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?"
I don't like the idea of Intel owning the internet
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
More control aparently.
So Intel will reinvent Internet2 then?
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".
yes.. isn't that supposed to be the "next internet"? The concept of the internet needs no changes. Free flow of data, internationally regardless of content. If the content is illegal or irritating, then stop it at the door. If you stop it at the source you can also stop legitimate uses for content.
Amen.
IPv6 doesn't address all the issues (e.g. combatting Worm spreading).
On the other hand - I would second a more rapid adoption of IPv6 any day. Maybe whatever intel feels neccessary to add to the Internet can be introduced at this level instead of trying to add a solution to IPv4 and therefore delaying IPv6 even further (since it will cost resources to adapt v4 and on top of that additional resources to plan this for v6 and re-implement it there as well)...
What's in it for Intel is to sell chips to power said 'new internet'. How dare they.
X.400 was also designed WAY back, and it solves every problem people have with SMTP.
However in order to do this, you need central control (aka the Phone Company), which is exacty what the modern Internet was designed to avoid.
So, no, you're not going to get a wonderful replacement for SMTP that's spam/virus/fraud proof and still allows you to do things in a decentralized manner (like setup your own mailserver). Any fix people have come up with can easily be applied to SMTP email.
(If the government wanted to do us a favor, they'd give you a X.509 certificate along with your driver's licence.)
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Let us know when your organization is part, then we can join your organization instead of going to the consortium directly.
Or maybe slashdot.org can sign up.
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
what's in it for Intel?
Serious do-las I imagine. The question is can they do that and will companies like Cisco play along.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
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.
Dude, the HTTP requests originate from YOUR machine, meaning YOU are the problem, not the internet. If your 9600 baud modem is overloaded, maybe you should disable images in your browser, which is a fuckload easier than changing "routing protocols" to solve your problem.
The entire PlanetLab system runs on-top of Linux, I would say that is most certanily an open platform. All their tools include source code, it quite possible to make PlanetLab run on other platforms also.
Intel does have an interest in keeping the Internet going, they just might be foreward thinking enough to realize that if they want to stay in business they are going to have to support things like this even if it does not have immediate financial returns.
Also, Mozilla has to run on somebody's chips, Intel is not a software vendor, all that matters is if people keep buying their chips. Also, Intel will pour money into this because if it is the next big thing they suddenly understand it the best of anybody, and then you have a solutions provider business model, one that works very well.
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.
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.
Combatting worms is so easy. Just unplug every non protected Windows box from the net.
ISPs should systematically cut their service to people who are ignorant about very elementary computer security.
Firewalls should be mandatory on every PC plugged to the internet.
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.
"Why not just boost adoption of IPv6?"
Because it wouldn't require anyone to upgrade CPUs.
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
Plus, don't forget that on IPv4, NATs have become compulsary; making some worms unable to contact some 'natted' pcs... IPv6 might mean these machines will be contactable directly....
Just my £0.0111123, tho I'm not that knowledgable of IPv6 yet... Apart from that nice article the other day. That was good, that was. Probably should read it though.
the Internet doesn't need more bandwidth today. have you heard of the fiber glut? the Internet2 did just that - added more bandwidth. do you know what the result was? neither do they. they couldn't write any applications that took advantage of more bandwidth that were seen as `important' or `innovative'.
the Internet needs smarter users. the Internet needs less corporate and government hands trying to change it to their desires.
IPv6 does help. Muticast helps more. Anycast helps as well. Mesh networking is certainly a short-term step we can take to get to better run networks (and with "more" bandwidth in the "last mile", which is where we really need it).
But those networking technologies do nothing if there are no applications to take advantage of them. We need a replacement for the web browser and email client. I see the IM client and Googlebar taking over your operating system. What do you see?
IPv4 allocations for hobbyists? join the ipalloc-l mailing-list! www.operations.net/mailman/listinfo/ipalloc-l
What the internet needs right now is more and more bandwidth both on the backbone networks.
I disagree. It seems that a lot of bandwidth is being wasted with pr0n and spam, both of which would probably saturate any pipe you cared to use.
So if you can solve the spam problem, and your ISP can build a massive cache exclusively for pr0n, the backbone bandwidth issues would simply disappear.
'Buckling under the strain of new technologies'? What about buckling under software patents?
... built a GUI on DOS and called it Windows and that sucked.
Yeah! In fact, it sucked so much that now nobody uses Windows!
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
The Internet needs to change, yes. The people who have the technological understanding of how the Internet works need to make a systematic and concerted effort to CRUSH the spammers. The spammers are a cancer that is destroying the web by absorbing all of its bandwidth. Even if that were not so due to some massive increase in capacity, they still need to be crushed because they are polluting the web environment with unwanted commercial messages.
In other media, advertisments are tolerated because they pay the cost of the development of the content and the fixed cost of delivering the content to the audience (primarily the TV and radio broadcasting costs, and magazine paper and distribution costs). That is not so with the Internet. They are getting the medium for free and filling it with content specifically oriented to their private financial gain.
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.
It is up to the technological community that created the web to set enforced guidelines for its use. No one else has the ability to do it.
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.
No, there is no need for change and spam is hardly a major problem for the Internet as a whole. It might be frustrating for mail admins, but for the most part it's not seriously threatening the Web, IRC, FTP, SSH, VNC, NNTP and a host of other protocols which may have spam-like activity but also have workarounds. Sure, it's an annoyance everywhere, but a major threat --no way. Even when it comes to e-mail I get hardly any spam just using the defaults on Spam Assasin. So, this does not seem like a major emergency.
The real story here is Intel is struggling for relevance. You do realize they're planning to run their new dual cores at 200watts? Have you seen the heat sinks that are going on these things? They're enormous. This is a totally irresponsible move at a time when energy resources are at the forefront of the political stage.
So, no wonder they're looking to scare up some attention elsewhere. But the fact is, the Net is damn fine. The scarry thing is that it's better outside the US than in. If the Net is in such danger then why is it that in Korea, Japan, Taiwan and major cities in China things are so smooth. And yes, as a matter of fact it is both smooth and cheap here. Thank you very much.
Fix the net? Hah. You'll have to build it and then break it first. Of course in the States it's easy to create the image it's broken, but actually it hasn't hardly started yet.
And watch who piggy-backs that cause.
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.
NATs have become compulsary; making some worms unable to contact some 'natted' pcs
It's not the NAT that stops the traffic, it's the firewall. NAT does not in any way enhance your security.
Every time anything about IPv6 comes up, someone says something to the effect of, ``but if there's no NAT, how will we secure our boxes!?'' That just makes no sense to me. The fact that a computer has a real IP address does not imply that it can accept connections from any machine on the internet. That's just silly.
Regardless, I've broken into plenty of machines behind NATs due to poor firewalling policies, exposed services, etc... Do you have any idea how many NATted Windows machines with poor firewall policies are remotely controlled on the internet today?
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
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.
they still need to be crushed because they are polluting the web environment with unwanted commercial messages.
As if there were such a thing as a WANTED commercial message.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Some examples of commercial messages I've recently received that I actually want:
- Messages from my credit card company, saying that I have a new statement, or my payment is due.
- Messages from a computer company, saying that I may have defective hardware and be eligible for a replacement.
- Order notices for my products.
- Various newsletters that I've signed up for.
Note that any replies of "but I hate X" or "but you can get X in another way, like so" are irrelevant; I like getting these things by e-mail, and so these are wanted.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Huh? It doesn't matter how good your filter is, the parent is pointing out that a lot of bandwidth on the net is being wasted pushing junk around only to have it automatically deleted at its destination. Fine, its not a problem for you but it is a problem for the Internet.