Destination Host did not complete the ICP and open a
connection within 60 seconds.)
________
* The only service currently offered by the UCLA IBM-360/91 is a
Network Job Service (NETRJS), however, the BBN Terminal IMP is not
equipped to test NETRJS. We are assuming that initial connection to
the NETRJS logger indicates that NETRJS is also functioning.
# These sites advertise that they may not have their system available
at these times.
[This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry]
[into the online RFC archives by H�l�ne Morin, Viag�nie 10/99]
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Hosts Included in the Report
The report covers most Network Hosts from January 31 to February 11. It excludes hosts not expected to function regularly as servers for at least two weeks and hosts intended only as users, including Terminal IMPs and the Network Control Center computer used to gather network statistics.
A table also records each site's server status or prediction, such as Server, User only, or Soon.
The report focuses on hosts that might serve other network sites. It separately lists hosts that were user-only or not expected to serve regularly.
§2Daily Test Results and Status Codes
The daily table records test results for hosts by site number, site, and date. Its codes are O for Open, D for Dead, H for Half Open, R for Refused, and T for Timed out. A host is timed out if it does not complete the ICP and open a connection within 60 seconds.
The report notes that some sites had announced that their systems might be unavailable at the marked times. It also explains that the BBN Terminal IMP could not test the UCLA IBM-360/91 Network Job Service directly.
The codes show whether a host opened a connection, was unreachable, refused, or timed out. A timeout means the host did not open within 60 seconds.
§3Availability Notes
The second table records each host's status or prediction and the person providing that information. Examples include a limited server, an experimental server, user-only hosts, and hosts expected to become servers soon.
The report distinguishes test results from these status or prediction statements. It does not claim that every host listed as a server was accessible during every test.
The status table gives reported roles and expectations, while the daily table shows test results. A server designation does not mean the host passed every test.