@MSGID: <7wbkdlin39.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> 7e11f73d
@REPLY: 6@news.misty.com> 7c99dc1a
@REPLYADDR Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Lars Brinkhoff
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
<memo.20230924151040.16292R@jgd.cix.co.uk><944e6c54-4d47-4bf8-a1c5-736f594cac9cn
@googlegroups.com><mddpm24d1ty.fsf@panix5.panix.com> <7w5y3wjepw.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>1@reader2.panix.com>
1@news.misty.com><7wpm22j0bh.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> 4@news.misty.com><7wh6nehycy.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
6@news.misty.com>
@RFC-Message-ID: <7wbkdlin39.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
@TZUTC: 0000
@PID: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50
(gnu/linux)
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> NCP and TCP operated in parallel on the ARPANET for a while.
> How would they interoperate? TCP and NCP are not exactly compatible in
> any way.

Details are found in the "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook".

> you might have some machines that would act as gateway between the two
> networks.

That`s exactly what they did.
--- Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)
 * Origin: nocrew (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441