Slashdot Mirror

If universities actively use their resources to push the Napster service, they are actively using their resources to help MS break the law in two ways: extend the desktop monopoly and break into the audio/video market.

The captive market for music already exists. Their options are to either spend a lot of time blocking packets to unclog their network, spend more money on better networking, or subscribe to this service, which unclogs the network and removes fear of legal liability if they can make it work.

Or the MPAA/RIAA could modernize its business. Being a bottleneck in distribution of entertainment doesn't work once you go beyond distribution fof physical media and enter the world of networked computing. Nor does the current move towards extortion seem to be either popular nor sustainable. Just because they once had a model that used to be profitable doesn't mean the world owes them a handout to keep them in money once that model becomes antiquated. The times don't fit the MPAA/RIAA's outmoded business model, they need to adapt or die.

The rest of your post is just anti-MS FUD.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's FUD. And just because it doesn't favor MS doesn't mean it's FUD either. MS has worked hard over many years to earn the poor reputation it has among the tech community for it's shoddy software and predatory business methods.

Allow me to refute your alternative possible explanation with *facts*. :)

[snip netcraft]


Ha ha. Very funny. You know, it has been nearly a decade since you needed a really good OS to serve websites, right?

No, if you want to be a Linux contender, you have to do this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc.

I don't see the word FreeBSD anywhere, do you? Did you think maybe SGI is "obscuring" FreeBSD because it runs on their 512 CPU SSI Servers so much better than Linux? Or the alternative explanation is that FreeBSD (even the current 6 branch) barely scales to 4 CPUs.

Oh, and don't get me started on clueless idiots.

Do we really need more crap?

What we need is an ITU-T recommendation for voice and video over NAT. Right now, we've got only H.32x and that simply does not cut it. Enter Skype and now this video add-on to make media communication seamless and easy, regardless of NAT.

The ITU needs to get their act in order and bake up an open standard. One freakin' port please. Yes, I am aware of H.350 but even that is too heavy compared to Skype.

This is a problem that already has a solution in production. Using pubcookie for the single sign on, and Shibboleth for the distributed trust relationships.

No problem! As an alternative, may I suggest you check out the open-source alternative: Shibboleth.

Pixie

Which could be considered true as you have "the internet" and then you have Internet 2 (http://www.internet2.edu/). Personally I'm waiting for New Internet by Coca Cola.

It's meant for university networks only.

Not quite. It's meant for research and development collaboration between member organizations. While most members are universities, they do have corporate, affiliate, and association members also.

The full list of members and sponsers includes several non-university entities.

they're not allowed on that network in the first place.

Contrarily, Warner Bros. is listed as a corporate member of I2 and, I'm guessing, also affiliated with the RIAA.

So my coworker tells me of his kid at college, that the university has a internet2 connection. He tells stories of pulling down whole movies in 10minutes.

My BS to this is... these are public universities funded with my TAX DOLLARS. While I was in school, you could get suspended and possibly expelled for abusing the computing systems (downloading pr0n, running a MUDD).

I'm sorry but how does downloading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy on DVD constitute the correct use of a universities network let alone internet2?

So if you look at what the internet2 is supposed to be http://www.internet2.edu/about/ you'll see such reasons for the internet2 as:
* Create a leading edge network capability for the national research community
* Enable revolutionary Internet applications
* Ensure the rapid transfer of new network services and applications to the broader Internet community.

Where does "Trade Maroon5 CDs" fit under this? Sounds like they (the universities and the leadership of the internet2 group) should be cracking down on these guys.

-

Also take a look at this firewall-wizards post:

http://honor.icsalabs.com/pipermail/firewall-wizar ds/2004-October/017533.html The question was about securing wireless networks, but a lot of it still applies.

Thankfully, as you alluded, mutlicast capability lives on in Internet2:

http://multicast.internet2.edu/

At the University of Wisconsin, our new 10Gbps ethernet backbone and all associated equipment in a major network upgrade initiative supports multicast to the desktop. We're operating an IP-based television distribution system exclusively via multicast distribution (using locally scoped addresses, so it's only available internally).

So we can still go to 224.2.231.45, and get a live stream of NASA TV from the University of Oregon.

For the uninitiated, multicast essentially allows any number of clients to "listen" to the same stream: multicast-aware network equipment just handles when a network gets traffic. If a user on the University of Wisconsin campus decides to watch the broadcast from the University of Oregon, one stream's worth of bandwidth will enter our network. If a hundred - or a thousand - people decide to watch it, it's still that same one stream's worth of bandwidth coming in, that everyone else is simply "listening" to. So for each network segment, whether you're looking at an individual subnet or in a whole-internet sense, there is either:

- 0 streams
- 1 or more streams, but all with the equivalent network usage of 1 stream

It's really a fantastic way of distributing video. Not only is there no additional load beyond the one stream on the network, but there is also *only the load of one stream* on the server.

If multicast were enabled on the internet-at-large, individual people really could distribute video to the world: all they'd need is essentially enough bandwidth to distribute one stream, and one, or one million, could listen in.

(And yes, there are ways this can break down, but I'm just trying to give a simplified explanation here.)

actually, apparently we do have it (link)...

Warner Bros. and Napster LLC are both Corporate Members of I2.

http://www.internet2.edu/resources/Internet2Overvi ew.htm contains "Download of 'The Matrix' DVD" slide. I know that this is merely an example and not really the issue at hand, but amusing nonetheless, and leads to an important question: at what point is the act and the intention no longer separable for legal purposes? Or further, the act, the intention and the end-results/side-effects?

Oh wait a minute, I don't remember seeing the RIAA listed as a corporate sponsor, association or affiliate. And last time I checked, the University of RIAA hadn't opened their doors yet.

My "evidence" is that they gained access to the network in the first place. There's a latin term used in law circles that describes the situation where the mere fact of the event is evidence of wrongdoing, but I forget what it is. Maybe a lawyer in the crowd can help me out.

They (the RIAA) gained access to a network to which they did not have membership. Nobody knows how they did it because they're not saying. But when an entity or individual gains access to a private network to which they are not a member and do not have permission to use, I will assume that said access was illicit until proven otherwise. Call me weird.

When you come home tomorrow and find your neighbour sitting on your couch, watching your TV and wearing your slippers, you can hold your conclusions as to how he got there.

Oh wait a minute, I don't remember seeing the RIAA listed as a corporate sponsor, association or affiliate. And last time I checked, the University of RIAA hadn't opened their doors yet.

My "evidence" is that they gained access to the network in the first place. There's a latin term used in law circles that describes the situation where the mere fact of the event is evidence of wrongdoing, but I forget what it is. Maybe a lawyer in the crowd can help me out.

They (the RIAA) gained access to a network to which they did not have membership. Nobody knows how they did it because they're not saying. But when an entity or individual gains access to a private network to which they are not a member and do not have permission to use, I will assume that said access was illicit until proven otherwise. Call me weird.

When you come home tomorrow and find your neighbour sitting on your couch, watching your TV and wearing your slippers, you can hold your conclusions as to how he got there.

Oh wait a minute, I don't remember seeing the RIAA listed as a corporate sponsor, association or affiliate. And last time I checked, the University of RIAA hadn't opened their doors yet.

My "evidence" is that they gained access to the network in the first place. There's a latin term used in law circles that describes the situation where the mere fact of the event is evidence of wrongdoing, but I forget what it is. Maybe a lawyer in the crowd can help me out.

They (the RIAA) gained access to a network to which they did not have membership. Nobody knows how they did it because they're not saying. But when an entity or individual gains access to a private network to which they are not a member and do not have permission to use, I will assume that said access was illicit until proven otherwise. Call me weird.

When you come home tomorrow and find your neighbour sitting on your couch, watching your TV and wearing your slippers, you can hold your conclusions as to how he got there.

They don't need all that much access. Here are some nice reports if you want to know what kind of traffic I2 carries - I2 Netflow.

Have a look at the Internet 2's home page. They're collaborating with the RIAA on ths one.

Actually, if you read the FAQ from the Internet2 website, you'll see that the Internet2 is not intended to replace the Internet. Like you said, it's about testing the technologies that will be used later down the road in the regular Internet to enable new applications. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a subversion (they are after all "testing bandwidth") but, their choice of testing material is definitely questionable.

• Create a leading edge network capability for the national research community
• Enable revolutionary Internet applications
• Ensure the rapid transfer of new network services and applications to the broader Internet community.

I see the http://members.internet2.edu/JoinInternet2.html page. But How does someone log into internet2. What is on there? Is there a cahce of internet2 on google or somewhere else?

bastardizing a research network

Yeah right. Aside from using it to test some pretty fancy high speed protocols, the Internet2 in general is really nothing more than a fast pipe for college students to download music on, insulated from the original Internet by BGP. You never see an academic conference requiring "tests on the Internet2" because its geographic concentration is entirely in North America and its speed is totally beyond anything you see in the real Internet; that is why everyone wants PlanetLab instead.

- sm

It's a university system that guarantees really fast connections. http://www.internet2.edu/ (and whoever modded this as "funny" is really weird)

About Internet2

I would like to see the web cleared of porn and for-profit companies

I'm sorry, but you'll never clear the pr0n off the net now. Its too ingrained, too attached for that. As for for-profit companies, half of them think they own the net anyway. Mentioning no Microsofts.

However, there is a high-bandwidth, high-speed progression being developed and implimented. http://www.internet2.edu/. It is primarily for academia and the exchange of information, much like the original net. Here's hoping this one turns out cleaner.

Oh yeah, lots of it. One of the things is IPv6 and multicast. The Abilene backbone (one of the I2's biggest) is entirely v6. The knowledge there on how it works on a grander scale is helping to tune and shape the works that come out of places like Cisco and Nortel. Thier code gets production tested first on Abilene and then to the big networks. We also get the new big routers to test with usually before anybody else does. If you go look at Abilene's website, you can see from the network graphic that it's pretty busy.

Interestingly enough there seems to be a moving away from expensive ATM connectors to cheaper 10GigE connections. Our state network has just converted the backbone to GigE, and I expect that our connection to Abilene will change to that soon as well. I think ATM for medium length hauls will die out, only to be used on extra long hauls like across contries and oceans. I can see the big networks doing this to to cut down on costs and brainpower. ATM is just too complicated.

I don't mean to troll, but I think this post has to be made. For the record, I have nothing against the *BSD's (I'm actually considering moving to one of them now that I have a new hard drive to set up), and I have no problem with people advocating them. However, I like to see people advocating their favourite OS using *good* facts.

A lot of people are throwing around the fact that slashdot ran a story back in 2004 stating, correctly, that NetBSD 2.0 was used by some Swedish researchers to set a new Internet2 land-speed record. A lot of people point out that the researchers used NetBSD because they found its network stack to be superior to linux's.

Head on over to here to see the official history of the competition. It's true that NetBSD set the record in April 2004 and then again in September 2004. However, since then a CERN-Caltech and then a Japanese team have broken that record - using linux 2.6. So the linux kernel is indeed capable of the same high speed networking as NetBSD.

Of course, even if it wasn't, we have to question how much land-speed records mean for an OS - look further back into the history of the competition and you'll see a number of records set by, wait for it, Windows. Apparently it doesn't take a quality system to set a record afterall.

Again, I just want to emphasise, I'm not bashing on NetBSD. I'm not bashing any system (alright, except Windows). I just want to make it clear that the several people who instantly trot out the NetBSD record story as a reason to convert to NetBSD should probably stop doing so.

And FUD is FUD.

Linux routes over 1Mpps on a single processor system, and 2.1Mpps on a dual processor.

Linux currently holds all the internet land speed records (ipv4 single stream, ipv4 multi stream, ipv6 single stream, ipv6 multi stream).

You don't seem to know what FUD means.
So, calm down, and then please point out *where* exactly you think the message was not accurate.

The message never stated that NetBSD was the *current* record holder. As the record history shows, the record is broken every 3 months or something. Heck, between the 2 NetBSD records, it even belonged to Windows for some months. So, kudos to Linux, but I'm not sure that who's the *current* record holder actually means a lot.

I really suggest you look up "FUD" in a dictionary. That would be an educational experience.

NetBSD:
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004) [slashdot.org]
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (30 Sep 2004) [netbsd.org]

Requiem for the FUD, eh? Let me hold a little requiem for your FUD...

Linux currently holds all the internet land speed records (ipv4 single stream, ipv4 multi stream, ipv6 single stream, ipv6 multi stream).

How do you like them apples?

Yes, according to their web site they are. And the Internet2 community (mainly universities) is developing a way for its users to interact anonymously with online sites that require an identity. It's called Shibboleth . The weak spot in "Shib" is that it relies on the university's LDAP server to determine your status, but the identity that goes out across the net is regenerated for each new use and is short-lived. This wouldn't work for purchases, but it can define you as a legitimate subscriber to a service once you have signed on.

"If you build this technology, they will require it." David Sobel, CFP 2000

I'm not quite sure that I agree with the assertion that this is the biggest next-generation Internet network in operation in the world. Certainly networks research and education networks, such as Eurpe's GEANT, CA*Net in Canada, and Internet2 in the US could give this network a run for its' money in size.

This network is very similar to the Internet2's Abilene research and education network in the US. The difference is Internet2 runs routers in "dual-stack" mode, meaning they support both IPv4 and IPv6 on the same device. If you wanted to connect to Internet2's backbone using only IPv6, so could do so, but almost everyone chooses to have both IPv4 and IPv6 connections

There is more than one internet. Internet 2 has been going strong for years now.

http://www.internet2.edu/

Shibboleth, from Internet2, provides much the same, and is being rapidly adopted by Higher Ed and vendors supporting Higher Ed. As SAML 2.0 is adopted, word is that Shib and Liberty Alliance may begin to converge.

This is not an Internet2 speed record (lsr.internet2.edu), which is measured between single host pair. This demo was done for the SC2004 bandwidth challenge using a large number of hosts.

Let the good folks at Internet2 know that the MPAA is a threat. We've all seen organizations fall for this kind of trickery before, so let the people over at Internet2 know (in a calm and respectful manner) about the true nature and intentions of the MPAA, the widespread implications of accepting them, and the precedent it can set for the future. A contact list for Internet2 representatives can be found on their site. Also, students at universities should find out who they can talk to about this. Many of these people are quite likely oblivious to the MPAA/RIAA's tactics and would take the MPAA at face value. The MPAA is counting on this, don't let them get away with it!

Incidentally, Snort isn't "SNORT" or "Snort!" or anything other than Snort. Snort isn't an acronym, it's an IDS. :)

Helevius

I don't see any membership level listed in the I2 bylaws that would allow even a collaborative level of membership within I2. All of the current corporate members have something technical or educational to offer to the membership. The MPAA doesn't as far as I can tell. In fact it want sa regulatory voice within the oranization. Article I, Section 2 of the bylaws prohibit all non-Regular Members from having voting rights. Unless of course the I2 Board of Trustees rolls over and lets the MPAA in. Grrr...

I don't see any membership level listed in the I2 bylaws that would allow even a collaborative level of membership within I2. All of the current corporate members have something technical or educational to offer to the membership. The MPAA doesn't as far as I can tell. In fact it want sa regulatory voice within the oranization. Article I, Section 2 of the bylaws prohibit all non-Regular Members from having voting rights. Unless of course the I2 Board of Trustees rolls over and lets the MPAA in. Grrr...

Everyone keeps forgetting about the http://www.internet2.edu/ educational/scientific high speed network

on another note isnt this what MILnet was designed for?

Based on the original index, I generate different ranking, based on the number of events per million of population (rather than unscaled events).

See the result: Rigging Press Freedom. (Oh yes, the US takes the first place, Germany -- the second, and Netherlands -- the third.)

NetBSD does it again. After the original Internet2 Land Speed Record set in 2004 May 3 was broken, NetBSD shines again: researchers at the Swedish University Network (SUNET) have broken once more the Internet2 Land Speed Record, using the upcoming version, NetBSD 2.0.

The new records are 124.935 Pbmps in a single stream (was 69.073 Pbmps), and 122.367 Pbmps in multiple streams. NetBSD was used once more due to the "scalability of its TCP code".

More information about this record including the NetBSD configuration can be found here for single stream and here for multiple streams. And here is the website of the Internet2 Land Speed Record (I2-LSR) competition.

For any email server with a moderate load, do you even realize how much computation that is? checksumming isn't a trivial process computationally. Besides, it'd make spam even easier. The checksums, etc. would all be the same, so all I'd have to do is respond with a canned reply to any query on a spam I (theoretically) sent. All the while this imposes a PENALTY on LEGITIMATE mail, because of the necessary individual calculations.
Nice idea. It has some major flaws, though.
And according to NetFlow, mail still accounts for 1.19% of all packets, which isn't anything to sneeze at.

Try CAS
It's a free web-based single-sign-on
http://www.yale.edu/tp/auth/
Also, take a look at shibboleth
http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/

take a look at shibboleth

It's designed for D-VHS streaming, which is a similar testcase. Keep in mind that VideoLAN works natively with MPEG2-TS as well:
http://www.videolan.org/

So Intel will reinvent Internet2 then?

If this is a measure of when people will start using IPv6, the answer is today. It's already there. Every major TCP/IP stack out there supports IPv6. Tunnel networks exist through IPv4. Internet 2 uses it exclusively.

When are corporations going to start moving to IPv6? Who knows...that will depend on individual needs, but in general, large corporations aren't going to see a big need to move towards IPv6 any time soon. Without end user by in, who is going to 'force' people to use IPv6?

Yes, IPv4 space is running out. It has been for a long time. That's why Network Address Translation and private address space are so common in today's world. They may be hacks, but they do the trick. Where's the business case involved in reorganizing major networks?

The best campuses are offering Internet2 connectivity -- I wouldn't even consider going to a college without Internet2 access. The main advantage of Internet2, besides speed, is that it is separate from the regular Internet1, and less susceptible to monitoring by third parties such as corrupt administrators and the questionable activities of BayTSP and others.

I've been using I2Hub for a couple weeks at my college and am very impressed. All the benefits of fast Internet P2P at college, without the drawbacks (i.e., the RIAA suing you).

Personally I don't buy the subsidized Napster or other music service access. I would rather choose a college based on its academic credibility, performance, a rigorous curriculum and dedicated teachers. College is an investment, and while access to these services may seem nice, I doubt many students will choose colleges entirely based on this. You would get much more out of going to a well-respected established universe than a cheap fly-by-night college that gives out useful gadgets for free to lure you in to paying for a four-year education. That said, Internet2 and iPods are invaluable, but I think of them more as gifts than a deciding factor in choosing which campus to matriculate to.

Earlier speed records were set using configurations running
Debian GNU/Linux and
NetBSD.

I guess it primarily depends on what the participating partners are comfortable with.