Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NSF Ponders New And Improved Internet

Posted by Zonk on from the can-this-one-deliver-soda-over-ip? dept.

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."

9 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Idea! by Knight+Thrasher · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's name it "Internet 2!"

  2. Misleading.. by PDXNerd · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Misleading.. by mfh · · Score: 5, Informative

      To rebuild the internet is insane. To slowly change the direction we are building it is more likely.

      I agree. It's about standards that companies should follow. Those that fail to follow the standards will lose relevance and compatability.

      And yes, the article title was misleading. They won't be rebuilding the Internet any time soon.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Finally! by bullitB · · Score: 4, Funny

    The current version has clearly been a complete failure. Maybe if they start over from scratch, this Internet thing will actually become popular.

  5. Trusted Network Connect by tepples · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Trusted Network Connect by griffjon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Especially given the paranoia/security/centralized control mode we're in with the current regi^H^H^H^Hadministration. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new attempt to enforce key escrow, and for all the "trusted" computer to have "secure" backdoors into their crypto systems that "only" the govt can access with "a warrant"

      (I also hear that there's a movement for a sarcasm tax per-double-quote in the house committee, so I'm tryin' to use 'em while they're free!)

      This all being said, the concept of a mesh network and the work of the guys at DefCon WiFi Shoot-out might be very, very valuable sooner rather than later. Man, wouldn't that be fantastic? A geek-run national wifi mesh... It's be just like 1990s Internet again, until the FCC started raids...

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  6. Re:NII2 by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's true that the government's NGI is actually independent from Internet2, though they work closely together. The NSF funds organizations to connect to Internet2 with tax money. And the I2 is about 80% funded by universities, which are largely funded by public money, government and otherwise. Where's the return to the public?

    I don't know why expecting public money to return products of its investment is "stretching it". We're buying R&D, we should get the R&D. Except where secrecy is important to, say, national security (tiny percentage of research), or the results would be premature to release, of course we should get access to what we bought. Why not?

    If an org wants to keep its research products private, it should use only private money. Perhaps there's a case to be made for proportional return on proportional investment (eg. publishing 80% of I2), but that's surely balanced by 1> the critical enabling support of the public money; 2> the vast public research predecessors on which all this new research depends; and 3> the essential role of publishing research results anyway, to science, culture and business. Otherwise, siphoning off all the oxygen produced will leave the system stagnant, and the private systems will wilt and die also.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  7. Re:NII2 by guet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the I2 is about 80% funded by universities, which are largely funded by public money, government and otherwise. Where's the return to the public?

    The return to the public is in research and education (which is what universities do). Where else would you expect it? Serving inane comments on Slashdot quicker? Supporting the latest dot.com fad? When the industry is ready to embrace new standards (hint, this is not a rational or controllable process) they will come to the mass-market. Not before.

    I'm afraid your free market ideology is blinding you to the benefits of public research and public funding. The 'all power to the poeple' line is very seductive, but research takes time, and the best research is not calibrated, and is not predictable. It does not obey the laws of the market and will never do so.

    (foreigners are welcome to ride for free, as usual ;)
    What a tired old canard. Where did the tags your writing is surrounded with come from? (hint, not the USA).