Slashdot Mirror
80 Gbps Deep Packet Inspection Hardware Announced
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that Procera Networks is launching a new weapon on the deep packet inspection (DPI) front. At $800,000 these 80 Gbps tanks aren't going to be sitting in everyone's closet, but it could mean that more traffic shaping is on the way. "The PL10000 can handle up to 5 million subscribers and can track 48 million real-time data flows. That's certainly a potent piece of hardware, but larger ISPs will need more. That's why Procera designed the new machines with full support for synchronizing traffic flows where return traffic might be routed to a different PacketLogic machine. The machine receiving the return traffic can make the machine monitoring the outbound traffic aware that it sees the other half of a TCP/IP conversation, for example, giving the devices more accuracy than those which might only have access to one side."
Just in time for the olympic games!
At almost a million dollars a pop, is it really saving money for ISPs to use these? How many would a major ISP need to shape all of their traffic?
80 Gbps tanks aren't going to be sitting in everyone's closet
Not until Wrath of the Lich King comes out ... wait, what were we talking about?
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
DPI has only one option when presented with encrypted information however (at least afaik). Give the packet a low priority or pass it through normally (of course, it could also drop it entirely but doing that as a rule would be problematic to say the least). So it would be possible to force a bet. Can the ISPs afford to give encrypted traffic a very low priority?
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
Surely that money could be better spent improving their capacity by purchasing new equipment with better signaling methods or even extra lines rather than on equipment to inspect and shape (i.e. selectively throttle) traffic?
Even if improving the capacity costs a fair bit extra the space for more customers at higher speeds and more consistent service for existing customers will surely increase their profits by offering more than their competition right?
How much of this advertised speed is more or less advertising hype more than anything else??? We all know what it takes to do packet inspection and rules table lookups, so to me, this number seems a bit on the hyped up side...
Anyone else getting this same riff??
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
$800,000/5 million subscribers = $0.16 per subscriber.
Expect to see the surcharge in your next bill!!!
think about the original definition of ethernet and of IP, in general.
in general, it was setup to pass packets and ideally to keep them in the same order and not drop them. beyond that, the upper layers (tcp and udp) did any higher level functions.
this worked! for the longest (damned) time, it worked.
and now, ISPs (and large networks) are starting to try to break out the 'cable is a bunch of bits' into discrete 'services' and then try to re-order things, drop things, queue them differently or somehow treat things non-uniformly.
I think this is Evil(tm).
I've been in the networking field for a few decades (really) and I've seen traffic shaping (what a euphemism, btw!) try to argue its case over and over again. but I keep getting back to the basic design principles of ethernet (csma-c/d) and tcp/udp-ip and when you have large enough pipes, you don't NEED a 'fast lane' or diamond lane, so to speak. it just mucks up the works, makes things harder to design and manage and really isn't helpful since you still need large pipes and all the shaping in the world won't CURE that, it only DEFERs things. that's not a cure.
data should be 'opaque' and first-come first-served. equal access. standard layer (phys, dl, network) rules should still apply.
ISPs who employ shaping are simply RIPPING OFF customers from their rightful bandwidth and also passing along the COST of the packet snooping hardware to us, the users. (don't think they'll just spring for the hardware on their own; they'll pass the costs of this stuff to us, to be sure).
I think its evil. once you look at it from enough angles, you see that its not at all a good thing.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
If my ISP is going to inspect my packets to the point of identifying their content as p2p, then they should be 100% responsible for any and all illegal activities I may or may not conduct on their connections.
The entire concept of the DMCA safe harbor clause was founded on the understanding that it would be virtually impossible for providers to monitor and filter illegal or unlawful activities and data. However, now it has become perfectly reasonable that they can identify and reroute or slow this traffic. This clearly nullify's the safeharbor provisions.
The ISP's need to realize they cant have it both ways.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
It looks like a disaster in a box to me: not only does it allow anyone with the price of the machine to monitor and inspect each and every packet you exchange, it also is capable of destroying the legal protections that ISPs currently enjoy.
The ISPs are treated like common carriers and are exempt from many liabilities because they carry all traffic equally and don't know or control the content of that traffic. Now that they're insisting that they need to "prioritize" some traffic at the expense of others, monitor and drop traffic because of its content, and are installing machines like these that further refine their ability to monitor and control what traffic you'll be allowed to transmit - well, their "safe harbor" exemptions are based on them not doing any of this.
Just the existence of this machine will be the undoing of many...
Heck, to defeat this you could just use AES with a default key. Everyone can use the same key, and have it be publicly known. It's fine because this thing doesn't have the compute power to decrypt in real time, even if it knows what it needs to be decrypting and what the key is. Screw handshaking, key management, etc -- just make the CPU cost nonzero and you're done.
I'll bet in the war against p2p, making p2p data look like normal "priority" data is going to be far easier, and far cheaper than the ISPs trying to identify and block/slow the data they don't like. Consider that hiding p2p data takes one person with a keyboard and some smarts. In a month this guy will work around any solution the $800K machine guys have put together, and the next machine will be 8 million dollars to do the same job.
Encryption? Just the first salvo. Others have pointed out that p2p makes a lot of connections. That's fine, just create a secure queuing system where people wait their turns (and don't have multiple data streams). Or, a repeater system where you get one or two data feeds in, and feed to one or two other people. There's no reason why a p2p system has to have 50 different connections to different people. Start looking at the data itself and see if it's http-like? Okee-doke, just create an http wrapper around your data so it looks like http. These are just the dumb ideas I came up with on the fly. Real solutions would be a lot better.
This kind of asymmetric "war" has been fought before, namely with copyright protection in the 80s. The result? Cracked programs are more valuable than non-cracked programs (oh, and all copyright protection schemes were cracked)
In a system with untrusted intelligent nodes, you can't really create a priority system without some people making their non-priority data look like priority data. The internet was designed for the end nodes to be smart, and the network to be dumb. (The exact opposite of the phone system). It seems to me this is just a basic design principle of the internet.
AccountKiller
With IPsec, they won't even be able to see what protocol is being used. The more we use IPsec for everything, the less these things will look like an attractive way to spend money that would otherwise go to expanding capacity.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Deep packet inspection is necessary to identify and provide QoS for many modern internet applications. For example it is quite common for services to tunnel video over HTTP (example - YouTube). Skype cannot be identified without DPI.
Of course it can be used for good or evil. But the fact of the matter is that DPI is in the mix as one approach to provide QoS for real time internet applications like streaming video and audio that don't play well with the 'best effort' delivery paradigm that packet switched networks are really designed to provide.
If you really want network neutrality for every packet, fine. But be aware that right now time sensitive traffic types like VOIP are being prioritized, and network neutrality will degrade performance for some applications.