Slashdot Mirror
If This Had Been An Actual Emergency
saridder writes "In an increasing attempt to regulate the Internet like the current PSTN, the US Government has asked the IETF to come up with a system to prioritize government and emergency worker traffic in the event of another disaster, much like the GETS system already in place for the PSTN. It's interesting to follow, because it's only an RFC, so you don't have to follow it. I probably won't be prioritizing government traffic on any of my routers." The story has a link to the ieprep working group if you want to get involved or comment. Perhaps this is a better way than GOVNET.
This wouldn't get abused.
Three things are certain: Death, taxes, and lost data. Guess which has occurred.
important enough to have some kind of a back up way to listen to muskrat love while I wait to be rescued?
Why don't they put out their data on freenet and then if people want to see it it will be replicated on nodes close to the people who want it?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Were there other problems I just didn't notice? I'm guessing that the government won't need to have priority access to cnn.com if something like that happens again.
Heck, even then, the servers themselves seemed to be the bottleneck. Load levels were pegged beyond comprehension, but I was under the impression that the infrastructure itself held up well. Once again, I could be entirely mistaken about that.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
So there would have to be some kind of flag on government traffic so it could be placed in a higher priority, right? Does that mean it would be possible to set this flag with some sort of hack so I could get a better ping rate in Quake 3?
Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't there some sort of prioritization header field somewhere?
Slashdot, the site where everything's made up and the points don't matter
This won't get abused. Maybe they need to have the D.I.R.T traffic routed to them as fast as possible ;-)
But I don't think it would really work well in practice, unless it becomes government mandatory. Seems to me that it's like blocking spammers or virus spreading, you actually have to make the sysadmin care to do this.
/. reading or pr0n surfing?
The problem I forsee is how are they going to identify these high priority packets and data transmissions? If they just flag it with a special flag, how long before some haxor figures it out and suddenly everybody has high priority
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Good to know that web browsing is an essential service. Can't have the congress-critters missing out on slashdot, right?!
Oh wait, that would require them to have a clue..... Can't have them missing out on msn.com, right?!
...doesn't TCP/IP already have a system for prioritizing packets? Which no one (especially no router) uses for the obvious reason: It's too unregulated and too easy to exploit, especially if you let just anyone onto the net like today.
If this system goes through, all that will happen is that every single packet on the net is a priority-one red-alert packet and the routers will just start ignoring the priorities (again). There is no honor on a completely public medium, don't forget what happened to the idea of open relays.
Among the applications required by emergency management agencies are voice, video, instant messaging, e-mail, database services and Web browsing.
Ya, just what I want emergency workers to have! AIM and streaming videos! (pr0n?)
Shouldn't they be trying to restrict internet access for workers?
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
...I can download pr0n faster?
I probably won't be prioritizing government traffic on any of my routers.
The government may force you to do it by passing a law.
Even without any law, if the router you own has the feature implemented but you choose to turn it of and someone get hurts (or cannot get help) because emergency traffic is not prioritized by your router, then you will get sued for not giving assistance to someone who needs it.
sounds like they should just build their own damn secure network. considering this is a resource (not yet) 'owned' by one person, why the hell should they get priority?
sorry, awful things happen. get carrier pigeons.
your jesus is another mans xebu. chew on that hypocrites.
If this had been an actual emergency, I would already have been across the border. Thank you, and good evening, peasants.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
I work for the government, so I'll be looking forward to prioritizing my "emergency" Quake3 traffic.
What designates an emergency? Or would it be ANY government traffic? For instance, if a government official browses to my website, do I have to give him higher priority then someone else?!?! Or is it only during emergencies?!
Essentially, the U.S. government wants the ability to mark packets going through the Internet as emergency communications and then develop a plan to ensure these packets get preferential treatment by all the ISPs that carry them.
I hope they are not thinking about setting a special bit in the Tcp/IP packet header. Or actually it might be fun; get out of the way, emergency packet coming through!
Might get those files a bit faster =)
then minimize it ?? Seems like I would just use it to do the oppsite and give government traffic MUCH less priority on a normal basis and save badwidth :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I'd have gotten First Post, but the goddamn government got here first. :)
On 9/11 the Emergency Broadcast System here in the USA was not used AT ALL. WHY?? Because the news channels knew what was going on before the government.
All this talk of emergency communication networks is bogus. They just need to feed information to the news outlets like they always do.
Now all I need to do is reflag all my packets like that, and I'll get priority over the other game players!
Perhaps we'll see certain emergency sites get high-ranking QoS for these reasons.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Microsoft OSes mark all packets as URGent so that they commandeer higher priority. This qualifies as innovation.
The government will now have to re-solve a previously solved problem. I suggest that the backbones become more distributed (once again) and the gov't look into secondary private-peering circuits for failover... it is the obvious choice, I don't receive point-to-point traffic over the public Internet if I can avoid it, why should they?
(for example, we have dedicated fiber circuits to a handful of government agencies and business partners where I work, so that network news feeds purchased from us are five-nines reliable. And we're working on the other 5 minutes per year. We sold feeds to Japan, France, and Italy on 9/11 and not one of them got hosed...)
Definitely his/her perogative. But it's such a common sentiment (not trusting the government) I wonder...at what point *would* you voluntarily help out the government to a good end?
What would it take for the government to gain the trust necessary for you to say "Hey, I trust you to really only use this in an emergency, and will implement the procedures necessary to allow you to prioritize your traffic in the case of an emergency"?
Prioritizing packets isn't "electronic racism" as some trolls are claiming, because packets *do* get to their destination eventually. If these guys want faster service, they can lay out their own fiber across the country and fix the connection when a farmer tractor runs over it somewhere in Kansas. Don't want to? Then just pass a law to suck the life out of every citizen while we're at it. Those government talking heads have it too easy already.
YANAL, if I understand the law AT ALL...
If someone is bleeding outside my house and I don't feel like helping, I don't get thrown in jail. Rather, they die, and I eat my apple pie, and everyone's happy.
Back on the shelf with your tinfoil hat, you Disclosure Project nut.
During Operation Sandstorm in Iraq, CNN was one of the quickest, most reliable sources of intelligence that the American military had. Reporters can go where government employees can't, and generally have sources that the government doesn't. Also, most government intelligence has to go through and review, briefing, debriefing, etc. before it can be used. Seeing it live on CNN is much more efficient, and helps to back up intelligence already going thru the ranks
/.
Web-browsing is an essential part of much government intelligence activity now. Using some random example, if some terrorist group has a website, and they put information about themselves and their activities on that website, then that's a bona fide use for web browsing. Checking news sites in other countries is exteremly usefull as well.
In an emergancy, I would want the government ( I'm Canadian btw) to have priority checking updates on CNN over me checking updates on
Have you thought about what you're looking at today?
The government did know something was going on, and it looks like they had a pretty good idea of what (the capitol building was evacuated before the first plane hit.) They didn't tell us, of course, since we're not as important as the government leaches, but they did know.
-Space for rent
It's kind of ironic that the government to connect research sites used the Internet in its infancy. I believe they also looked at it as a way to provide a backup to phone communications. Then they turned it over the public and now they want it back. To a degree anyway.
til hackers figure out how to take advantage of this. :-D Then we will priority websites, games, images, and more looking like govt traffic. Then how long before websites figure out how to take advantage of it? Also if I were running a router I would deprioritze this traffic. I have nothing against government traffic but I would want the traffic that actually makes me money to be sped up not slowed down by other priority traffic. And who says it is priority or when it is priority. They already have their own networks why can't they just use those?
On 9/11, the most important communications did not come from the government. They were the cell phone calls to/from the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. I'd hate to think that those lifesaving phone calls among private citizens might get squeezed out because giving the governor an update on resuce efforts took priority.
But if this RFC was followed it would probably mean I'd get all these emails with the subject "I Love You" before any others...
-- Dan =)
When I first read this, I was thinking of the application of routing theory to the movement of vehicles such as would be required in an emergency, which naturally led to...
If you thought TCP/IP over carrier pigeon had huge-azz latency, wait'll you try TCP/IP over government bureaucrat!
First, the IP datagram is printed on a form I-TCPIP by the former acting deputy chief. The scroll of paper is inserted into his briefcase and he's reassigned to acting director for international affairs.
At each hop, the source address is taken by the executive associate commissioner for field operations, and filed according to procedure. After he becomes regional director for the western region, he looks up the address of the next hop.
The next hop's address is glommed onto the datagram by the assistant commissioner for inspections, formerly the acting executive associate commissioner in the office of programs.
Finally, the router, upon receipt of the datagram, forwards it to the special counsel to the commissioner, who herself is then reassigned to assistant deputy executive associate commissioner for immigration services.
Six months after the hijackers initiate transmission via a high-delay, low-throughput, and low-altitude service, the router at the flight school gets the packet containing the 9/11 hijackers' visa approval notifications.
Security is not only a problem in a normal operation, as special measures (such as the firing of the incompetent) cannot be taken even when government bureaucrats are used in a tactical environment.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
"I probably won't be prioritizing government traffic on any of my routers."
Man, I have to say that that is pretty low. If there's an emergency, why the heck wouldn't you want to prioritize official traffic? Even if it helps a miniscule amount, what does it cost you? An hour of your time to make the configuration changes? A temporary loss of bandwidth during an emergency?
This post, I realize, has a good chance of starting an unproductive argument, and probably should not have been posted. Please moderate down.
I'm the stranger...posting to
I probably won't be prioritizing government traffic on any of my routers
Damn Terrorists...
Why don't they put out their data on freenet and then if people want to see it it will be replicated on nodes close to the people who want it? Or if no one needs the data it will just drop out.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Reading your post makes me want some new Slashdot moderation categories:
1. (-1) Fucking Stupid
2. (-1) Utter Bullshit
3. (-1) Troll Using Old-As-The-Hills Urban Legend
4. (-1) Outrageous Horseshit Told W/Straight Face
So far, you're running at -4...
I can't believe how many people are saying something along the lines of:
...
/.'ers could be a bit more constructive, vs just kindergarten thinking.
/.'ers think, my bad.
golly gee willackers (sic), I think I'll just turn on the "no really, I'm important" flag in my packets
Lets have just a modicum of creativity and problem solving here shall we? If you were going to try to setup a system to allow prioritzed traffic over a system that does not currently facilitate it (ignoring the ip flag since it's useless as is), you sure wouldn't have such a lame simplistic approach as simply marking a packet with a flag.
One way off the top of my head would be to send an encrpyted packet that has some type of auth flag, and a stream identifier. Routers would see the packet, decrypt it, check it, what ever, and then any other packets that are a part of the stream would also be given priority. Now admitidly, almost any scheme would appear to be vulnerable to hacking no matter what you do (unles we're starting to talk changes to router hardware and weird packets that can't be formed "normally"). But my point is that you'd think that as a group,
Oh wait, I just read that last sentence again, what the hell was I thinking, this is how
Its nice that they make these comparisions to the phone system, but they are not valid.
Even though the phones are deregulated, their are still relatively few carriers to coerce into supporting this. On the internet, they could most likely get the backbone to support it and large ISPs like AOL, but they are not really the problem. The biggest lag is going to be in the many smaller ISPs that host web sites and whatever other things they want to do. So they need to get the small ISPs to cooperate, which is the most important, but also the most difficult because there are so many.
Even if some agency makes it a requirement that everyone implement this, how long will it take? Look at E911, the location service for 911 on cell phones. The major carriers have been dragging their feet for years. The entire system was suppose to be in place last year but their is so little support it is barely usable.
Finally if they want this to be at all secure, they are going to have to use digital signatures of some type, which will introduce a whole new set of headaches. Otherwise every gamer and his brother will set this flag.
Anyways that's my take on this whole thing.
Audio and video? Why? Specially video, which is hardly a nice thing to the current bandwidth capacity of the Internet.
Couldn't they setup a system on Internet2 for emergencys. It would be simpler because they wouldn't have to deal with so many routers and traffic will be lower anyway.
Seems the discussion has lost its way: The point here is not to put all Gov't info on this special priority or just send out generic stuff that yes CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/etc. etc. has broadcast.
The point is to support timely communication between government workers who are actually working on the emergency. So when a FEMA person on site arrives at the scene, he'll be able to request certain information or communicate the situation and needs to the agency that can respond.
During Sept. 11, alot of people said that email was useful in letting people know they were ok because they weren't able to get through on the phone. The gov't has been putting a lot of information and communication onto the web, they just want to make sure it gets through in an emergency. Just like a siren on the fire truck lets us know to pull over and let the truck pass.
I do agree that this priority scheme will probably be hacked (unless there is a way to turn it on at the time of the emergency only, just an idea), and be used by non emergency workers.
A broadcast technology like TV or Radio will ALWAYS scale better than a point-to-point technology like Telephone, TCP/IP, SMS, etc.
The best information distribution would be if there was a way to send a message to every phone in the country - to make them all ring at the same time - but that isn't possible with the way switches work.
This technology will never be useful for 'breaking' news distribution, like "GET OUT OF TOWN - TORNADO!" but rather could be useful for managing the long term (i.e., several days - weeks) effect of a massive attack (terrorist, military, or otherwise) on the nation's information systems.
I live in China where about 75% of websites are blocked by the government. The only reason me and a lot of the techy people are able to visit slashdot is by using a public proxy, and if the police found out we could get a large fine!
Hey, long time no see!
But what does this have to do with project SLAM or the mighty Tory II-C?
That's not what RFC means, even though I know you're thinking "Request For Comments."
See the Status of this Memo section at the top of each RFC to determine whether it's an "Internet Standard" or "Internet standards track protocol" or "Experimental Standard" or "Historic" or some other category.
RFC 793 is "only an RFC" but your packets won't be routed if you don't follow it.
When 9/11 happened the weaknesses that we saw on the net were web servers falling appart as everyone crammed a http request down CNN's throat. The only place that didn't get hammered was /. because it's used to the load.
Wouldn't the govt. be better off creating a P2P wrapper protocol with a structure of nodes that help create redundant links for IM, whiteboard sharing, and VoIP?
Send many packets to a single destination that have multiple, redudant routes so that reliability goes up. TCP/IP has some of this built in, but if a core router somewhere buckles under load RIP/BGP/IGRP takes some time to converge and sessions would get broken.
There is a good chance that this will either
a) Have no effect because everyone ignores the BCP
b) Will get suitably dropped under due consideration because it isn't a smart thing to do
What I want to know is if the government wants this put in, why doesn't it just pay for a given SLA like everyone else that wants expedited traffic does. Then it is just a simple matter for the ISPs that service this traffic to engineer it correctly to meet the SLAs that have been negotiated/paid for...
(Cynically note: These kind of SLAs tend to be rather expensive, wonder if that is why the government doesn't want to pay for them, but to require them because of a "civic duty")
Among the applications required by emergency management agencies are voice, video, instant messaging, e-mail, database services and Web browsing.
Does this seem to anyone else like it's part of an all inclusive list that touches everything anyone might need a net connection for? What else do most people use the net for besides voice, video, EM, email, db access, and/or web browsing? (I said most, obviously certain people do other stuff, but most people the gov't would need to reach w/ this access can't possibly do much more than what's on this list fragment, and since they said "Among the applications required," that leaves the door open to other things.)
then ISP's would be common carriers and many the crazy threats to internet reliability would go away. If someone thinks the song on our outgoing answering machine tape infringes their copyright, they can't get our phone disconnected without a goddamn court order, so they shouldn't be able to make our ISP's censor content without a court order either. And we'd be able to get long-term permanent IP addresses like phone numbers, that couldn't be reassigned at an ISP's whim. Those might be harder to remember than domain names, but they'd be immune to trademark disputes and in general very hard to take away from us, so we could include the numbers in our publications in case something happened to our domain names. All that would be left to screw up is the transport layer, and as the world gets covered with wireless network fabric accessed by low powered devices, transport (at least of low bandwidth, important data) gets extremely hard to disrupt.
Good excuse to push forward the rollout of IPv6. Gov't grants to ISPs to get new, IPv6 capable, equipment.
IPv6 has better QoS than IPv4.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Sheeh, the state throws a few pennies into the research on packet-switched networks, and then thinks they ()jn the result.
Perhaps I should throw a quarter at the POTUS and ()jn him. Oh, wait, that's already been done, and I'm too late.
You could've hired me.
Please, there weren't enough obscure acronyms in this piece for your average government agency. We need more. Have someone get on this ASAP. We need more acronyms PDQ. We need to assign a DOAP and make sure they PATFT. That way we'll all be MHIB. Clearly LIAP for posts or we'd have LODT. So lets KUTGW with OAP and we'll all be VAFWWH.
I consider myself a tech-head, and if I can't make sense of a tech article at a glance after getting a Bachelors in Computer Science, something is wrong. I don't even know if I'm interested in this article. It has something to do with the internet, emergencies, and 9/11; and the rest is friggen jibberish. To add insult to injury, michael the slashdot moderator adds an unrecognizable acronym of his own!
PSTN? GETS? IEPREP? Not to mention the slightly better known RFC and IETF? This is crazy. IMHO, I shouldn't have to follow a link just to find out WTF the article is about. These kind of posters need to STFU or slashdot will be a FUBAR POS that just wastes my time.
DOAP: Designated Obscure Acronym Poster
PATFT: Post All The Friggen Time
MHIB: Much Happier I Bet
LIAP: Length Is A Priority
LODT: Lots Of Descriptive Terms
KUTGW: Keep Up The Good Work
OAP: Obscure Acronym Posts
VAFWWH: Very Appreciative For What We Had
// harborpirate
// Slashbots off the starboard bow!
As I see it, preserving the end to end, nondiscriminatory nature of the internet backbone is more important than any current concern about national security or natural disaster response. Creating preferences for any group, no matter how worthy the group or the motive, undermines the essence of what makes the internet a good network and creates opportunities for abuse. Just to touch on a couple points & questions:
In the future we'll see lots of this. We'll see people coming to us or to the gov't with lots of good reasons for discriminating content on the net. National security. Preserving copyright. Stopping kiddie porn. All putatively good motives, but nobody's seeing that the cure, perfect network control, is worse than the disease. It puts innovation in a box and lets our current interests and concerns block what can be done with the internet in the future, and in return all we get is a network that's little more than a fancy mail-order catalog.
if face == spite (nose = 0);
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
well .... if i had a router i would ... but i dont soo .. heh
Yours Truly, Wes -- Owner
1) It will be years before anything useful is published.
2) what is published will take even more years to work out the kinks.
3) While the kinks are being worked out the supporting vendors will have a ball finger pointing at non-standard implementations.
4) And it won't be anywhere as good a private system.
Simple implementation: gov't makes a secret/public key pair and distributes the public key to ISPs/routers/whatever. Each emergency packet is signed with secret key and a flag is raised to indicate, that an authenticity check is to be performed. If check passes, package is prioritized. Shouldn't be too hard to implement.
Following Internet protocol. Asking for an RFC from the IETF instead of congress passing an unworkable law.
A big deal is being made these days about how funding for terrorists comes largely from the profits of illegal drug sales in the U.S. That sounds pretty credible; opium is supposed to be the biggest export for Afghanistan.
Prohibition in the 1920s taught us the reason those profits are so large: because we've kept the drugs illegal. The "War on Drugs" created an environment in which drug dealers could get rich, and likewise their suppliers. Competition was outlawed so there was no free-market rein on prices.
In some sense, the War-on-Drugs crowd financed the Sept. 11th attacks. Of course, back then the Afghanis were fighting the Soviets, so they were our good buddies anyway.
I hadn't heard much in the media connecting the "War on Drugs" to the "War on Terrorism" but when I think about it, the connection seems pretty tight.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
Shoot the lawyers, then go after the MBAs. Shakespeare had it right.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Please, stop thinking about the media web sites and such. They cause the problem, but the real communications goes on in the background.
:)
Email can be used for communication between those involved in the response and recovery effort - where appropriate. Web surfing is not so we can surf pr0n or the news sites. There are a number of incident management systems that can be used via web browsers as it provides one of the easiest forms of network access. Not to mention sharing GIS data over the network.
Emergency management professionals know a lot more than what the media does. The media works with the EM professionals, and one of the first rules of media relations in emergency management is to keep feeding the media information, but trust me it is still carefully controlled. This was implemented very well during the 11/9 events. Note how the only people you ever saw rescuing were NY personnel? After a 2-3 days, there were many out-of-state Task Forces there, but you never saw them on TV did you?
The issue with Internet traffic is exactly the same as cell sites. If an event happens, it is possible for the cell sites to be reconfigured to only accept authorised traffic, those involved in the response and recovery to an event. Otherwise the cell phone network is overloaded and no-one can use it. Better to kick off the public, and have the service (if it is capable of working) be used towards the common good of the people. The same with the Internet, it is possible that local use of the Internet may constrain emergency management professionals ability to respond and recover.
Then again, I don't think that having a public priority system is the way to go. I think Govnet is an appropriate solution, and access is provided to organisations as required. It could have better support for running in an emergency, and even public companies, such as power and comms, could gain access as they are heavily involved in the response effort.
Additionally, in emergency management you cannot rely on having any form of communications, and work is going into setting up ad hoc communications network, such as the military uses, in areas where there is no power or communication cabling.
Here endeth my rant
I took a tour of a major defense contractor a couple years ago. They have two separate PCs on each desk, with two separate cable runs -- one to the company network and the Internet and the other to a private military network. They have two separate phone networks, too. The guy took me through *three* swipe card doors to show me their kerberos keyserver. I saw Wargames-like status boards showing link states to various bases across the country and around the world. Over lunch I asked about secret networks, and he says there are at least 4 "Internets, if you will" that he knew of, and was pretty sure there were a few more. They gave the the crappiest one to the general public to play with.
:)
I asked him what would happen if an email intended for the "dark side inbox" somehow landed in the "light side inbox" (his words, not mine). He said guys in dark sunglasses would be there shortly thereafter.
Intelligent Life on Earth
Why don't they just build their own network? Oh wait...
Yes, there is a way to set the priority flags in packets, supported under linux, [as long as you have Config_IP_NF_MANGLE and Config_IP_NF_TARGET_ROS configured into your current kernel].
Then, just run something like
"iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j TOS --set-tos Maximize-Throughput"
To activate it. Note that this works fine in 2.4.17 and before, but is currently broken in 2.4.18.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Hmm if they implement something like this and it gets hacked, which I am sure it eventually will, then I can see some hackers taking over the internet by using this.
There will always be security holes in software and there will always be someone interested in exploiting them. If this is in a RFC then anyone will know how it works.
Maybe they should set up some IRC channels instead and have them closed except in a disaster. Then allow people to access them in the event of a disasster. /join #usa_emergency, or #asia_emergency, etc...
If you specify that something is added to the header of the packet then what is to stop anyone wanting their data from being prioritized? It needs a hard wired switch IMHO.
Only 'flamers' flame!
(1) This plan violates the e2e principle, which has made the internet what it is: that intelligence should be at the ends of a network, not within it. Of course, many things the proprietary pigs are doing also violates e2e, and we should fight that to. At the very most, any "prioritizing" of packets should be done to ensure the overall net efficiency of the net, not to benefit any one group/individual/gov't which thinks they "deserve" more than everyone else despite the fact that they don't have any more right to bandwidth than anyone else. In a paradigm consisent with e2e, any "prioritizing" would only be to optimize the overall performance of the network. A simple shopping analogy here: its better overall (in that as few people as possible are held up) if the 10 people with 1 item go through the line before the one person with 10 items.
(2) Things like this, where the government might want to force me to give THEM priority, violate MY RIGHTS. If I own a server, its MY server/router, MY uploading bandwidth, and MY computer resources, not the government's. The government doesn't have the right to force me to give them priority to use MY resources. (on the other hand, a "resource-sharing" plan as proposed by Lessig, where other people use "my" resources when I'm not using them, is fine).
(3) I noticed some imbecile said, "If you don't set your servers/routers to prioritize for the government in emergency situations, and someone dies because of it, you can be sued for not helping them." This is bullshit. Good-summaritan laws don't exist, and would be unconstitutional if they did. I have no obligation to help anyone with MY resources. If there's a blizzard outside, and some straggler comes into my property, I have no obligation to take him into my home, and am well within my rights to kick him off my property. And if I do let him in my home, I can certainly kick him out if I please.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I think that the sniffer came first, actually. I just liked the name for a UID, since it was fairly anonymous and sounded neat, and I didn't check whether it was already in use for something else. Somehow when you think of something cool, you don't consider that you might not be the first person to think of it :) The UID dates from summer/fall '98 IIRC; too bad /. hasn't kept all 2600+ of my posts or I could tell you exactly when.
I'm definitely not associated with the ethereal packet sniffer project, although I hear they do great things. I haven't actually used it; tcpdump satisfies my needs thus far.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Among the applications required by emergency management agencies are voice, video, instant messaging
fuzzyvixen69: IMPORTANT MESSAGE! Terrorists have flown commercial airplanes into the WTC...tens of thousands possibly dead, billions in property damage. Get out of the New York area! Ohhh the humanity!
bigballs15: a/s/l?
Why should the US government be allowed to have special Internet privileges? Isn't the Internet supposed to be a free and open forum where anyone and everyone has essentially the same rights? While the US government did create the Internet, they have now given it away to everyone. They no longer have the right to force modifications into the Internet. They have the right to do whatever they like GOVNET, but not to the Internet as a whole. If we allow them to have this special right, then they truly control the Internet, making this Internet a mockery of a free (as in speech, not as in beer), worldwide Internet.
That should have been Operation Desert Storm, _not_ Operation Sandstorm.
Sorry 'bout that
Have you thought about what you're looking at today?
This frees the government to focus specifically on NON-civilian communication issues: military communications, and where do we put Dick Cheney this week? That's an appropriate thing for the government to be working on then.
Of course they'd lose polling points if they just ignored civilian emergency communication, even though doing so would probably leave us civilians better off. We're left with the possibility that some day, the government might lock down CNN et al. in response to an emergency, and as a result we suffer avoidable civilian losses. That'll suck.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
This protocol would allow routers to pick out US Government traffic. I am sure that if it was implemented, many sysadmins, especially those outside the US would config their routers to LOWER the priority of such packets, or even drop them altogether!
The way you guys make up law, you might as well be the Supremes! There is no duty to help. There is no liability from not helping. If you *do* help, don't mess up, cause you're liable. This is standard law. Good Samaritan laws shield helpers from this liability. Period.
I suppose the next great measure would be to dictate everyone should have a broadband connection to the internet in the case of emergency they can receive emergency information that way?
In a related NPR broadcast they talked about taking control of people's cell phones to broadcast emergency warnings
a tc /data_atc/seg_136975.htm
http://search1.npr.org/opt/collections/torched/
Its all part of the Partnership for Public Warning's big plan.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
how about getting internet wide multicast running?
that would certainly assist in getting data out to a diverse group of recipients without putting a huge load on the internet.
I don't feel like pouring through all the trolls to see if anyone posted this linke earlier, but here's the proper link for the US Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS)
http://gets.ncs.gov/
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Probably true though.
Media isn't called the fourth power of state for nothing.
And maybe easier to buy than the other three, since it is controlled entirely by a handful of companies.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
I agree. But voluntarily (RFC) prioritizing net traffic for government needs seems stupid for other reasons too. If guaranteed bandwidth is vital, then they should build the necessary physical infrastructure and dedicate it to government only. This is the only way to be sure they got bandwidth when they need it!
If they don't need the bandwidth guarantee bad enought to make this investment they don't need it bad enought at all.
No half assed compromises please!
I know for a fact that some non-US governments build dedicated lines where communications are critical.
Why not the US?
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Anyone else thinks that their load of pr0n, warez, mp3s and slashdot news less important than some kind of government agency?
I bet that those that would will never be the ones with power to change it: "Who cares if they are bombing NYC again, i wanna get the whole music album and read that Jon Katz article. Hell with everything else."
Maybe that is taken to the extreme, but there is some truth to it.
This is not some ultra-secret network, it is a set of features that is only implemented on military phone switches. It's not widely known, but the frequencies are published, and you can buy surplus phones with the extra keys for cheap:
The 1963 Autovon system uses the four extra keys for priority, as follows: Autovon legends:
FO = Flash Override
F = Flash
I = Immediate
P = Priority
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Always, always, always write for your readers! Understand that most readers will have no idea what the terms GETS, PSTN, and RFC mean, and thus will have no idea if the article is relevant to their world. Worse, from the tone of your submission ("it's interesting to follow, because it's only an RFC, so you don't have to follow it..." was an attempt at being insightful (+1!) tells me that you were doing this to seem intelligent, and not just because you were ignorant of your audience.
If you truly wish to seem intelligent, then write so everyone understands you. That in itself is a very difficult, unique, and powerful skill.
Ryan
"All your base are belong to this file I send in order to have your advice."
we do see too much of this in the high-tech world, y'know...
I probably won't be prioritizing government traffic on any of my routers.
When you consider the increasing pervasiveness of the internet as a communications medium in the wireless arena, its not hard to imagine a firefighter trying to locate a building exit using a GPS and blueprints via a wireless handheld.
OOPS. He didn't have priority access through your router.
The fact is that the government is not a monolith; it is often individuals who are risking their lives to serve and protect the public, as we found out with vivid clarity six months ago.
... if some terrorist group has a website, and they put information about themselves and their activities on that website, then that's a bona fide use for web browsing. Checking news sites in other countries is exteremly usefull as well.
/.
In an emergancy, I would want the government ( I'm Canadian btw) to have priority checking updates on CNN over me checking updates on
And if the government DOES flag their packets for priority handling, the web sites can identify whether they're feeding a government op or the general public.
Just what you need: Your spy has footwear with treads that leave "SPY!" in the sand with every step.
How long until "terrorist groups" start hacking their servers, to substitute bogus information when the government surfs in and to track the IP addresses that originate government priority packets.
The opportunities for information-warfare conutermeasures are astounding.
The "old crows" will fly again!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The govenment wants the instantaneous communication in case of emergency... instead of the damn near instantaneous communication that all people on the internet have today.
Are their concerns that specialized? First rule, don't put the DOD on the net! Just a bad idea all around. Most everything they would be trafficking is standard office files stuff, right?
Would it kill them to not instant message with sub-20 pings?
I really don't see the concern here. If you can sit on top of a mountain and get your E-mail in a few seconds... then I suppose that I am misundrestanding the information needs that the government has. I don't suppose that they ALL need to have streaming video for their government purposes. Government decisions are not made in nanoseconds... and if they are, they are automated and definitely need not be automated on an open system.
So what is the real concern here? Do the Senators want to less lossy streaming prOn? Does the DoD want to really stream war footage back to the continent over the net? That is what their super expensive sattelites are for. Once again... why the speed when the net is almost instantaneous?
Besides, wouldn't any #1 priority packet get automatically sniffed by whoever was sitting a "listener" next to the routers, knowing that the US Gov't would be the only ones trafficking in #1 packets?
Just a bad idea all around, IMHO.
Microsoft OSes mark all packets as URGent so that they commandeer higher priority. This qualifies as innovation.
So they effectively identify their packets as coming from Microsoft IP stacks?
Oh, Goodie!
Any bets on how long until there's software that takes advantage of that to give differential service to Microsoft clients?
(Not counting any that Microsoft has already deployed, of course.)
Like maybe a patch for Apache?
Open Source developers can innovate, too. And some of them are Not Nice People (TM).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Yet another sysadmin that refers as "his" to his employers routers... you do what they tell you or they hire another teen idiot like you dumbass
One should ALWAYS be blocking packets that are coming on the wrong interface.
Failing to do so if you are an ISP is quite possibly negligent, and is certainly not being a good net.citizen.
If a packet whose IP belongs to one interface comes in via another - something bad is happening, and it is extremely likely to be spoofing.
Preventing that can prevent many types of attacks and make attacks much easier to trace (since the IP addresses will have to be appropriate for EVERY interface it passes through).
The idea of a quota of high priority packets per unit time is good. I'd set it for all my telnet connections and none of my FTPs, so FTP wouldn't make my telnet sessions lag (telnet is low bandwidth but wants low latency - FTP is high bandwidth but can deal with high latency).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
There is no liability from not helping. If you *do* help, don't mess up, cause you're liable. This is standard law. Good Samaritan laws shield helpers from this liability. Period.
Wish it were so - and usually it is. But some states have been passing so-called "good samaritan" laws that both shield those who act AND create an obligation TO act.
A real pity. One of the big differences between US law and English has been that in the US you have no obligation to be a hero or a spy, risking your own life in the process.
In particular, you had no obligation to inform the authorities of possible crimes you witness, thus exposing yourself to retaliation by the crooks. You were safe from government reprisals as long as you didn't actively participate in the crime and don't lie when directly asked about what you witnessed. Now the government social engineers are trying to erode this, turning the population into their serfs and unpaid spies.
Fortunately, even in those states where such laws have been passed there is no effective way to enforce them.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
... special measures (such as the firing of the incompetent) cannot be taken even when government bureaucrats are used in a tactical environment.
But in such a tactical environment can you fire AT the incompetent?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Oh I forgot, we just live here.
Yeah, those gov't packets are mostly overhead. The "gov" layer header is 512 Bytes alone. It's too much bloat.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
They can't very well effectively require everyone to give govt traffic priority if the mechanism isn't there to do so. Easily followed slippry slope from getting the capability, then requiring govt sites to priotize govt traffic, then large companies will volunteer to be in compliance, finally smaller companies will be marginalized. Of course it doesn't have to be that way.
Being concerned about things like this would have prevented the sorry state the internet is in right now. Don't let them slowly boil the internet alive like a lobster.
and true QoS widely deployed on the majority of the Internet, this just isn't workable. And then it'll work only by force of law.
Despite the kudos to the feds for not pushing this down our throats with the Congressional ramrod, a poo-poo on them for thinking that this will actually work. After all, US law doesn't extend over the water very well.
MTTLA meaning more-than three letter accronyms. There has been much ranting on /. about people being excluded from storys and polls, because they are too US-centrinc and stuff. But what about the rest of us poor 'ignorant' people that dont have a clue what most of thoes accronymss mean?
:) j/k
anyhow, brb i'll be afk, so i'll ttyl.
p.s. i think we need to see more "a/s/l" in irc rooms that what we do. i miss my aol
Prioritising traffic for whose government precisely?
'sapientia potestas est'
"The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual."
I sincerely doubt the IETF would be looking after the interests of all parties, if they were considering the prioritisation of the data for a the government of a specific country, albeit the US, over and above everyone else.
If the functionality was built into routers for instance, would there be an option to turn that prioritisation off for routing technology exported to other countries?
'sapientia potestas est'
Somebody may have said it already, but I really think that "Ungrounded Lightning" is a cooler name anyway.
The company that removed their airplane phones is Southwest Airlines. And do the math - if the US Government would allow Southwest to allow in-flight cell phone usage, they absolutely would. Just think of the business travelers who would flock to SWA in the first week alone. (The second week, all the other carriers would be forced to do the same.) No, cell phone use on commercial airlines is not allowed, and it's not because the airlines don't want it.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
In theory, you could broadcast to every computer on the internet quite easily. However, in practice, a packet sent to 255.255.255.255 wont get very far.
Most routers won't forward such a packet because it doesn't even take a blithering idiot to abuse.
Swill more Beer.
If you open your mind too wide, people will throw trash in it.
It's great to hear that the author won't be supporting an emergency traffic system for Internet communications. Does he maybe also refuse to pull over for ambulances when their sirens are on? Or refuse to give up a hard won seat on a subway just because an old woman is in pain?
I would hate to see the government have to regulate something like this, but one would hope that people who are entrusted with the administration of systems that can affect the public welfare would be responsive and sensitive in times of great need.
I'd argue that the right way to do this is to use fair queuing by IP address at choke points. Fair queuing lets everybody get a little data through, so short messages get through, while bulk data transfers get throttled. That's enough to get emergency messages through.
Actually, just shutting down all non-emergency streaming video and audio servers, and all ad servers, in an emergency would probably free up enough bandwidth to deal with any crisis.
But some scheme involving digitally signed option packets will probably be proposed.
"I probably won't be prioritizing government traffic on any of my routers."
How about: "Well, with a good plan I would be more than happy to offer my talents and resources to my country."
Attitude is everything... America, love it or join the al Qaeda...
Well as far as I heard the interent was designed by the military, and it was put into affect some time ago ... to an extent.
The second octet in an IP header sets up type of service and precedence of data.
DARPA set thethe first 3 bits of these as:
111 National Network Control
110 Internetwork Control
101 CRTIC/ECP
100 Flash ovverride
011 Flsh
010 Immediate
001 Priority
000 Routine
Think different level of defcon. 111 is the president pushing the big red button.
Now, you can set your TCP stack to do this, or even force different TOS in a ping. And its very useful for testing your own network. But routers on the internet are told to IGNORE these settings, and there have been rumors that men in black suits that don't like light (NSA) may show up at your door asking why you are using DARPA proprietary flags.
Code softly but carry a big magnet.
What so Magic Lantern and Carnivore don't get bogged down?
sig
You see what happened or was about to happen to our basic civil liberties in the wake of September 11th. We panicked and overreacted. What will happen if critical segments of the internet are attacked en masse? The government might feel it has the right to step in and "create" order out of the WWW.
Not really. IPv6 reserves a few more bits in the header than IPv4, but the use of those bits is not yet defined, let alone the implementation in routers. Diffserv (a QoS protocol) for IPv4 (and presumable also for IPv6) is ready to be used, but it isn't used, except for (virtual) private networks. The reason: the organisation part is just too hard. There's provisioning to be done, every ISP needs to enter QoS terms in their contracts with the other ISPs they exchange traffic with.
Hey, Seth, the Internet, or IP, or at least parts of it, were designed to allow communications during/after nuclear attacks and other major destruction. If *it's* down, either major disasters have happened! Ok, or else it's just a bad modem or another backhoe problem or too many people running Napster....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
...we would have fled and you would not have been notified.
Am I the only one that had to look up just about every acronym in that entire headline? ^_~
And so it's a good idea to ASK people if they'll permit this kind of access to the routers which are THEIR private property. That's only IF somebody can show that the plan will work in the first place. The firefighter you describe is there to get the people (like the router's owner) out of danger and then to save their property (like the router and the building they're in) if possible. He's not there to compel others in the general public to help him. 'Net performance is so good that we can even discuss such an application as GPS-in-realtime for escape or rescue because of the unforeseen, beneficial, qualitative changes in the system that have been wrought by massive increases in a lot of the stuff that people DO think of and choose to pay for. That's why the current discussion is so important. It sounds nice to make efforts to help people like this; it's the implementation that's going to take effort and thought. What empirical data do we have? What gives the best result when we cannot predict the nature, frequency and scope of disasters or have exact knowledge of the technological assets we'll have in a few years? The astonishing speed and usefulness of 'net is a direct result of its having expanded to its current size and pervasiveness WITHOUT the stated goal of helping emergency workers or anybody else. A parallel is that sport climbers used Kevlar(tm) for slinging chocks before it ever showed up in fire-protective clothing (and (*shameless plug*) the stuff is great!). Let the 'net grow, encourage free, unfettered access and the free flow of traffic, and emergency workers will have better tools, as will we all.
Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.