Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring
techcrunch.comI met Vint at the Kech Institute for Space Studies. He arrived to help us look at in-space data centers for planetary science throughout the solar system. He was a big proponent of delay-tolerant networking and other useful networking stacks, so he was the "rep" for that layer of problems.
Just the nicest guy you could imagine. He took the note-takers job during our breakouts, had beers with us after the session, and asked really good questions and never asserted anything the whole time.
What a legend.
Apparently there's "more to come" and its not a complete retirement.
true - my first reaction was this seems like a weird milestone, as people like Vint Cerf don't really retire and stop, just change how & where they contribute. This seems like a nothing story pushed by TC and Google PR, more than a real event.
For a moment there I read "TC" and was like "the candidate"?!?!
Work induced brain damage... ;)
I mean, he's 83. No one's battery runs forever.
In his recent goodbye meeting he very much gave off a "I will die at my desk" kind of energy. Quite unstoppable.
It’s hard to imagine that guy sitting still.
I had the pleasure of attending a presentation he held a bit over a decade ago (public event hosted by the university, back when I was a student).
I didn't get an opportunity to talk to him personally after the event as there was a large queue of senior academics and other VIPs already waiting, but I did see him taking the time to talk first to some school-aged kids who had attended.
He seems like a really nice, humble guy, and looked genuinely happy to be encouraging the kids' interest in the sciences.
I worked on the ARPANET project under Steve Crocker at UCLA and met his bud Vint there (with his ever-present 3 piece suit, briefcase, and hearing aids) ... what a great guy.
An anecdote: I wrote a program (in Sigma-7 assembler I think) to play Jotto--a bit like Mastermind but with 5 letter words. Vint loved to poke around in people's directories to see what they were up to and found my program. He played it a few times, and then collared me to ask me a couple of questions: 1) It seemed to know some of the words he entered but not all -- what was up with that? 2) What sort of AI algorithm was I using for the program to make guesses? (It usually beat the human player.)
Answers: 1) I didn't have a digitized dictionary (it was 1969!) so I hand-entered the five letter words from a pocket dictionary but got tired halfway through so it only knew words starting with a-l. 2) The program would eliminate any words that didn't fit the responses to its guesses so far and then pick a remaining word at random.
Upon hearing my answers Vint walked away in disgust! But years later he gave me a recommendation when I interviewed with Google (it didn't work out for other reasons).
I also shared a cubicle wall with another Van Nuys High alumni, Jon Postel, aka "God of the Internet". Sartorially, Jon was the complete opposite of Vint--long scraggly beard, blue jeans, forever barefoot--but those weren't the things that mattered. Man, those were the days.
Wow that's wild. Our org spent years playing jotto on office whiteboards before Covid. There would just be games going in random places.
Sounds like he was frustrated he lost and thought the program was a lot more clever than it was. :)
He was disappointed in himself that he hadn't realized that the word recognition "algorithm" was just "every word starting with a-l" -- he had speculated that there was in fact some sort of linguistic algorithm to determine whether a word was valid, not just a built-in hemi-dictionary.
And he was disappointed in me or the program or the nature of reality that the play algorithm was so simple and dumb ... but it was a slow machine with limited memory, and doing better is actually quite hard and I hadn't invested the time to do so.
For all the naysayers in this thread, I gotta say you’re wrong. Vint is a class act. Humble, helpful, and optimistic. Not to mention one of the most impactful computer scientists of our generation.
Exactly right. I have only had one long conversation with him, but he was friendly and very interesting.
[flagged]
Has he really evangelized the evil practices that you are so concerned about? Or would you lump in anyone working at Google to not live up to your expectations?
I would say there's a huge difference between taking a paycheck from Google because you need it to feed your family, and specifically carving out a role in promoting Google's agenda for two decades. Even in this puff piece about him, he is quoted promoting the agentic era of the Internet. (In other news, I recently read about a city that tried to hide that a third of it's water supply was getting used by a Google datacenter. And what happened to all those carbon neutral pledges...)
There's a big difference between working on a tobacco farm and being the spokesperson for Big Tobacco. He is the latter. I suspect history will someday remember him more for this than his work on TCP/IP.
> I recently read about a city that tried to hide that a third of it's water supply was getting used by a Google datacenter.
I don't get why its suddenly fashionable to hate datacenters?
Did a lot of people really think that their code was running in an actual cloud?
Well I try to avoid running things on the cloud myself, but bear in mind the example here:
Every major datacenter operator has abandoned their carbon neutral pledge since the AI race began, and have claimed disclosure of the public about their water usage is a trade secret to hide the damage from the public. In many cases these datacenters have been built near threatened bodies of water, but they are getting priority access to freshwater before and above residents. The same often happens with electricity, where a significant demand is placed on local infrastructure and taxpayers bear the cost of needed upgrades to the system.
The problem is that these are trillionaire companies because they are subsidized by dozens of taxes on ordinary people. Every transaction we make pays Google in one way or another. Every app we buy pays Google 30%. Every business we patronize is spending like 10% of their operating budget with Google. Our tax dollars are funding their datacenters.
Why is it finally fashionable to hate datacenters? People are finally realizing the costs!
>but they are getting priority access to freshwater before and above residents
Talk to your politicians about increasing water supply.
>The same often happens with electricity, where a significant demand is placed on local infrastructure and taxpayers bear the cost of needed upgrades to the system.
Talk to your politicians about increasing electricity supply.
> Every transaction we make pays Google in one way or another. Every app we buy pays Google 30%. Every business we patronize is spending like 10% of their operating budget with Google. Our tax dollars are funding their datacenters.
Google is not the only operator of data centers.
>Why is it finally fashionable to hate datacenters? People are finally realizing the costs!
You have suddenly become aware of an industry, have no idea what it does and have been spooked into violent mob behavior.
All the golf courses in the US consume 3 orders of magnitude more water than all the data centers in the US. The fixation on water usage doesn't feel honest.
The concern about energy makes more sense, particularly when DCs burn fossil fuels to achieve their off-grid supply, but they really don't move the needle much in terms of retail electric bills
For what it's worth I'm not fond of golf courses either.
I interviewed him a few times, when I was a tech journalist in the 90s - a very impressive man.
However I never forget my surprise, Idly flicking through TV one evening and coming across Earth Final Conflict - and there was Vint in a fairly substantial role
hah. I was an intern at Google in 2005 when he was hired and remember the wave of reverence that went through Mountain View. Salute to a legend!
It’s like two lifetimes in tech years. I remember that summer Google Earth was launched, we were a year removed from the Gmail launch, and I worked on shipping the first Summer of Code.
I worked on GFiber in the mid 2010s. We were having a debate about IPv6 support, which many people wanted to not do. I wrote a far-too-long essay on why it was important (at the time) and Vint picked it up to yell at the leadership team to get it prioritized. It was truly an "only at Google" experience to have someone who essentially invented the Internet reading your posts and acting on them.
(I guess a decade later, was IPv6 important? Still not sure about that one. But it seemed important at the time.)
Wow Google Fiber what a blast from the past.
I eventually went full time at Google NYC in the early 2010s - I remember the internal uproar when Reader was sunsetted =)
The Google Fiber name didn't change to GFiber until March 26th, 2026.
wow, that was the golden age of Google.
I don't want to name him as he's decently well known, but I'm pretty sure my mentor monitored Vint's interview to make sure no one accidentally rejected him for a coding error or something.
I suspect the only thing at risk of being smeared by a more complete retelling of that story is Google’s interview process.
They made him write code as part of an interview?
I don't know if he actually did.
Just know that my mentor was hand-holding the hiring process which basically prided itself on false negatives and still probably does.
Never underestimate the power of hubris.
Vint had an interview?!! Who had the gall to suggest he needs to come in and be evaluated?
I don't remember the exact details after 20 yrs but I think EVERYONE got a coding loop no exceptions at the time by default.
And they were still in the era where's they'd just keep interviewing you until they "got enough signal" so people would be back 3 and 4 times.
I don't know if he had to do technical interviews (I'd imagine not) but what he described was Eric Schmidt approaching him and asking him to leave MCI to work at Google. They asked him what his title should be and he (I think he) jokingly suggested Internet Pope. They eventually settled on Chief Internet Evangelist.
When Google hired Guido van Rossumm, they put him through the same trials they require of every employee who is thinking of contributing Python code. Then they yelled at him for making Python inefficient.
There's gotta be a story about him and python readability at Google.
They were really going after all the legends.
Google hired Guido van Rossum around the same time. I worked down the hall from Rob Pike, they had already hired Peter Weinberger (the w from `awk`), and I shared a 4-person office with Gren Stein, who was then director of the Apache Software Foundation.
I wonder if he would have designed TCP/IP differently if he'd had the chance to have a second go of it.
Maybe having multiple streams within a single connection, like QUIC does, would have been a better choice. Also being able to demarcate message boundaries within the protocol itself, perhaps, instead of it being a simple byte stream.
I was at a talk where he brought up exactly this (I also once did a talk alongside him, but that's a different story). He said there would be two changes:
1. It would have 128-bit addresses. 2. It would have end-to-end encryption (or was it authentication, I forget).
IPv6 was supposed to fix both of these, with IPsec mandatory, but the latter demand sort of faded out into obscurity. We ended up basically solving encryption by pushing everything into TLS anyway, which I guess solved much of the same problems although at a very different layer.
> We ended up basically solving encryption by pushing everything into TLS anyway, which I guess solved much of the same problems although at a very different layer.
The "solving" of encryption with TLS should not be celebrated.
Everything needs to go over TLS/HTTP-443 because of middleware boxes basically blocking everything else by default in many cases, and so application/protocol designs have to shoehorn / kludge everything into a round hole even if it's a square peg.
Certainly I'd want everything to have encryption at the higher layers (OSI 5-7), but having opportunistic encryption at IP (OSI 3) would also be great because snoopers could tell that two nodes are communicating but not how / what: RTSP? Torrent? Mindcraft? PvP2 game? If every node could (say) do an IKEv2 negotiation with every other node have IP-level traffic wrapped in IPsec that would help with traffic analysis.
Doing this brings you close to OSI, which famously failed by being overcomplicated. The current design was implementable by zillions of cheap humans running cheap hardware.
I always wonder if the internet is thesurvivor of the networking cambrian explosion, with a slight roll of the dice making another candidate the winner.
As someone who was there at the time, OSI certainly didn't fail by being "overcomplicated". It failed because a) they charged money to read the standards documents and b) TCP/IP already had so much deployment momentum that nothing was going to supplant it (we see proof of this in the fact that IPv6 also didn't achieve that). Edit: also c) there was no requirement (unlike RFCs) to have an interoperable reference implementation available. So the implementations that were created mostly didn't interoperate.
In your opinion, do you think Internet Protocol Version 8 (IPv8) [1] stands a chance to fix the mistakes of IPv6 after more than 20 years now?
Or there is too much inertia for IPv8 to overcome to become a truly backwards compatible extension / superset of IPv4?
Part of the reasons for the slow adoption of IPv6 was that it was never designed to be backwards compatible unlike IPv8.
This IPv8 document is not a serious proposal. The entire family of documents was published by a single person without collaboration from anyone else at IETF, and there has not been any work to integrate feedback from other IERF contributors (last I was aware of).
Anyone can publish an IETF draft document, it doesn't mean it's a serious proposal under consideration or will ever actually be implemented.
> In your opinion, do you think Internet Protocol Version 8 (IPv8) [1] stands a chance to fix the mistakes of IPv6 after more than 20 years now?
IPv8 solves precisely zero of the problems that is causing a 'slow' roll out of IPv6 / replacement of IPv4:
"""
So it's a matter of mathematical and physical fact that to expand the address size, you must change the protocol, and that means two things immediately:
You have to change the version number.
You have to add new code to handle the new version.
Furthermore, you don't want to split the Internet in two, so you must design a method of interworking between the old version and the new version. Annoyingly, you need to do that in a way that can be done completely in machines that know about the new version, because other machines don't know anything at all about the new version, by definition. So,
You need a coexistence technique so that updated systems, with the new protocol, can connect to old systems that know nothing of the new protocol. Two minutes of thought show that this third requirement has only two solutions:
(3A) Dual stack, in which the new machines speak both the old (IPv4) and new (IPng) protocol.
(3B) Translation, in which something translates addresses between the old and new protocols.
[…]
Incidentally, "IPv8" proponents often ask why IPv6 didn't simply stick some extra bits on the front of IPv4 addresses, instead of inventing a whole new format. Actually, we tried that: the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" format was defined in [RFC3513] but deprecated by [RFC4291] because it turned out to be of no practical use for coexistence or transition. The related "IPv4-Mapped IPv6 address" format is still valid and has a role in the POSIX socket API. Mappings of this kind also figured in the moderately successful coexistence technologies known as 6to4 [RFC3056, RFC3068] and Teredo [RFC4380], which have now been overtaken by events.
"""
* https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/01.%20Introdu...
* Interview with author of article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3jkZ1Ulz-s
> Actually, we tried that
I'm always fascinated by how many people think IPv6 adoption would have gone lightning-fast if we just used This One Weird Trick, where said trick has actually been tried and didn't help. They usually refuse to back down even after you tell them so.
6to4 or NAT64 isn't the same thing as what all those IPv4+/5/7/8 people want, if that's what you were referring to. You don't actually own the IPv4-mapped-V6 address, as in packets don't get routed to you, they go to a relay that was notoriously flaky.
> You don't actually own the IPv4-mapped-V6 address, as in packets don't get routed to you, they go to a relay that was notoriously flaky.
6to4 is exactly ownership:
> For any 32-bit global IPv4 address that is assigned to a host, a 48-bit 6to4 IPv6 prefix can be constructed for use by that host (and if applicable the network behind it) by appending the IPv4 address to 2002::/16.
> For example, the global IPv4 address 192.0.2.4 has the corresponding 6to4 prefix 2002:c000:0204::/48. This gives a prefix length of 48 bits, which leaves room for a 16-bit subnet field and 64 bit host addresses within the subnets.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4
The relaying is a necessity:
* https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/01.%20Introdu...OLD DUAL NEW ---------------------- OLD | 32 | 32 | XX | |------|------|------| DUAL | 32 | 64 | 64 | |------|------|------| NEW | XX | 64 | 64 | ----------------------There's no way around it: a non-IPng-having node will have to go through a translation box of some kind.
> There's no way around it: a non-IPng-having node will have to go through a translation box of some kind.
Yes. Note that it doesn't need to be someone else's relay; anyone with IPv4 connectivity could easily route 2002::/16 into IPv4-land (without having to announce it in BGP for others to use). You could even announce 2002:aabb:ccdd::/48 as a more-specific in BGP if you wanted, although this was more exotic.
If I have 1.2.3.4 in ipv4 world, I want 1.2.3.4 in ipv6 world instead of a random new address. I want another ipv6 host to be able to send dst=1.2.3.4 and have it go directly to my ipv6 host. 6to4 isn't comparable to that, it's for translation to/from v4 like you said.
> If I have 1.2.3.4 in ipv4 world, I want 1.2.3.4 in ipv6 world instead of a random new address.
::ffff:1.2.3.4
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#IPv4-mapped_IPv6_addresse...
By having 1.2.3.4 you also got 2002:1.2.3.4::/48 'for free' (per 6to4). So if you want to send things to 1.2.3.4 / ::ffff:1.2.3.4, you tell your router that it's available via 2002:1.2.3.4::/48.
Any idea that you think is clever and to 'just' do X and/or Y for IPng, and would work, has probably already been thought of and attempted in the last 20-30.
Having 1.2.3.4 in v4 doesn't make ::ffff:1.2.3.4 or 2002:1.2.3.4 route to me in v6. It would route to a relay that translates/resends to v4 1.2.3.4, then it reaches my router over v4. Nobody can use that address over pure v6.
There's no one clever trick to make the transition easy, the idea is to preserve the v4 address blocks in v6. That cascades down to a bunch of different decisions, some of which include keeping NAT around. They've most likely thought of that too, and turned it down because they wanted to start with a clean slate and maybe also had some other vision of pure P2P apps.
> Having 1.2.3.4 in v4 doesn't make ::ffff:1.2.3.4 or 2002:1.2.3.4 route to me in v6. It would route to a relay that translates/resends to v4 1.2.3.4, then it reaches my router over v4. Nobody can use that address over pure v6.*
Sure they could: if your ISP owns 1.2.0.0/16, it could advertise 2002:1.2::/24 via BGP. So if someone on the other side of the planet wants to send something to 2002:1.2.3.4::/48 they would know where to send it.
And just like how something sent to 1.2.0.0/16 globally is then handled internally via IS-IS/OSPF/etc so your ISP knows how to send something for 1.2.3.4 to your CPE, your ISP would know how to handle 2002:1.2.3.4::/48 to get it to your CPE.
Routers are told to map traffic for (::ffff:)a.b.c.d to 2002:a.b.c.d::/48. If you're sending from w.x.y.z, you can put the source address as from something in 2002:w.x.y.z::/48.
It has nothing to do with "clean slate" or not. There are two immovable facts:
"""
IPv4 implementations, in 1994 and still today, have the 32-bit address format built into their code. Whether you expand the address size to 33, 64 or 128 bits, all IPv4 implementations will discard the packets. So it's a matter of mathematical and physical fact that to expand the address size, you must change the protocol, and that means two things immediately:
1. You have to change the version number.
2. You have to add new code to handle the new version.
""
* https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/01.%20Introdu...
And this also includes 'accessory protocols': DNS A records are fixed at 32-bits, so if you want to use hostname with IPng you needed to upgrade the DNS infrastructure, including APIs to say "give me A and Ang", and then you perhaps need fallback mechanisms, in which case you're at:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs
Any IPng protocol, including 'just' adding bits, regardless of how you want to hand wave it as being 'just' an extension of IPv4 will be in same situation because you can't fit >32-bits in the 32-bits of the original code. You're rolling out new code in a rolling fashion, just like had to be done with IPv6.
Well yeah if you made your router use 2002:1.2.3.4, your ISP advertised 2002:1.2:: on BGP, and the other ISPs agreed your ISP owns that, that would work. They didn't do that, and the spec didn't say to. They did 6to4 instead.
I understand the limitation that you can never put a 128-bit address in a 32-bit field, and one way or another two hosts and everything in between have to understand the new packet format. That didn't force them to make ipv6 its whole separate network from v4 where almost no state is shared with v4. Having separate DHCP6 vs DHCP4 was a choice, likewise with DNS, NAT, and even the routing tables. It makes the difference for service operators who would be fine adopting ipv6 but don't want it to be a big project.
That IPv8 draft has stuff like oauth in it that don't make sense. I put together an IPv5 proposal based on all the old ones. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48781622
All you've done there is reinvent v6 with a combination of dual stack, NAT64 and 6to4, plus add a flag day.
You haven't fixed any of the problems involved in deploying v6, and you added a step that was known 35 years ago to be impossible on the Internet. This isn't a useful contribution, it's just a waste of time that you could have spent on doing v6.
You’re definitely right — the tech stack travels through time along what’s called a “path dependent” trajectory.
> The current design was implementable by zillions of cheap humans running cheap hardware.
Yes and no. The current internet arguably does not work without a browser and a TLS stack anyway, neither of which is easily implementable (e.g. number of practically usable rendering engines is in the single digits). I mean, I can piece together an IP packet, too, but there's not that many usable services reachable that way.
A bad application can still open unencrypted connections. Imagine a shoddily written game with a chat function.
> Doing this brings you close to OSI, which famously failed by being overcomplicated.
We're slowly reinventing OSI, one step at a time: OSI had multiple sessions per transport connection (QUIC), 20 byte addresses (IPv6) and a directory system with public-key infrastructure (DANE, vCard, SSHFP, etc).
It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed.
> It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed.
See "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol", §8.3 TUBA Reviews:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752
The document explains why SIPP was chosen (with the tweak of 128-bit addresses instead of 64).
Very interesting, thanks. I like they even admit their own bias, that the main reason was that they didn't want another's protocol; except for the word alignment, all the other issues are solvable.
There’s a whole body of work in the form of public statements and documents from Vint Cerf on that topic. You could explore Google for hours…
he's answered this question a few times. It's basically "how was I supposed to have any idea what the implications were?" He said something like "16 bit, 32 bit, 48 bit addressing, it felt all equally improbable. Why would there ever be 65,000 computers on this network?"
> "... Why would there ever be 65,000 computers on this network?"
This thinking can be seen in the allocation of network blocks. Mercedes Benz getting 53.0.0.0/8 is just a "we have more addresses than we ever need."
If somebody had imagined "yeah, let's give an address to each of our vehicles" they would have realized the space running out.
> if he'd had the chance to have a second go of it
In a sense, he did. Take a look at RFC 4838.
The computers of today are vastly more capable than the computers of the day when he came up with TCP/IP so if he were to have a second chance, knowing what he knows now, we'd have to calibrate it against the fact that computers in the 1970s simply weren't as capable as the beasts we have today.
It would depend on whether the computers back then could handle that (along with all the crypto algorithms in their infancy) when A:\ and B:\ weren't even a thing.
Not like CP/CMS predates the Internet or anything... /s
Anyone know what he actually did at Google? Was it an active role, did he publish anything interesting? Or was it more of an Institute for Advanced Study kind of position?
He was involved in the design, planning, and future-proofing one of the major redesigns of Google's data center fabric. Google, AFAIK still uses a derivative of the fabric today.
Disc: Former Googler, Cloud Networking.
He worked on a few X projects and had some free reign to push next gen ideas. Delay tolerant networking is the one I interacted with the most, as well as Google Loon, if you recall that.
Was DTN used in Loon? They are a natural fit.
DTN was, or was supposed to be.
Contract-graph routing (a core part of dtn - where do you send packets when there are delays in your route graph) was spec'd to be used, and I believe they may have done an experiment. The balloons had schedules or predictable winds, and satellites come and go (at least back then), so forwarding packets to the right carrier (or two) to get the next hop home was a big part of it.
Launder Google’s reputation, I assume.
He was hired to go to meetings and state “I’m vint cerf, I work at Google” then blab for 2 mins and introduce the actual speaker for a meeting/conference.
Similar ish to an influencer
I loved being able to say "vint cerf, my coworker, invented the internet"
maybe this is a good thing though, where someone with a huge, legitimate contribution and legacy gets to cash in on their status, vs. the typical influencer.
i'd say having "invented" the internet is a bigger claim to have influenced people rather than looking good in a bikini.
so fair game to cash in on that legacy.
I remember watching Lo and Behold by Werner Herzog and just going how dedicated the internet pioneers were working in their 70s and beyond.
Legends
Didn't know about this doc, thank you.
Had the pleasure of having dinner with Vint one evening. Such an amazing person. So incredibly humble and one of the most genuine people Ive ever met. As an aside, I asked him directly about the Al Gore internet meme and he said point blank that if it weren't for Als work in Washington the Internet wouldn't exist in its current form.
But yeah, just an awesome guy all around. One of the few people I consider to be a source of inspiration for me.
Al Gore and Vint Cerf were both inaugural inductees in the Internet Hall of Fame
The Internet gets a hall of fame (yes including Al Gore) | CNN Business https://share.google/zmVES2oM7hINsW3mq
My "When I met Vint" story is less exciting then some here. He attended the "Disability Support Group" at Google regularly. He made a point of just being there to listen and support others.
When I was in elementary school in the 90s I was doing a project about this new (to me) thing called “the internet.” My mom helped me cold email Vint and he sent me a very nice reply. Never forgot that.
How amazing it must be to be called the 'father' of something that everyone uses... I'm envious. Could I ever create something like that? As a programmer, the dream is always to build something that others actually use properly.
Vint and I have been corresponding on and off for years over email and text. He's incredible. A friend had his startup business about to fail because the domain was stolen by Chinese hackers; they had been to court, but the judgments were going to take forever to enforce after the courts sided in their favor. So, I asked Vint what we could do. He said he was sitting with the head of ICANN and would inform him. He is truly one of the greatest minds and most genuine people of our time. Thank you for every interaction, Vint. I hope you enjoy retirement.
For those interested in early internet pioneers, Wired did a collab with the internet society around the 1st group of folks inducted into the Hall of Fame, where wired independently wrote profiles of almost all of them.
https://www.internethalloffame.org/tag/2012/
Click on a profile, scroll to the bottom and click the Wired link
Worked with some of his team when I was at MCI/Worldcom. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
I still remember back in 2005 when I just joined a company, a coworker was quipping Google is not a real elite company, because it doesn't even have a Turing Award winner. I showed him the news that Vint Cerf joined Google recently.
Now they have several Turing Award winners, and several Nobel Prize winners.
I wonder if the transformer inventors will ever get a Turing (honestly proving to be one of the most transformative - no pun intended - technologies of the millennium so far). I know pretty much all of them left Google but they'd still be counted as alumni.
Google's transformer paper was largely just stripping out parts of an earlier (now apparently largely forgotten) paper/model and running it on Google scale compute and data (which the original researchers obviously couldn't afford).
Yeah, some work from Google has had an outsize impact on the entire industry. Won't be surprising if they eventually get a nod from the Turing Award. Including the main authors of the Transformer work for driving the LLM revolution, and Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat for driving the big data movement.
A genuine innovator
No matter what you think of Google
I may be biased since I interned at Google in 2013 and 2014, but Google in the 2000s and early 2010s felt downright magical as someone who wanted to pursue a career in systems software research. They made impressive technologies that still hold up today, like MapReduce, BigTable, and Spanner. They hired many legends of computer science and software engineering, such as Rob Pike and Jeff Dean.
I’m concerned about the power that Google and other Big Tech companies have, but from a technical point of view Google has a lot of impressive technologies, and from a workplace standpoint, it seemed idyllic back in the early 2010s, though I’ve heard the work culture has changed in the past decade, and I may have rose-colored glasses from only being an intern there, never a full-timer.
> who wanted to pursue a career in systems software research
I interacted with many professors in OS research and other adjacent systems fields when touring grad schools and I heard or saw that some were extremely toxic or intense compared to other fields I saw. With OS at least, big tech companies seem to hold a lot of influence over research directions (eg. so much of it is specifically for AI datacenters, or for one company's AI datacenter problems), and I asked OS professors about this and got disheartened replies that there was nothing they could do because of the incentives in the field. I was quite disillusioned. I know that AI being a hot new topic makes leaves more stones unturned and might lead to more publishability, but it's still depressing.
I’m out of the loop these days in systems research since I largely focus on programming languages and AI these days (though I still love systems) and I treat research more as a side hobby rather than a full-fledged career. It’s disappointing to hear about toxic systems labs. There’s also the “funding-or-perish” and “publish-or-perish” pressures of academia. This is one of the reasons why I teach at a community college, where 8 months of the year I focus on teaching, leaving me 4 months of break per year where I could do research without having to worry about my tenure chances or about funding, though it would be nice to be able to pay some students to help with research projects, and it would also be nice to have the funds to buy expensive equipment such as GPUs with large amounts of RAM.
That seems like a great setup, and maybe something I'll think about after grad school (or maybe look into being a professor at LACs or less research oriented schools)! I'm already sort of nervous about doing the PhD because of the insane toxicity I've encountered and the pressure to do research in direct support of industry (which is probably exacerbated by NSF funding being impossible to get), but hopefully I'll find things to enjoy about it. The career prospects also seem tenuous, as a lot of outcomes seem to be "go through a brutal tenure process" or work for FAANG/adjacent (probably not even in research since places like MSR are difficult to get). But I would like the creative freedom a professorship might offer.
Google can't tarnish Vint Cerf.
There are lots of brilliant people at Google who do no evil.
The fact that the company makes evil decisions about the direction of the web, privacy, and performs blatantly monopolistic actions does not outweigh the good things people at Google have done. At least not yet.
You can hate the company but love the brilliant work the engineers have done. The same can be said of lots of companies: Apple, Anthropic, ...
Meta, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. It's less of an overt monopoly, but some of its actions are heinously amoral.
Wasn’t the first time, for him, but he has managed to keep his name in the clear.
He worked for MCI/Worldcomm, before Google. Bernie Ebbers went to jail, for that.
Ahh… the good ol’ days, when we actually jailed scumbag billionaires, instead of voting massive pay bumps…
His name shows up in Epstein files as #1 on Epstein's list of scientists
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA003070...
And this folks is exactly the reason we need to remember that there are real costs to demanding transparency. There's a reason some things should have stayed redacted.
It doesn't indicate Epstein even met with Cerf. It looks like a wish list.
He visited the Google Kenya office in Nairobi and then did a brief talk at the local tech hub, iHub, where someone asked him what his opinion was on bearing an uncanny resemblance to the architect of the matrix, I don't think he had watched the movie because the question escaped him. It's worth pointing out he was hard of hearing so may be he just didn't hear it clearly.
I met Vint twice where I spent about an hour each time talking to him in a group. It was years apart and he spoke about the social changes the Internet was bringing about. Always well spoken and thoughtful. It was impressive and I really appreciated was he had to say.
Hey, I met Vint once at a conference - we were talking about some subsea fiber projects I was involved with. At the time he was working on interplanetary IP (IPIP? jk), which I thought was pretty stellar. Nice guy and very curious - qualities we should all work hard to foster.
I first heard about this internet thing from Cliff Stoll in The Cuckoo’s Egg. I got on a few years later.
For all that we complain, it’s still the most amazing thing ever.
I once shared a proposal at Google that Vint commented on and encouraged me to follow up on. I haven't, but it certainly made my year :)
I have always thought that The architect from The Matrix series looks like Vint Cerf. I wonder if Wachowskis had Vint in mind when casting
I'm relatively young and my first exposure to life and work of Vint Cerf was through DTN and Interplanetary Internet. What a life of accomplishment!
I had the privileged of seeing him deliver at Keynote at IEEE GlobeCom in 2019. He was funny, an amazing presenter, and very down to earth.
Things like this always make me feel how young the computer industry is, and how fast it has developed.
I worked with him at CNRI. Seemed pretty dim and overrated. I think people keep him around for the DARPA connection.
> a relatively good career
What's that for?
I believe it's what is called a joke. I'm with you, I don't like them either.
It's written down so no body language.
The video probably shows a wide smile whilst saying it.
Oh no. But who will write the poem if Vint Cerf is the one retiring?
How many "father's of the Internet" are there exactly?
The two that are most widely recognized are Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, for TCP/IP, but that's just the start of it. There's JCR Licklider, who first imagined a global network of computers. There's Leonard Kleinrock, first ARPANET nod and packet-switching theory. Larry Roberts, who led development of ARPANET. Paul Baran independently invented packet switching. Donald Davies coined the term "packet" and also developed packet switching. Louis Pouzin also worked on TCP/IP. Jon Postel managed the IP standards and address assignments for decades. Ray Tomlinson invented email and the @ sign. Of course, we can't forget Tim Berneres-Lee, to whom we credit the invention of the web (HTTP, HTML, URLS, the first web browser and server).
So, eleven.
The Dream Machine is a history book by M. Mitchell Waldrop that tells the story of JCR Licklider.
Vannevar Bush?
Ooh, hadn't heard of him. From Wikipedia, V. Bush is famous for, among other things, creating the NSF, the memex, an analog microfilm precusor to hypertext, and his essay "As We May Think" in 1945. Definitely influential in the creation of our world today!
Exactly as many as the USA has founding fathers, give or take a few. Which is to say less than in the Fathers of Mercy.
Al Gore is definitely one of them!
> There's always some nincompoop who brings that up. Al Gore deserves credit for what he did as a senator and vice president. He helped to pass legislation that enabled the NSFNET backbone to grow and to permit commercial traffic to flow on the government-sponsored backbones in the US. Had he not done that, it's pretty likely that the commercial sector would not have seen an opportunity to create a commercial internet that all of us can enjoy, so he does deserve some credit for what he's done.
— Vint Cerf, Tracking the Internet into the 21st Century <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf0rjtnwC9A>
> Al Gore is definitely one of them!
Al Gore Jr.'s father, the Sr., was instrumental in enacting the US Interstate Highway system:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore_Sr.#U.S._Senate
Which transformed the economy for physical goods. Jr saw parallels with the transportation of information, and coined a term (in 1978!) about it:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_superhighway
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_techno...
> Al Gore is definitely one of them!
Absolutely correct — and that's not sarcasm or irony. (Gore never claimed to have "invented the Internet"; that was a calumny spread by Republicans.)
1999 CNN interview where Gore stated: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet".
And that was true, within his context as senator. He was instrumental in passing the laws that fostered the Internet.
It’s astonishing, I know, but the heavily-parroted meme was always reductive and is, at this point, misnformation.
You have to wonder about the "Mother of the Internet" at this point...
Ooh, several of those as well! Sibling comment mentions Radia Perlman. She invented Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) which prevents loops in wiring from taking down networks. (Plug an Ethernet cable into the same switch it comes out of.) This has saved everyone's bacon countless times. Elizabeth Feinler managed hostnames before there was DNS and helped establish several of the top level domains (TLD)s we use today. There's Karen Spärck Jones without whom, search engines wouldn't be what they are today. Judy Estrin helped with TCP/IP, Sally Floyd worked on congestion control algorithms, without which, the Internet would have gotten all choked up and never gotten off the ground. Susan Estrada helped commercialize the Internet, with her work on internet exchanges (IX), and Jean Armour Polly gets credit for coining the phrase "surfing the Internet." but should be better known for pioneering public Internet access and for her work with families and kids getting online.
These women played a critical role in creating the Internet we have today.
Radia Perlman is the name that jumps to mind for me, but there are a bunch of others.
I was referring more to the internet having many fathers...
DoD
Know him in real life. Don’t meet your heroes.
Why not? Everybody else seems to have really nice things to say about meeting him
If anyone has a good reason to need to know they can email me.
Emailed you because I'm quite curious
Will we still be able to get ipv4 addresses?
IP on everything :D
Vint cerf now vintage cerf
Thank you. May your peace continue.
So, uh, are they hiring a replacement "Internet Evangelist"? I love the internet, I could evangelize!
Nitpicking: a father of the internet not the father. There is more than one.
Thanks! We’ve updated the title.
Eh? Vint is KNOWN AS "the father of the Internet", and that's what TFA's title says.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131104212006/http://deafness.a...
> He is routinely referred to as "the father of the internet,"
There is no one else who is referred to that way. If you google "father of the Internet", Vint pops up.
https://www.inmesol.com/blog/fathers-internet/
> Vinton Cerf (Connecticut, 1943) Considered to be the founding father of the Internet.
Please don’t fulminate like this. It’s obviously a debatable matter. It’s not like we can do a DNA paternity test :)
I originally took a cue from the Wikipedia page, which says, in the opening sentence, that he is recognized as one of “the fathers of the Internet”.
I’ve since tweaked the title again to be more ambiguous, but, honestly!
Fulminate? What a bizarre characterization.
> but, honesty!
Honestly I expect more maturity and less hostility from mods.
My intention was to be friendly, at least at the end.
I characterize it as fulminating due to the use of capitalization (which is specifically against the guidelines), along with an overall belligerent tone.
It’s just not a cutthroat enough topic to get too insistent about. We can discuss these things in a conversational style, which is what HN is meant to be for.
Edit: I see from looking over your comments in the thread that you have a personal connection to ARPANET and Vint Cerf. That’s great and we sincerely appreciate you sharing your personal insights here. We just really want HN to be a place for curious conversation rather than belligerence, which is how your first reply came across. I can understand it may not have seemed that way to you when you wrote it and I’m sorry if there’s been a misunderstanding.
Is capitalizing TFA, TCP/IP, URL, or ARPANET also against the rules?
Hey just joking ... I had no idea that using capitalization for emphasis is against the guidelines ... I think it's quite a stretch to characterize it as "fulminating" or "bellerigent". In the future I will write known as ... I hope italics are not also against the guidelines. (Is my snark "belligerent"? I think it's just conversational.)
> It’s just not a cutthroat enough topic to get too insistent about. We can discuss these things in a conversational style, which is what HN is meant to be for.
Seriously? For a mod you don't seem very familiar with the place. 99% of posts are "insistent" and the person I responded to (as well as yourself) are quite insistent (and belligent--considerably more so than I, IMO). And someone can be insistent "in a conversational style", whatever the eff that means ... and "cutthroat enough topic" isn't even coherent--a category mistake. I was simply presenting a counterargument to a title change that no longer reflected TFA. Frankly I think this is complete bullpucky ... belligent mod-privileged bullpucky. Again, less hostility and belligerence and more charity, please. Moderation shouldn't include characterizing people as "fulminating" or "overly belligerent", especially on such flimsy grounds -- that's pretty effing belligerent which a rational person might expect to raise defensive emotions in the person it is directed at, and with all the insistence and belligerence all over this site (have you seen all the belligerent insistent claims that people are using AI to write their posts? those accusations are turning this place to crap more than the actual use of AI is but they not only aren't moderated against, they are implicitly encouraged) it comes across as personal, immoderate, and lacking evenhandedness.
I won't respond further on this dead topic.
We appreciate you. Thanks for your contributions here.
The title of your second link is "The Fathers of the Internet" and Robert Kahn as co-inventor of TCP/IP protocol is also considered a father of the internet.
BTW if I google father of the internet I get Cerf and Kahn or it says "a father"
I know what the title says, of course ... but the title is descriptive, not a label, and only Cerf is referred to as the father, as quoted. And yes of course Kahn co-invented TCP/IP but no one ever calls him father of the Internet. And I already said what happens if you google "father of the Internet" -- what I said is actually true.
And none of this is really relevant because it's TFA that should determine HN titles. But for better or worse the mod has made his decision, so this is moot -- I won't comment on it further.
And man, for someone who calls something "nitpicking" to dig so deep into it ...
> and is recognized as one of "the fathers of the Internet"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf
> Widely known as one of the “Fathers of the Internet,
https://www.internethalloffame.org/vint-cerf/
> Together with Vint Cerf, Kahn is known as "the father of the Internet." https://computerhistory.org/profile/robert-kahn/
So much for "but no one ever calls him father of the Internet."
It’s widely recognized that the internet has multiple fathers.
I'm reading "where the wizards stay up late", and I was thinking the same thing. It's difficult to keep track of who is who but I'm pretty certain Cerf has appeared yet. I'm not that far through.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/06848...
(Well actually I'm listening to it not reading, maybe that's why I can't keep track of the protagonists!)
Thought this was about Tim Berners-Lee, he is the only father I know.
Father of the web sure. But HTTP is not the Internet!
And the Web is not HTTP!
Which also shows there isn’t “one father”, multiple things (and people) had to come together.
he the mother
[flagged]
Imagine creating internet to connect people and live to see the day that most internet traffic is Bot and AI talk to each other is fascinating
I wonder what he feeling about it
The dude is in his 80s, he should have been allowed to retire decades ago.
I was forced to retire, at 55. Good ol’ SV ageism at work. Wasn’t happy about it -at all, but I’m fortunate, in having the means to do so.
That was almost nine years ago, and I actually increased my development work, with the caveat that no one pays me to do it, anymore.
Probably one of the best things that ever happened to me, but I didn’t think so, at the time.
I wish him luck.
I had to look up SV
SillyCon Valley
Lots of people continue working because they enjoy it and to keep busy.
When I retire, I'm working on my stuff, not anyone else's. :)
He doesn't need to work, and he isn't really retiring even now. He is leaving Google but will be working on the interplanetary internet
He made millions last 20 years at Google without doing much and just being a honorary post, not sure what he feels about BS jobs like this
Vint took what could have been a prestige emeritus position at Google and turned it into a platform to champion accessibility and “Greyglers”. The man has more class than his suits.
Of all the millionaires in the world, I feel he’s earned a little bit of monetary recognition for his achievements.
Had I coinvented TCP/IP, I’d gladly take a bullshit, cushy paying job in my latter half of my career as a ‘reward’
I couldn't disagree more.
I personally witnessed Vint give valuable advice to managers like me, often in difficult cases. It sounds banal but often in a large corp you know what you need to do, but will have a lot of - justified or not - doubt about whether you can get through the bureaucratic molasses and the political interests of your higher ups. Vint's backing enabled a lot of people to do what's right.
One of my colleagues has printed and framed a reply from such a thread, where he offered an opinion in support of another manger. Vint replied "This is good advice. V.".
I hope he enjoys retirement, well deserved
I was impressed with Vint Cerf when I saw him at a distance but once I had dealings with him about issues such as: the way the internet has become a pernicious influence, how the ACM is an industry group for computer science professors that doesn't support practitioners [1], the ACM's support for H-1B visas [2] I came to the conclusion that this quote is about him:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on
his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked
[1] open access journals were a big step forward, but I was open access decades before
[2] i'll join a club which is neutral on the issue, but I can't accept the positive position, not because I feel it threatens me but because it pains me to see a brilliant data scientist being jerked around (bad enough that the HR lady leaves) and not being able to tell him "your skills are in demand and you can find another employer on the other side of the street" (this is NYC) And the argument that "startups" need it is bogus: Google can take a chance on a lottery, a key employee at a startup is key however.