Slashdot Mirror
Intel says Internet needs to change
Nurgled writes "At a recent Intel conference, CTO Pat Gelsinger said that something needs to be done to avoid the Internet buckling under the strain of new technologies and millions of new users. The BBC reports that Intel is attempting to layer a 'new Internet' over the existing network which can detect and counteract things like worm outbreaks and route traffic more intelligently during low and high traffic periods. Intel's prototype, PlanetLab, has 441 nodes but claims to be an open platform with documentation available on the site. What's in it for Intel, though?"
The internet could use some change, I just got another "Nothing to see here, please move along." message.
I don't like the idea of Intel owning the internet
Why not just boost adoption of IPv6?
I dunno; maybe they like using the internet? Intel may be an Evil CorporationTM, but they've got as much interest as anyone else in keeping it going.
Or maybe - just maybe - they're doing something nice.
Then again: to quote the article
" If the net grows to 100 billion devices connected to it, our goal is to have a piece of Intel inside in every one of those hundred billion "
Pat Gelsinger, Intel
The problem is, a lot of the internet is dated from way back. You not only see it in 'the internet' and the main protocol being used (tcp/ip, which is, as far as I can see, the thing intel wants to change), but also how some applications talk to each other.
For example, the SMTP protocol. It was designed WAY back, and only a few people had problems with not being able to verify the sender of an email, but that was being ignored. If someone would want to make such a protocol nowadays, it would contain a HELL lot more security measures. But if you want to change the protocol right now, you will need a pretty big front of important people in order to do that...
My point is: Intel can say they want to make a new layer on top of the internet, which is all fine, but I think in order to really make a 'better' internet, you need to change the way application communicate with each other too...
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
More control aparently.
So Intel will reinvent Internet2 then?
How do I go about getting my site onto PlanetLab? You need to do two things to join PlanetLab: (1) sign the consortium membership agreement, and (2) connect two or more nodes to PlanetLab.
The FAQ says that I need 2 nodes. I have two machines on the internet, does this mean I can join if I sign some agreement ??
Why don't they just support and push the adoption of IPv6 and build it correctly from the ground up vs. changing whats already in place?
An internet that extends to every device down to your internet-enabled nail clipper. Only thing is, the nail clipper has to have reminders built in, and someone has to write that sophisticated piece of code, and you don't want people ripping off code, so every device needs DRM, and the network needs to support it, in their vision at least. Remember they talk to a lot of potential customers, many of whom are probably telling them "if only you had better DRM, we could buy X million units of Y".
It's called SkyNet.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Obvious is the answer: total domination of the next generation of technologies. Intel realizes that microprocessors, the market on which it built its business, is fast becoming a mature industry. Margins will drop as competition between AMD64 and Intel64 heat up. In search of new areas of grow, Intel is branching out into other areas: routers, WI-FI, etc.
Intel does nothing out of generosity. More than 30% of the company is H-1B workers, and they retain the same ruthlessly competitive attitude that they had in their homelands (e.g. China, India, etc.)
What's in it for Intel is to sell chips to power said 'new internet'. How dare they.
Well I believe routing protocols should be the first to change. And one HTTP request should be able to transmit more than one files, e.g. ten images besides shit.html. And so on and so on and so on...
Monopolies always want to keep customers in a jail like Windows or , if they are less easy to control, a half-way house like OS/X. The internet is the new API and Bill Gates and his allies like Intel and Apple still have the upper hand. Regardess, platfrom agnostic technolgies like Mozilla represent a real threat. If richer applications find their way into browser land, then there's no rely on big software and hardware suppliers. If they can embrace, extend and destroy the internet protocols, then they can maintain their grip on user's wallets.
I like Intel's new concept. Alot of the internet is still running old hardware, you can't just change the internet, because it's impossible to change all the routers/etc at once but if they do it this way, they can just wait for the old internet to deteriorate.
but does this article have anything to do with "Internet2"? i'm a little confused, because the description sounds like Internet2.
... built a GUI on DOS and called it Windows and that sucked. What the internet needs right now is more and more bandwidth both on the backbone networks, in the near future more bandwidth to individual workstations and maybe in five years from now IPV6. What the Internet does not need is censorship, TCPA/Palladium Digital Rights Management, Taxes, Microsoft and least of all Intel.
Perhaps they are loosing money due to the current state of affairs?
Getting things under control will help reduce wasted costs due to the things they are trying to address.
Perhaps too, they will sell hardware with this 'open standard' in native silicon.. Make a bit of cash while improving 'service'...
Just because its a large company doing something doesn't mean its automatically a 'world takeover' attempt...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"What's in it for Intel, though?"
My guess is money, amongst other things.
Because, not everyone is gonna switch to it, no matter how hard we beg, there are probably parts of the internet that haven't been updated in years. The thing to remember is people are lazy, if everything is working OK for them, they don't want to mess with it.
A buyout from the greedy Microsoft?
You mean to tell us Al Gore is working at Intel now?
No, Intel is going into the power generating business! All those > 100W CPU's have to get power from somewhere1 ;->
Intel, by providing free and open standards will showcase themselves as a pioneer willing to make sacrifices to maintain the leadership role their company currently has. Nothing lasts forever and if they think only with greed they will more easily lose their "number one" status.
In general, you want to keep the field you play on in good shape. You need to take care of your arena so people find value in your products. If the Intel research will make internet use greater for more people, this directly benefits Intel as it will lead to presumably more chip sales in the end.
If they really get something good going here and fail to keep it open and free, no one will adopt it and they will have just wasted money on research that will not pay off and not have increased chip sales.
Then again, I could be entirely wrong here and Intel needs to figure out a way to increase their already huge profit margins. This may be the way?
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Ever heard about keep alive connections in http? I guess no.
It's probably been said already, in one way or another, but you'd think that Intel would have learned by now that taking something and adding just a little bit more to it usually results in more headaches than it's worth. What's the old saying? "Intel puts the backwards in backwards-compatability."
They need to rebuild Internet. Make it better, faster, stronger. A 6 million dollar Internet!
...when Microsoft's the one who sucks?
What are the biggest problems with the internet? Worms, viruses, spam, and DDoS attacks, all of which which waste bandwidth.
More specifically, Windows worms, Windows viruses, and spam and/or DDoS attacks issuing from Windows machines that fell victim to a Windows worm or Windows virus because a stupid Windows user clicked on something they shouldn't have.
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?
No thanks, I'll keep the broken system we have rather than the awful mess that would result.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Maybe if they had a track record of creating open standards I could believe that they wouldn't corrupt it, but I don't think this would be a good idea. I doubt it will catch on.
The open source community should work on making new internet layers that enhance and protect freedom, instead of adding DRM. It would be nice to see an internet that learns lessons from applications like bittorrent, helping users get information faster and helping protect privacy. The digital rights of consumers are as important as intellectual property rights, if not more so.
to make the internet go faster!!!
Intel seems to think that networks need to get smarter. But networks need to get dumber (i.e. more simple). Systems need to be more like OpenBSD and less like [bloated] Linux or Windows. Applications need to be smaller and more precise.
As everything becomes more and more embedded, we need to strip functionality that we don't use anymore and build applications to what we do, not what we did five (or ten, or twenty) years ago.
Open-source has always strived to provide less bloated and overall better quality software. This comes from the Unix mentality. Intel does not yet understand this approach to computing. Intel provided a hardware architecture that rivaled IBM for monolithic and for lack of innovation and growth. This is mostly thanks to Microsoft and the users of Microsoft products.
We in the open-source world and of the Unix generation have never had severe problems with viruses. We learned from the mistakes of the [original] Internet worm, and we haven't made those same mistakes again. We don't neet smart networks. We need streamlined networks, systems, and applications. Small progams with single purposes: to do one thing well.
IPv4 allocations for hobbyists? join the ipalloc-l mailing-list! www.operations.net/mailman/listinfo/ipalloc-l
The Coral Webcache of which there was a recent slashdot story http://it.slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/article.pl?si d=04/08/28/2330252&tid=95&tid=218
runs on Planetlab.
This has nothing to do with "scaling". It has everything to do with re-inventing the technology so that they control. Basically, Intel is not able to take on Cisco directly, so instead will attempt to shift the playing field to their backyard.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What do you expect? Their stock is stuck in a rut and their products have become commoditized and China Inc., begins to play on their court.
They need something that looks like a new huge market to try to stem the bleeding and loss in investor confidence.
Its unlikely that the likes of Cisco and Juniper and Huwei are simply going to stand still anytime soon. Indeed Cisco just indicated that they will attempt to double their product offerings and rate of introduction of new products over the next 5 years. Juniper continues to move forward on the high end and Huwei is busy outpricing everyone worldwide on the low end and begining to ramp up into higher end products. The PC market is stalled as our president has successfully diverted much IT spending toward paying for higher energy and borrowing costs.
Current investments in existing infrastructure including the steamroller of lobbyists behind the new internet 2 roll out are out of Intel's control. The core of their business model is now under attack by AMD and its Opteron, so announcements like this are critical for them to keep their heads above water.
The real issue here is whether they can win any of the super-scret contracts to route and anlyze all internet traffic through the new NSA mainframe filters that are straining to keep up with the explosion of foreign and domestic internet use or whether they can win any of the contracts larger corporations are now issuing to keep track of everyones internet device and VOIP use on a 24/7 basis. Now that is where the real new growth in the market is not on selling to the few folks who still have a little money to spend on IT.
The article is very misleading. PlanetLab is primarily developed by Princeton University. The claim that the network was "funded by Intel" is a huge exaggeration: Intel has merely donated some of the original servers, which are now only a fraction of the total number of PlanetLab servers.
t lab.htm
You can read a more informative article about the background here:
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/03/q2/0624-plane
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that most of the work on the PlanetLab infrastructure is done by grad students at Princeton University, not by Intel.
If we are talking about mandatory authentication, then there needs to be some way to securely authenticate. We have optional authentication now, which is good, but too easy to circumvent. Secure authentication requires a protocol and secure hardware and software. Both are right up the Wintel alley, with thier embedded ID chips and closed OS. Again, the protocol could be open and free, but only certified machines are allowed ont he network. Will certification be anything other than a $50 bill slipped to Intel. Maybe not.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Why would Intel do something like this? Why do people buy computers nowadays? I'll tell you one thing, it's not to play solitare. Everyone from 80 year old grandmothers to 16 year old uber-leet gamers use the internet in some shape or form. It's not unreasonable for Intel to do something like this. Instead of hearing "Al Gore invented the Internet!" we'll be hearing "Intel invented the Internet2(TM)!" And it will sell processors. -Virt
There is no need to link to lo b/w page. BBC has one of the best network to deliver webpages and A/V contents. Have a look ...and all this is possible thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded...
BBC Internet Services
BBC Peering
I recently saw Rick McGeer from HP talk at our LONI Forum conference. Rick is on the steering committe for PlanetLab and his talk centered around it. At first I was skeptical, to say the least. I smelled snake-oil. However, after looking into it more, I do believe that this concept does have value. I do not think it will become the "next wave" on the Internet, but I can certainly see where organizations might leverage this technology. The rub, of course, is always security, control, and accountability. Whenever you start talking about distributing intellectual property around the net, many companies will go apoplectic.
'Buckling under the strain of new technologies'? What about buckling under software patents?
the fact that AMD is catching up?!
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15690
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Layer implies on top of. On top of implies overhead. Overhead implies... additional stress.
Wankers.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
What does Intel have to do with the internet? I thought they made chips! I guess I'm wrong. Are they trying to kick ADM out of the "internet" market?
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
I see the major flaw in Intel's idea right there where they say their network would be optimized for web services. Umm, what if web services aren't the big thing in a couple of years? IBM optimized SNA for the kinds of networks they knew were going to be built, but we don't see much SNA outside mainframe data centers. Corporate America doesn't have a very good track record of predicting how things will actually turn out. The Internet's strength is that it isn't optimized or designed for any one application, so while it may not be ideal for any one application it's at least usable for all of them. I'd be wary of changing that.
As far as worm outbreaks, those don't require fundamental changes in the Internet. Stopping them requires the people responsible, the ordinary users, to get a clue. It doesn't even have to be much of a clue, just something on the level of "Running that red light at a busy intersection might be a bad idea." or "Putting my hand on the red-hot stove burner might hurt.". That's not asking that much. (NB: that wasn't in the nature of a question.)
A company brings a return on investment when it grows by percentage. When you have a market already of the size of Intel's, growing a percentage requires growing consumption an aweful lot.
Just as they'll tell you up front, their business is processors. What can anyone do at this point to sell more and better processors? Just what Intel is doing: Investing in anything and everything that uses more or creates more uses for CPUs. They don't need control of the Internet to "own" (profit from) it.
The explanation of their motives isn't so nefarious. It's this simple: Given the choice between the collapse of the Internet or its worldwide expansion and support of higher bandwidth, higher CPU demanding technologies, the choice is a no brainer and this research funding is nickels and dimes.
Of course it is Intel that needs to change. Hardly anyone cares about PC cpu MHz anylonger. The Itanium is such a magnificent failure. PC and server CPUs will soon cost less than $50, and nobody will care about brands anymore.
What should Intel do? They have to do something that makes the market believe Intel is at least part of the future. Pushing that Internet needs to change seems to be a way to get heard at all.
Maybe Intel is part of the future - and maybe they will revolutionise Internet. But primarily it Intel that needs to change - not the Internet.
What was in the original Internet for DARPA? Go back in history and see. Sometimes answering a questions with a question is the best way. :)
Domination of the net by Intel and its cronies, of course. We all know that the real reason the current Internet succeeded was because it was built on open standards. But the very openness that we love is what makes companies like Intel (and Microsoft, Dell, and Halliburton [aka the US government]) hate it, because they can't lock it down.
Rest assured their "new" Internet will be full of DRM and other horrors. One might even require a crypto certificate signed by an oligopoly-approved CA in order to connect at all.
Of course, if this thing is built on top of the existing Internet, it isn't any more useful than that "private email club" which was posted here yesterday. It's easy to simply ignore the rest of the world at your router or firewall. It's somewhat harder to actually fix real problems.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Why is this even an Internet problem? Worried about worms spreading? Don't use Windows.
I doubt that Intel is looking out for anyone but Intel. Intel has a good track record of looking out for themselves and no one else. They want to be "in on the ground floor."
-- No sig for you!
My opinion is quite simply that today we have different expectations of The Internet and we use it in many different ways than it was initially designed for. There are things that we can do that simply were not possible before simply because technology and computers were not as powerful as they are now.
I think its sensible to re-evaluate the underlying infrastructure and protocols now to see in what ways it can be made better. However we should be careful not to let one megacorp control the technology.
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Boy, and to think everybody here thought Microsoft taking over the browser market was a bad thing :)
Guess they figured out a way to copyright the letter "i" after all!
I thought the net is moving toward IPv6 to solve all sort of these issue. NAT is evil - NAT is the problem.
I congratulate whoever modded it "overrated", so if you're doing metamoderation let this decision stand.
:-)
My post was mostly just regurgitated opinion, and about things that are highly obvious and I could have gone on to rant about how a "Intelnet" would be the perfect platform for implementing all the stuff we absolutely hate (censorship, taxation, DRM etc...) and forcing us to buy stuff we don't want (Intel, Microsoft...). Tell you the truth, an "Intelnet" would really just be perfect for this kind of shit, kind of like the MSN (Market Suffocation Network) Gates always wanted. Well... who gives a shit.
We will always have peer to peer communication even if it means routing IP packets through a tunnel that connects for example two SparcStation/10s (we'll be using these if they really give us "Secure" PCs) through a software modem "hooked" up to your broadband VOIP service. The only thing they will eventually succeed with, after investing billion of dollars into "new technology" is making us pay for porn and worthless RIAA trash we can do without. (Quit jerking off in front of a CRT and get yourself a gf, goddammit!)
Uh... I guess I've ranted again... well I got Karma to burn
Btw, first off: Fuck you Intel! Second: This is prior art, assholes, I thought of the term "Intelnet" first.
Intel has a massive venture capital arm investing in future technologies. Generally these are investments in industries which will help Intel by driving up demand. For instance, I remember the head of this VC arm being interviewed once, talking about investment in some new WiFi enabled device company creating some new product. Intel invested there under the condition that they use Intel chips.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same kind of thing they're looking forward to doing. Intel may not end up owning core pieces of this next-gen infrastructure in the conventional sense of ownership. That's what's in it for them. It's standard practice for many VC firms from what I gather, to try and vertically integrate their various investments to some degree.
Personally, I think that it's an odd thing to try and reinvent the internet without forming a consortium at least.
Photos.
NYU's Coral Project, which seems to be the rage of the so-called "karma whores" on Slashdot these days seems to be a consumer of PlanetLab. Seems to be a strange coincidence.
No. Despite the post this is completely awry, screwed, and misleading (or worse). PlanetLab is NOT an Intel (sic) endeavour. It's an independent attempt
to come up with a non disruptive way of using the Internet to explore otherwise disruptive technologies
in a scientific manner. In other words, you want to copy the smart ideas (like p2p , worm and virus like replication etc.) that have fascinated (and repelled)
researchers but want to do it in a way that allows
for better metaphors than the current "chuck a packet
out the door and pray" approach...
Intel is merely either a sponsor or a participant.
Don't try to join. Individuals can't only organisations and currently that's around 1000.
I do wish people would *research* before posting here...
And watch who piggy-backs that cause.
hey, we're all positively certain that the processors in those 'free, available, open to everyone' servers for which everyone can have the source don't have onboard eschelon, right?
{"what? i'm not whoring! really! who knows how to build an electron microscope and can spot an 'undocumented' register screen when they see one?"}
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
It's a bit off-topic, but if you want to help quash viruses and the like, incorporate a basic ip4/ip6 firewall in NIC chipsets.
n -source BIOS projects is welcome to take these ideas and run with them. Granted, if it's in the system BIOS rather than the NIC BIOS it may only work with 1 NIC and as such, be only a proof of concept.
Home-user PC manufacturers could set to to
"block all unrequested inbound traffic and block all outbound traffic except:
web, ftp, ssh, dns, bootp, tftp, dhcp" and maybe a few others, and provide a web interface where the 1st question after "please enter password" is "who is your email provider" to open up email ONLY to that location. Better yet, if the email provider isn't configured, beep during POST and give the user an opportunity to enter the NIC-bios-setup screen to set it.
Of course, it would need to be at least as configurable as the firewalls built into most "home routers."
The technology to do this is already there, and you can argue it's already been done given that a PC with a network-interface and a software firewall amounts to the same thing, and it's "obvious" that such a system can be burned to firmware. As such, any patents would be narrow and probably serve only to prevent cloning of a specific chipset.
Anyone working on any of the http://www.aloha.com/~knowtree/links.html#BIOSope
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
far out. its as if, in the whole e-mail debate, everyone has forgotten that its all supported by protocols.
... they ought to know.
...)
protocols are but useless, for naught, unless you appreciate how -utterly abitrary- they are.
SPAMMERS need not be allowed on -other protocols. there are thousands and thousands of them, where messages from human to human (what e-mail is) cannot be spun from one 'protocol gateway' to another.
there is no need for panic. cede smtp/pop3 open-public servers (or not) to the SPAMMERS, and continue to develop other protocols, on the -existing infrastructure-
Intel is wrong, nothing needs to change at all: the Internet does nothing but change, duh... and has since day one (bits of it stay the same in order to support exactly this notion..)
Intel are only saying here, in their campaign for whatever (I'm not really paying much attention to Intel any more), that 'the Internet should change the way they(Intel) see it.... coz you know, the "Internet is Faster" because of Intel
(not even gonna mention anything about Intels' cronies, who make the Internet less fun and more noisy/breaky/BS'y
anyway, as for 'technologists leading the way', the never-bending rule of nerds and science, progressively having made the world a very dangerous place to live as well as a good place (for a select scant portion of humanity, alas, so far...) continues to do so at a damned rapid pace.
we might ought to consider what we've done before we go off and create 'another solution' to yet more 'and more problems'... and our 'responsibility' extends as much to whacking ourselves with cluesticks as does to is inventing yet more junk.
"slow down, there's a cliff ahead!"
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
"Hey, I know how to fix the internet!"
"How?"
"Build a new internet on top of the old one!"
"Uhh..."
The internet doesn't need fixing, it seems to run just fine. What it does need are less people running virus magnets and creating all kinds of problems. The lack of security is *not* the internet's fault; it already does what it needs to do. Security should not be the job of the transport. The job of the transport is to transport stuff, be it unencrypted data or the next generation of uber-encrypted VPN for those who want security. (This is my gripe with all these "wireless security" methods. Just build a damn base station with a built in VPN server and be done with it. But then they couldn't introduce "new and improved security" every other month and sell more stuff.)
Got virus problems? It's not the internet's falut, nor its responsibility. The responsibility for that should be on the client side. I see attempted windows exploits coming to my network all the time: in my denied connections for my firewall. Packets dropped, no harm done. Same with my Apache logs. I scan my incoming and outgoing email for viruses, firewall everything, and make those in my family who use Windows aware of issues like don't click on random shit in your email you know nothing about. And guess what? Everything works smoothly and plays nice.
The idea is nothing more than buzz to create some interest from people who have money in the hope that they'll part with their money. "Look what we can do, we can fix the internet! Now, we'll just need you to write a check for..." Besides, how long will it be before an internet tunneled over an internet gets overloaded? Then what? Tunnel another internet over the internet tunneled over the internet? If you want a new, faster, better network, you gotta build one from the ground up.
this is my sig
Intel says a Triangle has three sides.
Spam is a social problem, and it has to be solved through social mechanisms. Every time a technological fix to spam has been developed, the spammers have found a way to get around it.
It doesn't matter that the spammers are transnational, the biggest spammers are all in the US, no matter where their servers are, because it's a rich country with weak privacy laws. For the forseeable future, big spammers are going to want to live in rich countries, and they're going to want to operate from countries where their very databases aren't illegal. If there were US laws that addressed the behaviour that causes the problem without loopholes for 'well behaved' spammers, and these laws were enforced, this WOULD reduce spam from a universal pollution to an annoyance.
This means: ban unsolicited broadcast email. This means: don't force people to opt out, don't make exceptions for popular spammers (we don't make exceptions that allow charities or political parties to hold regular "tire bonfires" in their parking lots), don't allow "properly labelled" spam, just ban UBE, commercial or not.
That means, if you're mailing to more than a few people (let's say, 100 copies of a message a week as a limit... that's plenty high enough for any legitimate purpose and far far below what a spammer needs to stay in business) then you better have (a) a verifiable signup record for each person if it's a mailing list, (b) record of an explicit request from each person, if it's a response mailing, or (c) a proof that you have an existing business, professional, or membership relationship that each recipient is in a position to terminate.
No exceptions.
"IPv6 doesn't address all the issues (e.g. combatting Worm spreading)."
Want a more secure network? Run Linux instead.
... finally all those n00bs that use that term can have their own section of cyberspace. :)
The problem is crappy sofware, mostly on Intel platform, mostly out of Washington. The fact that worms propagate so quickly and DOS attacks are even possible prove that the Internet is quite good at moving packets around.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
... in soviet russia, the internet changes intel! ..1) reinvent the internet
2) ???
3) profit!!!
PlanetLab is not "Intel's prototype". Intel did not start the project,
and has never been in control of it. PlanetLab is primarily an
academic project that receives funding from a number of corporations,
including HP, Google, AT&T, France Telecom, and Intel.
The steering committee consists of faculty members from four
universities along with one representative from HP and one from Intel.
The research staff is composed mainly of people from Princeton along
with at least one from Berkeley.
What's in it for Intel? well at some point in the future someone will figure out how to make some worm or virus that will be so destructive it will shutdown major portions of the Internet globally. People will realize how much they have become dependent on the Internet with it gone for a short period of time and they will start throwing money and Intel for this type of technology.
I don't know if anyone remembers back when Intel first created PCI.. but within two months they released it to public domain. And look.. They created an open standard that *they* were first to support. And with an open standard led to a lot of peripherals... which was a very compelling reason to buy an x86 system.
Might be worth having a new Internet just to stop all the "Al Gore invented the Internet" jokes, perhaps?
apterous.org
"Governments and laws can not and will not stop them due the transnational nature of the medium. It is up to the technological community to stop them, even if the spammers have manipulated the legal structure to make attempts to stop them illegal."
Well, if the various technically-astute nations' law enforcement bodies have anything to say about or to do with it, Intel's WISH may be the governments' COMMAND.
See, what Intel is asking --maybe unfortunately-- on the eve of 911 gives more ammo for governments to hot-wire an National Intelligence Link (NIL) to every newly-manufactured device. Supposedly, the telco industry has been in bed with the government (in the US, at least) to make wiretaps vastly easier than the fake stuff we see on TV (where it takes 60 seconds or more to "trace" a target, then the drama builds up until the target, being hip to the chance of a trace, hangs up.
Imagine EVERY laptop, TV, PDA, iPod, GPS and other devices that might be used principally for inbound information gets configured to be permanently two-way, regardless of user awareness or intent.
OK, let me attenuate the waves trying to pierce my tin foil hat...
seyS divaD
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
This would also help caching - caches like Akamai are described in high level detail as being at the edge but you have to peek into the interior of the network to locate your edge cache in the first palce...so why not actually cache at the router?
Whats in it for Intel is people using PC like devices for routing, not Cisco equipment
Why arent we using a rational approach?
Just simply ask Al Gore to invent us another Internet.
Since web services use HTTP as a transport, in the worst case this turns the internet into a HTTP/web optimized network, which is fine by me, let everyone else figure out how to encapsulate their applications in HTTP (which I predict will eventually happen with everything anyway).
So Intel wants to become the Microsoft of the internet?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
He actually understood the article!
Coral (covered in this slashdot story) is on of the projects using PlanetLabs.
"What's in it for Intel, though?"
More internet bandwidth means more things to do with a pc, and therefore, more reasons to buy a pc.
Vote for Pedro
Smarter programmable nodes at the interior of the network with true APIs, scriptable filtering, etc will go a long way to rapid response to stopping worms and spam as close to the point of origin as possible. Cisco prefers the router to be big, expensive, and stupid...routing as a concept needs a kick in the pants.
What the internet needs is less cocksucking and whoring on the part of Intel and its dark lord MS to make computers and code that aren't shit to begin with.
1 Internet + 1 Intel Internet Overlay = 2.1764653729034 Internets.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
This project bills itself as a means to "deploy disruptive technologies" in the Internet. Unfortunately, it doesn't achieve that. Quite the opposite; it isolates those disruptive technologies as islands of functionality, and thereby isolates itself.
This has been tried before with IPv6 and Multicast, to name two enabling technologies that after years of standards development and experimental rollout still have yet to achieve global acceptance.
Although the distributed, virtualized service approach is itself a worthy direction of research, it doesn't replace existing protocols and it doesn't even begin to address the pressures that actually keep existing technologies in place, that is, the economic ones of traffic exchange and mass appeal.
The thing that really dooms this project, apart from the focus on technical solutions to economic issues, is its reliance, apparently (from my reading of their technical documents) on Red Hat Linux as a virtualization platform, and the deliberate tie to virtual server technologies.
My predicted likelihood of this particular project replacing IPv4 and existing protocols as a communications technology platform: nil.
Finally, a tip for the authors of PlanetLab technical documents: please stop slapping the annoying word DRAFT in diagonal 200pt 50% grey across every page. It's not a draft if you've left it published untouched for two years. If you need to indicate that This Is Not Set In Stone, put words to that effect in the title of the paper.
Here's some useful educational material for whatever moron modded this flamebait:
RFC 1631
RFC 2663
Won't solve it. Viruses and worms are a direct result of poorly architected and poorly thought out software products called Windows and Outlook. What Intel is proposing is what they have been doing to produce 'better' cpus. Keep the old stuff, and layer something 'new' on top designed from a narrow vision.
The only real solution to the virus/worm problem will have to address the inherent flaws in Windows/Outlook.
As to "architectural limitations", IPv6 addresses that issue directly, if he's refering to the rate of growth, which is what it looked like he was referring to.
Bottom line is, his opinion is highly irrelevant, and it would seem that it arose from a limited vision of where the Internet can go in the future. He seems to think its a giant web engine, as opposed to an internetwork of networks.
A different Internet can't fix windows, but windows can make any version of the Internet function poorly. The US DOT will prohibit a car from being allowed on the road if it doesn't meet safety standards. Maybe we can disallow certain software products from the Internet if they have a track record bad enough. Maybe that ability can be 'added' to the Internet to help with the virus/worm problem. Just kidding.
What if I don't like Intel? What if I like AMD? I don't want intel to run the internet.
YaIPWD (Yet Another Intel Plan for World Domination)
... since AMD (unlike Intel) doesn't encrypt microcode updates, a virus CAN do real damage to the physical cpu. Check out this for more details...
The "best" way, of course, to implement this would be with Intel chips just coming out of the laboratory. If only Cisco would put them in their new routers...and of course, they would need to be put on NICs as well, and would be under ISP control.
The only reasons worms spread is because OS's let them spread, and let them infect other computers.
.exe files to people and Windows automatically runs them. Additionally, the only way these worms can access the internet from the OS assumes the .exe file is a user initiated action, when it is plain to the user that they did not initiate it.
.jpg files because there is no reason for the information contained within that file to do anything other than show the image. A hacked .jpg file would simply produce an error.
.jpgs in the browser for instance, could only possibly produce a hackable situation if the program which displays the .jpgs was written poorly and allowed writing past the memory into another part. This easily avoidable by simple standard checks one does when programming. Make sure the information cannot do that, because it has no reason to do that. This is how one avoids errors, rather than deals with them after the fact. From this basic browser, one could incorporate needed scripting languages which are not prevented from accessing the hard drive through programming, but simply do not have the opportunity to do so in the first place.
The vast majority of people do not want to bother spreading worms. When data arrives via the internet onto your computer, it is the OS that takes that data and executes it, installing the worm. Worms spread because the OS is letting the data be executed. This is equivalent to randomly sending
Part of the problem is Windows' attempt to dumb things down so legitimate companies can automatically install and run programs on your computer without you 'having to deal with all that computer mumbo jumbo'. This is arguably illegal, as the information on your computer is your property. However, the OS gives permission (with your permission 'implied') to these companies to do this. For example, auto-installing ActiveX programs like Flash... or BonziBuddy.
Another is that OS's and browsers are sticking to their old ways of doing things, like cookies which are now used to track your movements, scripting languages with unneeded bypassable functions built right into them, OLE security holes where it is deemed necessary that Excel can run inside the browser, and plug-ins and ActiveX controls which are now used to install programs that mine your personal information, hijack your browser, and other such things.
By far the biggest problem is ActiveX. ActiveX has major security holes and problems and is where most spyware gains access to your computer. The idea behind ActiveX was to give internet servers a way to access the user's computer and resources, and this is just what has happend. But instead of plug-in programs that enhance browsing like Flash being installed, we have things like Bonzi, Gator, diallerXXXsuperPorn, and other even more harmful programs installed and executed straight on your computer, using your hard drive and your processor.
Data itself is benign. It is the execution of that data by unscrupulous browsers and OS's that is causing the problems. The solution is not to fill in security holes, it is to build a browser and OS that doesn't have holes in the first place. The information coming down the internet pipe is 1's and 0's and can do nothing in that state. There is no hack or viruses or worms connected to a
In fact, if one had the means, one could simply write a browser that displayed only images and html, and would be completely unhackable because the methods by which it could be hacked would simply not be there. Displaying
The simple solution is programs which are not necessarily concerned with security from the beginning, but concerned with self-containment and prudent programming.
This reminds me of the 1999 Y2K "bug" rumor that all of the hardware and software companies spread to scam people into buying new hardware and software. Because back then in 1999 the world was going to end too! This is so sad on Intel's part they just can't cope with the fact that they have lost market share to AMD. Their CTO said the "Internet is going to break" reminds me of the Y2K times! guess what? no one's systems crashed when the clocks turned to 2000
Hey guys? USA's internet runs solely on modems? Heh...! :)))