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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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"?
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
It's /. unproductive arguments are what it's all about ;0. Seriously, please moderate up. Forget any arguments about patriotism, how about humanitarianism. In an emergency, helping the people we pay to help us is a pretty damn good idea.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
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")
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
Free Mac Mini
Hey, INAL either, but i can see a line of reasoning here.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Following Internet protocol. Asking for an RFC from the IETF instead of congress passing an unworkable law.
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
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
numerous states have good samaritan laws which would find you in jail for not calling emergency services etc...of course you don't go give first aid if you are not qualified but even a Texan can dial 911, most of the time that is... (j/k) :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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?
Drug Prohibition drives up prices 17,000%
http://www.lp.org/drugwar/
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
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.
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."
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
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
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.
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'
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.
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.
Somebody may have said it already, but I really think that "Ungrounded Lightning" is a cooler name anyway.
I think I agree with you.
But it's not intended as a characterization of my posting style. Rather, it's a reference to something the president said when a company I was at first got netnews installed.
He wouldn't interfere with posting as a matter of principle. But the startup was already viewed as possibly flakey. So he'd appreciate it if we tried not to be "lightning rods" by making posts that might enhance the bad aspects of our reputation and interfere with the search for funding.
So I created a handle account (which was NOT "Ungrounded Lightning Rod") for posting to the more controversial groups.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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
If you read the damn article, you'll see that this is not something that is specific to the US government.
E911 is massively different, because it requires changes at endpoints, including terminals (peoples cellphones).
All that's needed to cover something like 90% of internet traffic is configuration changes at the major backbone providers and the top 10-20 ISPs. Bothering with the smaller ISPs wouldn't be worth the trouble, as support at the backbone providers and major ISPs would in effect make it possible to throttle the traffic from most smaller ISPs anyway.
Phone systems have had systems to allow giving priority to emergency systems for ages. How often do you have problems getting through on the phone outside massive emergencies?