Slashdot Mirror

Hi all.
I'm a student/IT guy here at IU, and Internet2 is a high-speed (mostly optical, with Abilene(the backbone) generally running 2.4gbit [OC-192]) network. The network is managed by IU at its Indianapolis campus in the IU Global NOC. For more information: http://abilene.internet2.edu/

It is a network apart from the Internet that is for educational institutions (colleges).
Additionally, it connects to other remote educational networks (CERN, KREONET2, RETINA) via border links (Pacific Wave, MANLAN, StarLight,etc...)http://abilene.internet2.edu/peer networks/international.html
But yes, that means high-speed pirating for the collegiate masses! (I'm at IU's Bloomington campus, and I usually get about 4mbit up/down to and from the I2's Internet POP.)

And as mentioned by another poster above, you don't need anything new to access it, you just have to be at a member college. In fact, my dorm ethernet is actually the pre-standardized wiring scheme, and it runs quite well despite having to use some really weird ethernet cabling (makes a CCNA like myself scratch his head and wonder what they were thinking).

At any rate, I highly recommend the site if you are at all into advanced networking, it's full of things to oogle over (OC links, T3s, and the like.)

Regards,
-Hoosier Geek

Hi all.
I'm a student/IT guy here at IU, and Internet2 is a high-speed (mostly optical, with Abilene(the backbone) generally running 2.4gbit [OC-192]) network. The network is managed by IU at its Indianapolis campus in the IU Global NOC. For more information: http://abilene.internet2.edu/

It is a network apart from the Internet that is for educational institutions (colleges).
Additionally, it connects to other remote educational networks (CERN, KREONET2, RETINA) via border links (Pacific Wave, MANLAN, StarLight,etc...)http://abilene.internet2.edu/peer networks/international.html
But yes, that means high-speed pirating for the collegiate masses! (I'm at IU's Bloomington campus, and I usually get about 4mbit up/down to and from the I2's Internet POP.)

And as mentioned by another poster above, you don't need anything new to access it, you just have to be at a member college. In fact, my dorm ethernet is actually the pre-standardized wiring scheme, and it runs quite well despite having to use some really weird ethernet cabling (makes a CCNA like myself scratch his head and wonder what they were thinking).

At any rate, I highly recommend the site if you are at all into advanced networking, it's full of things to oogle over (OC links, T3s, and the like.)

Regards,
-Hoosier Geek

check out the corporate involvement on this Package. http://members.internet2.edu/liaison_list_pub.cfm? member=CM&contact=all&sortby=company&format=web PUTS on tinfoil hat

I had thought that integrating the shibboleth (also open-source) based protectnetwork.org into the sites I managed seemed to be the way to go. The protectnetwork people have a long list of open source software already integrated: http://protectnetwork.org/shib-sp.html, and also directions for rolling your own.

The way protectnetwork works, you can click on a "login with protectnetwork" link on the site, and it re-directs you to protectnetwork's site where you log in, and are then presented with a page showing you what information will be sent back to the first site, and you decline if you don't want to and decide to make up another identity instead (a key feature IMHO), and then you click yes it sends you back to the site logged in.

I can make the "log in with protectnetwork" button be an additional option to my own login with site user name, and then only switch fully to protectnetwork if I see that most people are using it.

One issue I see with OpenID is in that anyone can set up an identity server, and the blog spammers surely will -- will we need to maintain a list of "known good" identity servers and a "blacklist" ? On the other hand I like the idea of not forcing everyone to go through one site, like protectnetwork, which seems a little like Microsoft Passport stuff to me.

I guess what I am really looking for is more of a survey of the whole identity provider/server industry, to know what is out there. Also, as a person who runs these various web sites as a hobby, I can't really be paying lots of money for this -- which of course makes me suspicious of Verisign's involvement.

I2 from a connectivity standpoint really isn't anything different from I1. It's still an IP routed network and all your normal IP routed toys (www, ftp, home brew app) still work as advertised. The term Abilene is actually the name of the I2 backbone network. It was spawned as a second generation IP network (and yes it can route IPV6 natively) to connect research institutions. Allowing them to utilize the network for research and high speed data transfers. What kind of research? Well anything really, hear about those doctors doing remote robotic surgery? That data probably was traversing the Abilene backbone. Grid computing in acedemia? Probably connected via Abilene .

Just like the I1 backbone, Abilene, being a backbone network, peers and eventually splits off to regional controlled networks. The one I am familiar with is OARNet (Ohio Acedemic Research Network). OARNet provides high speed connectivity to Ohio campuses and peers with the Abilene I2 backbone in Indianapolis (from OARNet's POP in Cleveland).

From an I2 connected campus (meaning you have access to the Abilene backbone at somepoint), there really isn't anything special to connect over the Abilene core. The network gurus had the IPV4 routing setup in such a way that if you connected to an IP address that was available via Abilene, the data would go that path. Otherwise, it would route out over the standard I1 connection. Most of the time when I would have to download some big ISO images, I would specifically look for an Abilene (I2) connected peer. Downloads over 10MBit weren't uncommon (mostly limited by the load on at the server on the other end). Pretty cool really. I'm sure others around are using it for more important stuff other than downloading ISOs :).

This is the successor to Abilene.

http://www.internet2.edu/network/

or, more specifically:

http://www.internet2.edu/network/library/Networksl ides2_files/frame.htm

This is the successor to Abilene.

http://www.internet2.edu/network/

or, more specifically:

http://www.internet2.edu/network/library/Networksl ides2_files/frame.htm

So can anyone fill me in on what Internet2 actually does? The WP entry on the topic suggests that there is no network known as Internet2 per se, but one called Abilene, which I assume is what the Slashdot articles are mostly talking about. The Internet2 about page is mostly buzzword-laden fluff ("Internet2 members leverage our high-performance network infrastructure and extensive worldwide partnerships to support and enhance their educational and research missions").

What does the Internet2 consortium actually do? And what can users actually do with the networks they've built? Do they work transparently, just providing higher-speed IP data service between certain institutions that are in the network, for their normal Internet traffic? Or do they use new protcols/applications completely?

From a user's perspective, what does Internet2 (or Abilene) "look" like?

AD does nothing that DCE has not been doing on Unix for over a decade. However DCE is basically dead (not due to any shortcomings, it was just complicated as all get out to get running, only the largest sites did).

PSU's identify management solution (I'm most familiar with this having worked there for 7 years, most of the time with it) is Kerberos for authentication and LDAP for all attribute and group information. This allows for very nice (and secure) single sign on as well as robust authorization and workflow control. AD's KDC is a slave (one way trust) to the production MIT Kerberos KDC so Microsoft has no control of authentication. We have also developed/integrated solutions to obtain credentials in any other format necessary for special or external applications. Need an x.509 certificate for a government application? we have a short term cert generator that signs certificates when presented with the user's kerberos credentials (basically an authentication token converter). Need a SAML assertion for federated offsite application? We have that in the form of Shibboleth ( http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/ ), but it still all backends to our Kerberos authentication and LDAP user registry.

The best solutions let you add on functionality as needed, without compromising your core workflow and authentication setup. As you say, there are open solutions out there which do it a lot better than AD. The only valid reasons to use AD are (1) you are a complete MS shop and never intend to require functionality that MS doesn't provide, (2) you don't know what you are doing and need a wizard setup to set up your identity management infrastructure or (3) management dictated it, technical reasons be damned. In all cases, I feel a twinge of sorrow for for the admin ;)

Finkployd

x.509 has a useful niche. PGP has a useful niche. I believe you are confusing tools.

I admin a PKI system inside the company I work for and it's the bees knees. I add public keys to the keychain. If you aren't on the keychain, then you won't have access to some things on the LAN. Simple, discreet control.

Let me be clear: There is a way around *every* security system. Running PGP/PKI systems meaningfully raises the bar.

Declaring x.509 "the winner" sounds like you have a very serious investment in it's success as opposed to the more professional perspective, right tool for the job.

OT Info:
As a general warning to all: MS's efforts in x.509 are the usual Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thereby crippling interoperability. Note that they've got Red Hat publicly endorsing their efforts now. http://www.identityblog.com/

Whereas shibboleth http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/ is supposed to be the neutral party.

I see. So this thing is just a figment of my imagination? If you're going to criticize someone for being a dumbass, you'd better be careful not to be a dumbass yourself.

Internet2 needs you as a coder this summer. </shameless plug>

I don't think the net neutrality question---or, rather, questions---are so straightforward as some here make them appear. The topic, however, is extremely important: what connection do you want to have in 5 years---a 10-Mb/s one or a 1-Gb/s one?

I once heard a podcast withChristopher "Monty" Montgomeryand other geeks saying that MP3 and Music traffic in Internet now has 90% of bandwith use. Is this all about big companies trying to stop the next revolution that Internet 2 (not web 2) will have for all of us?

I have 3 comments for this ignorant corrupt senator wich has to hear:

1. If you haven't seen statistics of Internet Searching I can tell you that nowadays more than 90% of these searches go only for searching music, artists, and media. This means that latence in Internet traffic today would be better if users find a special ID for media items, stored in a central database like free-db.org where every single music track, video, picture is catalogued, so there could be cache searches for one single song hit, avoiding thousands of the same searches (try searching Daddy Yankee - Gasolina on google and you'll see what i mean). This could be great however it's not a standard and the backbone of Internet 2 must choose if this is viable in the next generation of Internet (see http://www.internet2.edu/ )
   
2. There is a plan to make all telecommunications in the world via packet switching, instead of circuit-based switching see GNU-Gatekeeper where you don't need to have special telephone service installed in order to build a VoIP infrastructure in your P2P network. This means that cable companies are now going to do some real business with cheaper VoIP Internet calls. However they are at risk too, some interesting protocols trying to encapsule this packet networks are JXTA. This little baby protocol (in its earliest versions) has its own Address-to-Name translation system independent of DNS. I think this is another issue that Internet 2 Consortium has to deal with. If there is in the near future an exponential growing of these independent P2P networks where the old Internet law doesn't exist, i think the big companies will be buried just as they are doing right to mp3 broadcasters now in America.
   
3. Because of this issues, big companies and are predicting that Internet 2 will be free- from sponsors in such a way that people will stop to buy their products. (Why a average citizen in a medium-size economy like Latin America will buy a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drive if you can use XviD and AC3-audio to see the same quality in a 700MB disk?) So this is the big issue, and i think this is the reason why these companies are doing corruption in digg.

Saying that Internet2 is paid for by the public is just not true.

Internet2 is paid for by its members (primarily universities). Many of these are public institutions but many are private.

http://members.internet2.edu/university/universiti es.cfm

The name of the carrier will be announced once the agreement is finalized. There are various reasons for the carrier's name being kept private but the bottom line is that the carrier has asked that it not be named until the agreement is finalized.

Disclaimer: I work for Internet2.

I work for a University and we used to be a member of Internet2. While it was nice to have high-speed connections to other members of the Internet2, we quit because of the high costs and we could not justify the costs for a small University with less than 5,000 students.

It costs at least $300,000 minimum per year to join Internet2. The fees are as follows:

$30,000 Internet2 Membership fee (http://members.internet2.edu/Member-Dues.html)
$220,000 Abilene Membership fee for OC-12 (http://abilene.internet2.edu/community/fees/index .html)

Additional fees are assessed depending on which GigaPop you would be connected to (http://eng.internet2.edu/gigapoplist.html). The quote I had to become a member with one Gigapop was approximately $75,000 an year, plus local loop costs.

It's very difficult for us, and probably most Universities, to justify spending over $300,000 a year to become a member of Internet2. Until Internet2 can be better managed and lower costs, I do not foresee Internet2 becoming popular anytime soon.

I work for a University and we used to be a member of Internet2. While it was nice to have high-speed connections to other members of the Internet2, we quit because of the high costs and we could not justify the costs for a small University with less than 5,000 students.

It costs at least $300,000 minimum per year to join Internet2. The fees are as follows:

$30,000 Internet2 Membership fee (http://members.internet2.edu/Member-Dues.html)
$220,000 Abilene Membership fee for OC-12 (http://abilene.internet2.edu/community/fees/index .html)

Additional fees are assessed depending on which GigaPop you would be connected to (http://eng.internet2.edu/gigapoplist.html). The quote I had to become a member with one Gigapop was approximately $75,000 an year, plus local loop costs.

It's very difficult for us, and probably most Universities, to justify spending over $300,000 a year to become a member of Internet2. Until Internet2 can be better managed and lower costs, I do not foresee Internet2 becoming popular anytime soon.

I work for a University and we used to be a member of Internet2. While it was nice to have high-speed connections to other members of the Internet2, we quit because of the high costs and we could not justify the costs for a small University with less than 5,000 students.

It costs at least $300,000 minimum per year to join Internet2. The fees are as follows:

$30,000 Internet2 Membership fee (http://members.internet2.edu/Member-Dues.html)
$220,000 Abilene Membership fee for OC-12 (http://abilene.internet2.edu/community/fees/index .html)

Additional fees are assessed depending on which GigaPop you would be connected to (http://eng.internet2.edu/gigapoplist.html). The quote I had to become a member with one Gigapop was approximately $75,000 an year, plus local loop costs.

It's very difficult for us, and probably most Universities, to justify spending over $300,000 a year to become a member of Internet2. Until Internet2 can be better managed and lower costs, I do not foresee Internet2 becoming popular anytime soon.

Researchers are now using remote control facilities to peer through the world's largest telescopes, without traveling thousands of miles. The high-speed connection that Internet2 offers make it unnecessary for researchers to make the trip to the telescopes, and also provides real time alerts of when to log on for optimal stargazing. For example, at the University of Florida, Astronomer Charlie Telesco uses an Internet2 link to view the eight-meter telescope at the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii via a video conferencing application on his office computer.

Applications drive the networks by allowing communication and cooperation between researchers. The primary applications are tele-immersion, virtual laboratories, digital libraries, and distributed instruction.

Researchers are now using remote control facilities to peer through the world's largest telescopes, without traveling thousands of miles. The high-speed connection that Internet2 offers make it unnecessary for researchers to make the trip to the telescopes, and also provides real time alerts of when to log on for optimal stargazing. For example, at the University of Florida, Astronomer Charlie Telesco uses an Internet2 link to view the eight-meter telescope at the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii via a video conferencing application on his office computer.

Applications drive the networks by allowing communication and cooperation between researchers. The primary applications are tele-immersion, virtual laboratories, digital libraries, and distributed instruction.

Researchers are now using remote control facilities to peer through the world's largest telescopes, without traveling thousands of miles. The high-speed connection that Internet2 offers make it unnecessary for researchers to make the trip to the telescopes, and also provides real time alerts of when to log on for optimal stargazing. For example, at the University of Florida, Astronomer Charlie Telesco uses an Internet2 link to view the eight-meter telescope at the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii via a video conferencing application on his office computer.

Applications drive the networks by allowing communication and cooperation between researchers. The primary applications are tele-immersion, virtual laboratories, digital libraries, and distributed instruction.

Researchers are now using remote control facilities to peer through the world's largest telescopes, without traveling thousands of miles. The high-speed connection that Internet2 offers make it unnecessary for researchers to make the trip to the telescopes, and also provides real time alerts of when to log on for optimal stargazing. For example, at the University of Florida, Astronomer Charlie Telesco uses an Internet2 link to view the eight-meter telescope at the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii via a video conferencing application on his office computer.

Applications drive the networks by allowing communication and cooperation between researchers. The primary applications are tele-immersion, virtual laboratories, digital libraries, and distributed instruction.

Researchers are now using remote control facilities to peer through the world's largest telescopes, without traveling thousands of miles. The high-speed connection that Internet2 offers make it unnecessary for researchers to make the trip to the telescopes, and also provides real time alerts of when to log on for optimal stargazing. For example, at the University of Florida, Astronomer Charlie Telesco uses an Internet2 link to view the eight-meter telescope at the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii via a video conferencing application on his office computer.

Applications drive the networks by allowing communication and cooperation between researchers. The primary applications are tele-immersion, virtual laboratories, digital libraries, and distributed instruction.

Researchers are now using remote control facilities to peer through the world's largest telescopes, without traveling thousands of miles. The high-speed connection that Internet2 offers make it unnecessary for researchers to make the trip to the telescopes, and also provides real time alerts of when to log on for optimal stargazing. For example, at the University of Florida, Astronomer Charlie Telesco uses an Internet2 link to view the eight-meter telescope at the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii via a video conferencing application on his office computer.

Applications drive the networks by allowing communication and cooperation between researchers. The primary applications are tele-immersion, virtual laboratories, digital libraries, and distributed instruction.

...please take a look at my little piece on grading proposals Summer of Code 2005 written after the students who made it were selected.

The documentation format of the Internet2 is a big break from proprietary formats. http://www.internet2.edu/resources/internet2-docum ent-guidelines-200507.html

Here's the latest on the I2 LSR: http://lsr.internet2.edu/ The current record: http://data-reservoir.adm.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/lsr-2005 1114/sub.html which is 208,800terabit meters / second.

But the ZDNet article has the highest hype per paragraph ratio of anything I've read for a while. Web 2.0? Is that the buzzword replace Internet2?

The Internet2 is a real network. Perhaps you're thinking of DHTML?

This story reminded me of Internet2, something that has largely been forgotten about in the mainstream.

Check it out - they are achieving speeds of 167,400 terabit-meters per second!

This story reminded me of Internet2, something that has largely been forgotten about in the mainstream.

Check it out - they are achieving speeds of 167,400 terabit-meters per second!

People, live with it. There are BILLIONS of text messages exchanged and there are hundreds of thousands of Agile Messenger "subscribers".

Real alerting thing is, there is no mention of "Jabber" (XMPP) in the article. No word at http://www.jabber.com/ or http://www.jabber.org/ too.

We are speaking about huge GSM companies here. One must start a petition, send some "people" to these companies IMMEDIATELY.

FYI, XMPP is the _official_ protocol of Internet 2. http://www.internet2.edu/

Enough with "I am so cool, who uses cell phone" attitude.

Oddly enough, I'm at a Identity Management conference in Tempe AZ right now. Although in practice, getting all of your service providers (customers, bank, etc) into a single federation is probabably near impossible, getting them into a smaller number of bridged federations may happen through business needs and market pressure within the next few years. Check out technologies like Shibboleth (http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/) or Liberty Alliance.

Doesn't the US Government want to squash the current internet and introduce Internet 2 where they have power to monitor everything? And hackers for the government? Please most hackers I know wouldn't be able to pass the physical exam required for service.

Oh, but the Internet2 is already out. They had the great idea of registering the trademark on Internet2 though, so it prevents any corporate jerk to use that as a marketing buzz word... that is, until said corporate jerk realizes Internet3 isn't registered...

Here at UW, we use pubcookie for single signon, and call it NetID Login Service. It's part of the larger WebISO concept (Web Initial Sign On), like cosign. But Michigan did have a lot of this deployed in the early 90s.

For some internal (non user-facing) things I have used a self signed cert; for example when prototyping cosign (web single sign on).

In the past we have rolled out a CA signed by CREN. This was a pretty small rollout and used for just Shibboleth, S/MIME, Web Auth, and some limited classroom work using handheld devices. At this point we are using mostly Thawte Freemail for S/MIME and CACERT for S/MIME, PDF signing, 802.1x, and a odd series of other tests/work.

This is less than ideal since we end up beholden to corporate groups, but there is something good on the horizon, USHER Usher is a higher ED CA being put together by Internet2 which will be cross certified with the Federal CA bridge. Basically what CREN was supposed to be, only with more backing and interest.

The nice thing about it is that we will get a signing cert to use at will rather than paying someone like Verisign per certificate which is not gonna happen with 138,000 users, especially if we wish to do any kind of PKI-LITE setup (where short term "junk certs" are issued on demand eliminating the need for a CRL which nobody has figured out how to do right yet).

No way you can get 100Gb/s, no PC interface can handle 10GB/s. Hell most PC's don't have that kind of bandwidth from the CPU to main memory (DDR2-533 maxs at around 6.4GB/s as seen here). Actually after a little searching the Internet 2 speed record is more like 7.21Gb/s for IPv4 traffic.

NetBSD hasn't owned any of those internet speed records for about 18 months. Linux owns them all.

http://lsr.internet2.edu/history.html

Yes, Linux is on the map.

GAH! Every time a discussion comes up about Internet 2, the same misinformed opinions get modded up. Internet 2 is not separate, in that it requires special research grants or whatever to use it.

I2 isn't really all that "separate". It's merely a series of high-speed routers and lines that interconnect member organizations. Being a well-minded student on an I2 connected school-owned network, I would love to have all my gaming and leisure traffic go solely over the commercial internet. It's just not possible. When you connect to other computers at I2 organizations, any and all traffic goes directly over the I2 lines.

So since kernel.org is hosted at Oregon State, I can download the latest and greatest over "Internet 2" with no special software or methods required. The commodity internet isn't even touched for such a transfer, and I can usually get between 1 and 3 MB/s, depending on the I2-connected server.

Hope that clears some misconceptions up. For more information, look at the tracert I did for kerneltrap from my I2 connected computer:

Tracing route to www.kerneltrap.org [140.211.166.45] over a maximum of 30 hops:

    5 13 ms 15 ms 9 ms abilene.tele.iastate.edu [192.245.179.250]
    6 26 ms 20 ms 28 ms dnvrng-kscyng.abilene.ucaid.edu [198.32.8.13]
    7 45 ms 45 ms 57 ms snvang-dnvrng.abilene.ucaid.edu [198.32.8.1]
    8 57 ms 57 ms 57 ms pos-1-0.core0.eug.oregon-gigapop.net [198.32.163.17]
    9 57 ms 57 ms 57 ms nero.eug.oregon-gigapop.net [198.32.163.151]
  10 57 ms 57 ms 57 ms eugn-core1-gw.nero.net [207.98.64.168]
  11 59 ms 59 ms 59 ms corv-car1-gw.nero.net [207.98.64.6]
  12 59 ms 59 ms 59 ms kt2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.45]

Trace complete.

See those .abilene. servers? There's a reason: http://abilene.internet2.edu/

Weird, NetBSD holds the land speed records :D

http://lsr.internet2.edu/

I'm talking about *now*, not a year and a half ago.

NetBSD is indeed more portable than linux.

No it isn't, Linux runs on far more CPu architectures.

Sure, linux claims to support more architectures, but the vanilla kernels often fail to compile on non-i386 machines (PPC wasn't compilable by default until like 2 years ago), and hmm.. getting the machine to work only up to single user mode is not what I would quality as running linux.. NetBSD on the other hand fully supports all the architectures it claims to support.

Again, I'm talking about now rather than years ago. I take a recent kernel and I can compile it and run it on my i386, x86-64, ppc64 G5, and ia64 systems no problems. NetBSD runs on half of these. I'm just speaking from experience, but I have no evidence to believe that support for obscure architectures on Linux is any less stable than NetBSD and neither do you it seems.

> "lean and mean"
They are.

Maybe, but not in comparison with their peers, which makes the statement misleading.

Stop being such a fanboy, who seems to be using linux because EVERYTHING ELSE sucks, and not because linux is good.

I wasn't. I was rebutting the BSD zealots who think BSD is better than EVERYTHING ELSE ESPECIALLY LINUX.

For instance, more than 18 months ago, it was already moving 1TB per week on Internet2, and this past week was at 1.896TB.

It does not solve all the problems, but shibboleth may solve some of them at least.

It's true that the government's NGI is actually independent from Internet2, though they work closely together. The NSF funds organizations to connect to Internet2 with tax money. And the I2 is about 80% funded by universities, which are largely funded by public money, government and otherwise. Where's the return to the public?

I don't know why expecting public money to return products of its investment is "stretching it". We're buying R&D, we should get the R&D. Except where secrecy is important to, say, national security (tiny percentage of research), or the results would be premature to release, of course we should get access to what we bought. Why not?

If an org wants to keep its research products private, it should use only private money. Perhaps there's a case to be made for proportional return on proportional investment (eg. publishing 80% of I2), but that's surely balanced by 1> the critical enabling support of the public money; 2> the vast public research predecessors on which all this new research depends; and 3> the essential role of publishing research results anyway, to science, culture and business. Otherwise, siphoning off all the oxygen produced will leave the system stagnant, and the private systems will wilt and die also.

It's true that the government's NGI is actually independent from Internet2, though they work closely together. The NSF funds organizations to connect to Internet2 with tax money. And the I2 is about 80% funded by universities, which are largely funded by public money, government and otherwise. Where's the return to the public?

I don't know why expecting public money to return products of its investment is "stretching it". We're buying R&D, we should get the R&D. Except where secrecy is important to, say, national security (tiny percentage of research), or the results would be premature to release, of course we should get access to what we bought. Why not?

If an org wants to keep its research products private, it should use only private money. Perhaps there's a case to be made for proportional return on proportional investment (eg. publishing 80% of I2), but that's surely balanced by 1> the critical enabling support of the public money; 2> the vast public research predecessors on which all this new research depends; and 3> the essential role of publishing research results anyway, to science, culture and business. Otherwise, siphoning off all the oxygen produced will leave the system stagnant, and the private systems will wilt and die also.

Internet2 already exists, of course.

http://www.internet2.edu/

And you got your information where again?

Oh, yeah, I forgot this is /., where posing as someone who knows something without providing any supporting evidence whatever is par for the course.

For anyone who'd like real tests and real data, here's a link:

http://lsr.internet2.edu/history.html

Fuck off :)

Linux has held all the IPv4 and IPv6 records for about the past year.

You might also find this interesting.

In light of some *real* information and facts, I contend that Linux has the best TCP/IP stack.

Many unis are migrating to a single login system. While i personally think its a stupid idea, security wise, it does mean more freedmon.

For example, JANET unis in the UK using RoamNet, can login via a different domain, ie: username@domain, rather than just the plain user name, at via any RoamNet access point in the UK.

All of this is controlled via a number of different connectivities. Most noticibly unis are investing in Shibboleth (link: http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/ ), uportal, and similar things.

Get ahead of the game!

Matt

Well, I am not very certain where this is going, but coming to think of it, the DoD started it all here, when the DARPA project started. It grew into the internet as we know it today and more so, who really cares. I mean Internet 2 [internet2.edu] is already available, albeit for academic purposes. How far away do you think Internet 3, 4 etc come up or maybe Internet 2a, 2b,.. If the US wants it, give them the finger and ask them to take it, after all what use is the Internet if people stopped using it and started using an alternative form if something came up? So, ICANN and the 'President' will have a lot of networking homework to do, if no one uses what they control. Peace out!