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?"

16 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The internet could use some change, I just got another "Nothing to see here, please move along." message.

    1. Re:Agreed by mog007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course Intel wants the internet to change, all the benchmarks that're published show AMD whipping their ass!

      HA! ...it was funnier when it was in my head, honest.

    2. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Stick to making computer chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't like the idea of Intel owning the internet

  3. IPv6? by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not just boost adoption of IPv6?

    1. Re:IPv6? by tchuladdiass · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, ipv6 can help reduce the spread of worms. Right now, most worms will target random subnets, and all hosts within those subnets. Since the address range if ipv6 is so large it will make it that much harder for a worm to find a target host to infect. And the routers could then be programed to put in a logirithmic delay between connections everytime a host tries to contact a non-existant ip address (i.e., a few bad guesses will have no effect on the connection speed, but when it starts to get into the thousands, the router could slow the connection quite a bit, up to the point of stopping the worm spread).

    2. Re:IPv6? by duguk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Applications... by leonmergen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Applications... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  5. Yeah, by Whatthehellever · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's called SkyNet.

    --

    ---
    IMHO, of course.
    May the SOURCE be with you.
  6. "What's in it for Intel, though?" by reporter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The article starting this discussion asks, "What's in it for Intel, though?"

    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.)

  7. Re:Internet2 by savagedome · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nah. They just want to rename it Intelnet.

    However, in Japan, Intelnet would still be called...

    Sorry. Couldn't resist.

  8. Keep It Simple, Intel by dre23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  9. Re:PR from the Investor Relations Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. open means what? by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Just because something is open does not mean there are no strings attached. If this new layer detects malware, there is some process to do this. Even if this process is freely licensed, whoever owns the process will be at a great advantage. If this process is encapsulated in some for profit form, even something that can be added into OSS, then whoever owns the product is going to make a lof of money

    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
  11. Re:Routing protocols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think the frame holding your MCSE cert is crooked.