What we hope is an official list of host names
The official list of ARPANET host names and network addresses for users and systems.
Watson, R.W., "What we hope is an official list of host names", RFC 289, DOI 10.17487/RFC0289, December 1971, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc289>.
@misc{rfc289,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 289,
howpublished = {RFC 289},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0289},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc289},
author = {R.W. Watson},
title = {{What we hope is an official list of host names}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 1971,
month = dec,
} RFC text
NWG/RFC #289 21-DEC-71 16:29 8295
What We Hope Is An Official List of Host Names Richard W. Watson
SRI-ARC
The enclosed is what we hope will be accepted as a list of
official formal host names and nicknames. As no other subject
worked on by the NWG has generated so much comment, it is
worthwhile to review briefly how this list came into being.
The need for some standard set of names recognized by NCP's and
Telnets and usable on hardcopy to designate a persons affiliation
had been recognized for some time and several sets of names were
in use.
Peggy Karp issued the first formal proposal of a set of standard
names in RFC 226, NIC 7625. This proposal was answered by a
number of counter proposals and culminated in RFC 247, NIC 7688.
People still were not happy with this proposal as names normally
associated with hosts or projects were not used.
At the last NWG meeting a number of people discussed the name
problem and agreed that the only reasonable compromise solution
was to have both formal names and nicknames and to let the people
at the hosts choose their own names within the guideline which the
previous dialog had seemed to agree on.
The guidelines were summarized in RFC 273, NIC 7837 and the NIC
agreed to collect and publish the names that the people at each
host indicated they desired. A number of names were received and
a tentative list was published as RFC 280, NIC 8060. More people
responded with their desired names or changed the ones in the
above list.
Almost all sites have since responded and the following list
resulted.
I think people should feel free to change their host name when
ever the situation warrants.
Formal Name Nickname Network Address
AMES-67 16
AMES-ILLIAC I4
AMES-TIP 144
BBN-NCC NCC 5
NWG/RFC #289 21-DEC-71 16:29 8295
What We Hope Is An Official List of Host Names
BBN-TENEX BBN 69
BBN-TENEXB BBNB 133
BBN-TESTIP 158
BURR 15
BURR-TEST 79
CASE-10 13
CMU-10 14
ETAC-TIP 148
GWC-TIP 152
HARV-1 PDP1 73
HARV-10 ACL 9
HARV-11 137
ILL-ANTS ANTS 12
ILL-CAC CAC 76
LL-67 10
LL-TSP 138
LL-TX-2 TX-2 74
MCCL-418 22
MIT-AI 134
MIT-DMCG DMCG 70
MIT-MULTICS MIT-M 6
MITRE-TIP 145
NBS-CCST NBS 19
NWG/RFC #289 21-DEC-71 16:29 8295
What We Hope Is An Official List of Host Names
NBS-TIP 147
NCAR-7600 25
NCAR-TIP 153
RADC-645 18
RADC-TIP 146
RAND-CSG 71
RAND-RCC 7
SDC-ADEPT SDC 8
SRI-AI 66
SRI-ARC 2
SU-AI 11
TINK-418 21
UCLA-CCN CCN 65
UCLA-NMC SEX 1
UCLA-MOD75 UCSB 3
USC-44 23
USC-TIP 151
UTAH-10 4
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the ]
[ direction of Alex McKenzie. 12/96 ]
AI ELI5
On this page
§1The Naming Debate
Richard Watson at SRI explains the history of host naming on the ARPANET. The need for standard names had been recognized for years: NCPs (Network Control Programs) and Telnet users needed a consistent way to refer to hosts. Multiple competing name schemes had emerged, causing confusion.
Peggy Karp proposed the first formal standard (RFC 226), followed by counter-proposals and RFC 247. These attempts failed because they did not use names naturally associated with the hosts themselves.
Different places called their computers by different names, so the network couldn't be sure which computer you meant. People couldn't agree on what to call them.
§2The Solution
At an NWG meeting, the consensus emerged that the only workable solution was to support both formal names and nicknames. Guidelines were established (RFC 273), and the NIC invited each site to choose their own formal name and preferred nickname within these guidelines.
The NIC collected the responses, published a tentative list (RFC 280), and refined it as more sites responded. By December 1971, almost all sites had provided their preferred names.
They decided each site could pick both a fancy name and a short nickname. Everyone sent in their choices, and this list is the result.
§3The Official Registry
RFC 289 lists all ARPANET hosts with three pieces of information for each: the formal name (such as UCLA-NMC or MIT-MULTICS), an optional nickname (such as CCN or MIT-M), and the decimal network address (1 through 158 in this period).
The list covers early ARPANET sites including UCLA, Stanford Research Institute, UCSB, Utah, BBN, MIT, RAND, Stanford, Harvard, Lincoln Lab, and many others. Sites were encouraged to change their names in future if the situation warranted.
The list shows each computer's formal name, its short nickname, and its number on the network. Sites that wanted to rename themselves later could do so.