Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Researchers Aim to Replace the Internet
Gary writes "Japanese communications minister Yoshihide Suga said Friday that Japan will start research and development on technology for a new generation of network that would replace the Internet, eyeing bringing the technology into commercial use in 2020. The envisaged network is expected to ensure faster and more reliable data transmission, and have more resilience against computer virus attacks and breakdowns."
The internet is built over a series of seven layers - the .
The idea of splitting everything into layers is so that any one system could be changed without having to totally rewrite everything else - if you want to replace your dial-up modem with a wi-fi card, all you have to do is replace the drivers. If your ISP wants to replace their router network with an ATM network that's easily done without affecting you. If someone came along with a better router management protocol, that's easily done.
The original Internet did have redundancy and resistance against breakdown built in. Unfortunately, many network companies found it cheaper simply to route separate logical networks along one connection, rather than have multiple and completely separate connections. Thus, we end up with a hard-wired minimum spanning tree network, that fails as soon as one link goes down.
Let them go ahead with this idea, but by the time they complete their literature survey, they will probably find out there is very little that they need to change.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
TRON has been a ridiculous success being one of, if not the most popular embedded operating systems in the world, meaning that it probably has more devices running it than the number of PCs running Windows/MacOS/Linux/etc. combined. Sure, I think it would be difficult to argue that it has changed "the whole face of computing", but really, is that anything to scoff at? I mean, how many technologies are there that have?
As many as we need until we get it right! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed /LinuxDistroTimeline.png
So, you think that the fact that the internet today cannot cope with anything other than the ASCII character set is a good thing? How about if someone tries to solve the problems that obviously don't affect you, but do affect many other nations on this planet. You know, like having things in a language that they can understand, using characters that appear on their keyboards. True, you might not want to access those sites, but many people who live in those countries probably will.
Why will they need a gateway? Perhaps they will be quite content with, say, the whole of Japan being able to access Japanese sites in their native language. They might not care whether you can access them. Indeed, if you insist on sticking to the ASCII character set you will be limited to lots of content that you simply cannot understand because you believe that everyone should speak the same language as yourself. The Japanese might be very pleased to capture their own market yet still be able to access your internet when it suits them. Sure, if they want site to be available internationally they will have to keep a URL based on the ASCII character set because, Internet 2, which is being developed in the US, is not addressing the problem of other alphabets. It seems in the west to be a case of sod them, they don't matter. And when someone else tries to address the problem the attempt is mocked as being a duplication of effort. It isn't. Nobody in the west is looking at the problem AFAICT.
And what is to say that their research will not identify a better way of building some part of the internet as we know it? Not all the best ideas originate in one country. Perhaps they will solve a particular problem that will benefit everyone, using whatever internet they care to use, in whatever language they choose. It might not, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. After all, going to the moon achieved nothing in and of itself, but there have been numerous spin-off benefits and inventions that resulted from going down that path.
Many countries have internet access that is far advanced from that found in many parts of the USA. Perhaps they would like to keep it that way.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
i think the parent post is referring vendor lock-in, specifically provider lock in.
if you have no real choice in who provides your internet access you have take what they give you or choose to live without internet access. with all of the shenanigans (filtering, capping, throttling, etc.) that american telcos and cablecos have threatened to pull (or are actively pulling) thanks to the lack of competition in the residential broadband market, perhaps a non-american competitor to the internet as most americans know it is just what the doctor ordered.
with that said, if they really wanted to impress me they would make such a network accessible from the US.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
The term, "vendor lock in" to use the full term, is where a single company controls a protocol and abuses that control to force price hikes, unnecessary upgrades and arbitrary restrictions upon its customers.
I think you've gone a bit too far with that definition. Vendor lock-in is just where a single company controls a protocol and no third parties can use it in an unrestricted way.
The company doesn't have to abuse this position - the mere fact that you _have_ to use that company's services constitutes vendor lockin, even if they are the best services in the world.
An example might be something like MSN - even though the protocol is fairly well known (through reverse engineering), and you can pick and choose your client software, the design of the MSN network *requires* you to use the central MSN servers if you want to participate in the MSN network (i.e. there is vendor lockin since you are required to use a specific vendor's services). Compare to XMPP, which is decentralised by design - you can pick and choose what server you use (and even run your own server) and still talk with people elsewhere on the XMPP network who are using different servers and clients.
But I don't think TCP/IP (the protocol that underlies the Internet) is owned by anyone as such, so it's not like we're going to get forced to pay more for a protocol "upgrade".
Well, you might be inherently forced to upgrade. When content moves to IPv6, you will need to upgrade to IPv6. The real difference here is that it isn't a single vendor forcing you to upgrade to make more money - when you need to upgrade you can pick and choose which vendor to upgrade to.
So, to summarise: please explain how can we have any meaningful lock in on the internet, and (assuming this to be possible), please also explain how this would be bad.
I think the original poster should've said "lock in" rather than "vendor lock in". There _is_ lock-in associated with the internet since that's where a lot of content is. If you want to visit Wikipedia, for example, you have to do that using HTTP over TCP over IPv4 - you can't do it using IPv6, or over Internet2 or any other network technology without some kind of gatewaying between them (probably at the application layer). Thus, you are locked in to IPv4.
This is one of the reasons why IPv6 isn't gaining ground very quickly - the server owners don't see the point in supporting IPv6 since none of the end users support it. The ISPs and end users don't see the point in supporting it since none of the server owners support it. It's a chicken-and-egg situation - why switch to IPv6 when all the content is available on IPv4 anyway?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I think that you answered your own comment in at least 2 places.
They don't have unicode support I guess, although that's something that could [I think?] be handled just by supplying a unicode-enabled custom DNS?And who will develop the code that does this? Who will ensure that it can interface with the rest of the internet? Japan will, for one, because nobody looking at Internet2 appears to be looking at this problem.
Personally, my main concern with a "new" internet is the climate in which it would be bornAs you and other posters have pointed out, it is quite possible that Internet2 as it is currently being developed might well include DRM requirements that are wanted by US legislation, or to make wire-tapping or surveillance easier. But the rest of the world might not want that. Japan is looking at the problem from its own viewpoint, not to meet your requirements or mine, but theirs. And if they do build their own internal network it will probably interface with the rest of the internet. That might be an ideal place to stop many viruses from entering the system. Of course, we can say that it would be impossible, so much data to check etc. Which might be why they are looking at new technology to solve that specific problem.
Redesigning the internet is not the same as doing everything again. Perhaps some parts of it are good just as they are. TCP/IP is working and doesn't need changing. But, there again, perhaps there are improvements that can be made. Maybe the Japanese can implement an improved email system that is spam resistant. Oh yes, lots of people talk about how it could be done, but who is actually doing anything about it? Again, Japan has the opportunity to look at the problem and find solutions. If the US, or Europe, or anywhere else for that matter doesn't want to use their solution that's OK. Internally, they can still use it providing that can manage the interface to the rest of the internet. That might be one of the outcomes of the research. How about looking at the technology to maximize the use of the existing bandwidth so that we can have internet TV without the internet grinding to a halt? Or finding new ways of caching data in numerous locations so that each web page does not require so much data to come from a single source to update itself? Perhaps a P2P system so that the load is shared. All these problems could be solved without having to change the underlying structure but it still requires research to find the answers.
My previous post was not intended as being anti-US, but the first series of comments did nothing but criticise Japans efforts. "A duplication of effort", "Unneeded", "Its not broken". But from another country's viewpoint it might well be possible to improve it, and current studies in the US do not seem to be looking at the problem from a foreign viewpoint. And if its going to change and require, eventually, new technology and hardware, then Japan would like to be in at the ground floor rather than having to play catch-up with US companies.
The article does not suggest that everything has to change, but changes are necessary if the internet is to be as useful in 50 years hence as it is today. That is what I understand the Japanese initiative to be about.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
That's assuming there is more than 1 ISP around where you live. Which is not always true. Especially if you need more than basic service (i.e. higher bandwidth). Besides, spying on you can be mandated for all ISPs (it already is in some countries, no?), so having a "choice" won't change much anyway. Next up is mandated filtering, also for all ISPs.
Yes. However, these are mainly political issues not technical ones. If your ISPs have been allowed to form a cartel, if the government mandates ISP level surveillance - both political.
A redesigned from scratch Internet won't help with these issues at all, because the problems are not technical ones and any new protocol will be subject to the same issues.
On the other hand, a redesigned Internet could make matters a lot worse in this regard, since it provides an opportunity for things like patent encumbered protocols and on-by-default filtering of unregistered or encrypted protocols.
That's not to say that the problems you mention are not serious: just that you seem to be looking in the wrong place for a solution.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
i'm certainly quite skeptical of any research project with such a lofty goal, and the point of my post was to clarify what i took to be the parent post's idea of vendor lock in, which you identified (correctly so, in my opinion) as a business/implementation problem rather than a technical one. i am certainly not a nascent-japanese-rival-to-the-internet fanboy.
i know absolutely nothing about the japanese project that the article is about, but the idea of another, different global inter-network is not immediately invalid. this specific project may very well prove to be invalid, but in the abstract, the idea of such a research project is (at least in my opinion) interesting.
research into another global inter-network, using the lessons learned from previous implementations and focusing on current and emerging technologies that may not have been available when the internet itself was initially designed (or re-designed) might deliver a faster, more efficient, and/or more reliable inter-network. it might. it might also prove that the design of the internet today is the best that is technologically possible. that's the beauty of research projects.
from my very limited understanding of TCP/IP, routing, and the internet itself, i have gathered that the internet was designed from a sort of "worst case scenario" point of view. it is meant to tolerate and work around slow, unreliable, and possibly hostile links first, and to deliver bits quickly second. what would it be like if we designed the internet today, but with a more "optimistic" approach? i don't know if it would change anything, or if it's even possible, but it would cool to find out.
we have established that the commercial implementation of the internet is not always true to the technological "intent" of it's creators. what would the net be like if the technology behind it "understood" the tendency (maybe even the inevitability) of businesses to put profits ahead of service? i don't know if it would change anything, or if it's even possible, but it would be cool to find out.
i have no idea how one would access it, which is why i, being the myopically self centered creature that i am, would not be impressed with the idea of an internet competitor unless it was accessible to me in the US.
perhaps what is needed (if indeed anything is needed at all) is not a new and separate internet, but a kind of ad-hoc inter-network of peers that is isolated and possibly insulated from the internet, like some sort of giant darknet. as for how one makes those networks accessible on a global scale, i don't know how that would work, but i think it would be freakin' awesome.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Yes, I did - I've also worked on networking products (network probes and LAN analyzers). Even had one of those protocol charts above my desk, so I've got a good idea of how "the tubes work".
...
The Japanese have always had these grand computer initiatives (the last couple were "The TRON project", and Fifth Generation computing (AI, Expert Systems, Automated Learning).
The TRON project was an attempt to have computers be able to have a standard communication protocol:
First, there is the problem of reliability. Has your Internet service provider's server every gone down unexpectedly? Is it shut down regularly for maintenance causing you to lose access to the Internet? Have you ever sent an e-mail message that was never received by the person to whom you sent it? Has a person to whom you sent an e-mail message ever written back saying the header was received but there was no message attached to it? In the case of most people, the answer to these questions is "yes." But in comparison, loss of telephone service is now an extremely rare occurrence that happens mainly due to natural disasters. When it's a result of an error by the telephone company, all hell breaks loose and large-scale rebates have to be paid out to placate angry customers.
Of course, there are very understandable reasons why the Internet has its loyal supporters. Most importantly, the fact that governments don't control the Internet means it can give a voice to people or groups of people certain governments would like to suppress. So in that sense, it is of immense cultural importance. Another important feature of the Internet is that it is still "open technologically," so anyone can become a player without paying royalties or worrying about a lawyer from a large software company walking through the door with a ultimatum to either sign a highly unfavorable contract or have access to the Internet denied. However, in the final analysis, even the hard core fans of the Internet have to admit that when it comes to underlying technologies, the Internet is lacking in many areas.
Fortunately, there are other global network development efforts under way in addition to the Internet. One of these is the TRON Hypernetwork (in technical parlance, the highly functional distributed system [HFDS]), a vast, high-performance, real-time hypernetwork of innumerable open and closed subordinate networks based on the TRON total architecture that is being planned for computerizing human living spaces and human work environments in the 21st century. This hypernetwork is in the process of being built around a central framework of real-time servers and digital exchanges based on the Central and Communication TRON (CTRON) architecture, one of the first tasks of which is to support today's Internet protocols.
Looks like this is another attempt to revamp the TRON project (which also had its own networked CPU).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
excellent point. very well said. whatever rivals the internet may have to transcend wires.
it's sad, but probably true. the two possible research projects i mentioned (the optimistic internet and the pessimistic internet) are responses to the two basic dooms-day scenarios for the internet. the "descent into gridlock and chaos" scenario is the preferred scare tactic of the filtering/capping/throttling crowd. the "TV with a buy button" scenario is the preferred propaganda tool of the innovation/free speech/privacy crowd. if there were sufficient competition in the market, both scenarios would be laughable. unfortunately there is no such competition, and neither side will be happy until they get what they want.
that means that either the control crowd (AT&T) wins, the internet becomes just like TV or radio (owned and controlled by corps and the govt.) and one or more darknets appear in protest, OR the freedom crowd (google) wins, the net returns to the good old days of 2001, and one or more parallel networks appear to deliver sanctioned content at speeds the internet only dreams of (like cable telephone service today). either way, new parallel nets have to be built to appease both camps.
the only real questions then become which camp will keep the name "internet", who will build "zie darknets", and what will the control camp call its darknets if it loses control of the legacy internet?
the third scenario, the "imaginary third pipe" dream (powerlines, muni-fiber, muni-wifi, high-speed mobile data) is another possibility, but i am not confident that a third entrant will appear any time soon. building a competitor to the internet takes the kind of motivation that only the need for vengeance can provide.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.