Slashdot Mirror
NSF Ponders New And Improved Internet
diorcc wrote to mention a Wired article about a NSF Project that could completely rebuild the Internet as we know it. From the article: "The National Science Foundation is backing a major initiative that could lead to a completely new internet architecture, with built-in security measures and support for ubiquitous sensors and wireless communications devices, among other things. The Global Environment for Networking Investigations, or GENI, will include a research grant program to fund new architectures and an experimental facility, which has not yet been planned in detail."
Let's name it "Internet 2!"
So in other words, this is just an experimental research facility with possible long-term finds that may impact the future direction of interneworking.
To rebuild the internet is insane. To slowly change the direction we are building it is more likely.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Didn't we already give them hundreds of millions of dollars, and trust that they'd deliver the "New and Improved Internet" to us with Internet2? I know I2 is doing a lot of good for a bunch of universities, medical centers and corporations, all of which therefore are getting their N&INet (NII) to contribute to their hugely profitable enterprises, subsidized at taxpayer expense. Where is the delivery of I2 to the rest of us, who pay for it, who need it, who represent most of the American economy (foreigners are welcome to ride for free, as usual ;)? Why should we give them even more money, when they just got paid to learn they can get paid not to share it with us?
--
make install -not war
They're rebuilding the internet to make it more secure, eliminate spam, virus, spoofing and so on.
Bad News:
Initiative will use Microsoft programming techniques as its foundation.
:-) :-)
{just joking}
Human, may I surf your mind?
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
If it had a version of napster running on it that the RIAA couldn't disrupt or bust people for using it might even get some use.
Sure they helped give us some nukes to kill a wraith ship but I still think they're bad.
Hell I didnt even know they had a internet.
There was an old McKinsey article that talked about "Strategic Incrementalism" back in the 80s. Idea was that with a clear vision, one could tweak the way to "good enough".
While there are intrinsically very ugly problems in client and server software right now, it seems that "Little Science" is displaced by "Big Science" (viz, NSF) in addressing incremental substantive improvements in security and availability for the Internet masses.
So, for example, as valuable as a *waving hands* non IP infrastructure blah blah might well be... there could be greater good achieved with work on secure computing environments, strong authentication, one time pad encryption methods and etc.
As a very dear friend of mine was fond of saying "if you want security, pull up your own shorts".
So, while big honkin backbone and new architectures are and will be very important, some think time at the "big level" regarding applications architecture and services would, likely, produce faster returns and shorter implementation times.
Verizon: Latin for "poor rural service".
In other words... IPv6?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
However it does need to upgrade to ipv6. No idea when that'll happen though.
Maybe I'm drifting off topic here, but how can this internet thing simultaneously be new and improved? If it's improved, it existed before. If it's new, it didn't.
Unknown host pong.
The current version has clearly been a complete failure. Maybe if they start over from scratch, this Internet thing will actually become popular.
It could use IPv6, but "built-in security measures" makes me think of Trusted Network Connect. Imagine if you needed a Trusted Platform Module plus an approved, unmodified operating system plus an approved, unmodified dialer program that verifies the "integrity" of your machine just to get an IP address. Some analysts claim that most major cable and DSL ISPs are likely to require TNC by 2015.
simply track every transaction on the internet and allow law enforcement to invade and abuse it whever they will it...
Considering we can break anything we make, no matter what is done, it comes down to this.
giving access to personal and private information to other humans...
May as well just start installing gps tracking and personal data recording chips in all humans...
Then it really won't matter what internet or other future tech we make use of.
Of course included is a punishment system of shock therapy and AI second guessing what you do to stop you from doing anything on the list of things not to do..... A list created by a few faulty humans of course....
The point is, there is nothing we can build that we cannot break.
Making this whole "better internet" just a carrot to get the donkey to move...... in circles.
In related news, industry analysts have examined the expected content of this "new & improved" web, and have decided to call it the "National Science Foundation Web", or "NSFW" for short. When asked for comment, an official replied "finally, the Internet will have a name that accurate reflects the majority of its content."
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
NSF? NSF what? Not safe for what? Not safe for work? Not safe for eyes? Not safe for consumption?
All I'm seeing here is NSF Ponders and I'm not even sure what a Ponder is and what wouldn't be safe for it.
These safety bulletins are getting severely lacking here on Slashdot these days.
First off, there are a number of major challenges facing the Internet. The ones that spring immediately to mind are security, management, and availability. To see some of these, compare the Internet to the (good parts of) the telephone network. 911 emergency phone service has roughly 99.99% availability; the Internet is an order of magnitude worse. You can't get a virus over the phone lines, and it's very difficult to create a botnet of 100,000 people to DDoS, say, a hospital's telephone system. Now, that ignores many of the good things about the Internet -- you can create and run fabulous applications that the network designers never envisioned, etc., at least, if you're not running behind a NAT. ;)
But wouldn't it be nice to have a network that had the best of all worlds? A network that cost 1/10th as much to manage as it does today? A network where your parents didn't call you up frequently and ask, "It says it couldn't find my DHCP server - what's wrong??" A network where you didn't resort to weird (but clever) hacks like traceroute to try to diagnose problems? Where Scott Richter couldn't create a spam-blasting army of drones? I use Vonage, and I had to dial 911 a few weeks ago to report a fire at the apartment across the street. During part of the conversation, I couldn't hear the operator well enough to understand the questions she was asking. It was a frightening and educational experience.
One of the most important parts of this program is that it's encouraging researchers to not feel constrained to fit into the current design, and is looking at ways to get that deployed in a way that it can gateway to or run on top of the current Internet. There's a big difference between this program and the Internet2, IPv6, etc. It's both higher risk and (hopefully!) higher reward. Internet2 was pretty much "Internet + faster links + some focused researchy bits"; it got co-oped early on because it provided lots of bandwidth to big science, and was too entrenched to try radical new things that (gasp!) might break. GENI is research + interfaces to allow early adopters -- like, say, slashdotters -- to make use of its services. The idea of creating an infrastructure that can safely be used simultaneously for testing out new research prototypes at all levels and running production versions of those services that succeed is a powerful notion that will give GENI a big edge over prior attempts.
It's an exciting proposal, and a scary one. If it gets funded, it could be either the biggest success in networking since the Web, or the biggest flop.
(Disclosure- I'm a networking professor at Carnegie Mellon. This is my field, I've been involved in some of the GENI discussions, and I intend to submit funding proposals to it. I think it'll be one of the best things in years to help academic networking research have a big impact on the real world.)
I'm pretty sure they're talking about finally adding the evil bit to packet headers so firewalls can much more easily ferret out bad traffic.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/
First, the obsession with wireless everything is beyond moronic as we don't know what our present electromagnetic soup does to our cell structures and synaptic interaction as it is and we want to fill the spectrum even more at higher power levels per unit volume and area? Yeah, that's a great idea. (
Second, what has made the present Internet great is not top down planning from standards committees and government agencies, but the interplay between them, users, content providers, carriers, corporations making products for it, etc. EVERYONE has had a part to play in making the Internet what it is today. I put the idea that any one group can make a new Internet under the same heading as people who claim to have special knowledge of how the universe really works (and that everyone else is an idiot; see the self-improvement section of the local bookstore) or how to make my life perfect. Unadulterated arrogance. There's a lot of parts to be played in some as organic and differentiated as the world of the Internet.
Third, anything which puts into place inherent breakpoints for snooping for whatever reason is a bad idea. It is an automatic invasion of privacy of citizens, organizations, and corporations whether the government uses them or not. There's no rationale that can justify the infringement and outweigh the long term negatives. The name of the game should be embracing of privacy and security of the Interenet's users. Say what you want about terrorism. There's been encryption of written communication going back to ancient times on stone tablets written in code. If we sacrifice freedoms for security we end up deserving neither.
The NSF would be spending its time a little more wisely on less grandiose things.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)