Slashdot Log In
Researchers Scheming to Rebuild Internet From Scratch
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Mar 15, 2007 01:49 PM
from the can-i-have-the-old-one-when-you're-done-with-it dept.
from the can-i-have-the-old-one-when-you're-done-with-it dept.
BobB writes "Stanford University researchers have launched an initiative called the Clean Slate Design for the Internet. The project aims to make the network more secure, have higher throughput, and support better applications, all by essentially rebuilding the Internet from scratch. From the article: 'Among McKeown's cohorts on the effort is electrical engineering Professor Bernd Girod, a pioneer of Internet multimedia delivery. Vendors such as Cisco, Deutsche Telekom and NEC are also involved. The researchers already have projects underway to support their effort: Flow-level models for the future Internet; clean slate approach to wireless spectrum usage; fast dynamic optical light paths for the Internet core; and a clean slate approach to enterprise network security (Ethane).'"
Related Stories
[+]
IEEE Seeks For Ethernet To 'Go Green' 166 comments
alphadogg submitted a piece at the NetworkWorld site about the IEEE's efforts to introduce energy efficiency to Ethernet use. The group's Energy Efficient Ethernet group is looking into methods by which standards can be tweaked to encourage power savings. Current plans include ways to make computers 'choosier' about what level of bandwidth they're using. Idle systems would only run at 10Mbps, while email might draw 100Mbs, and scale up to 1000Mbps for large downloads and streaming video. The group is planning to discuss changes to the Ethernet link and higher layers. No restrictions are planned for device manufacturers, although the article suggests some companies might try to use energy efficiency as a competitive advantage. The EEE group estimates some $450 million a year could be saved via the use of energy efficient Ethernet technology.
[+]
Hardware: National Projects Aim to Reboot the Internet 335 comments
iron-kurton wrote with a link to an AP story about a national initiative to scrap the internet and start over. You may remember our discussion last month about Stanford's Clean Slate Design project; this article details similar projects across the country, all with the federal government's blessing and all with the end goal of revamping our current networking system. From the article: "No longer constrained by slow connections and computer processors and high costs for storage, researchers say the time has come to rethink the Internet's underlying architecture, a move that could mean replacing networking equipment and rewriting software on computers to better channel future traffic over the existing pipes. Even Vinton Cerf, one of the Internet's founding fathers as co-developer of the key communications techniques, said the exercise was 'generally healthy' because the current technology 'does not satisfy all needs.'"
[+]
IT: What Does the 'Next Internet' Look Like? 283 comments
Kraisch writes with a link to the Guardian website, which again revisits the subject of reconstructing the internet. This time the question isn't whether it should be done, but what should the goals of a redesign be? From the article: "'There's a real need to have better identity management, to declare your age and to know that when you're talking to, say, Barclays bank, that you're really doing so,' said Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet governance and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute. At the moment we are still using very clumsy methods to approach such problems. The result: last year alone, identity theft and online fraud cost British victims an estimated £414m, while one recent report claimed 93% of all email sent from the UK was spam ... Many ideas revolve around so-called "mesh networks", which link many computers to create more powerful, reliable connections to the internet. By using small meshes of many machines that share a pipeline to the net instead of relying on lots of parallel connections, experts say they can create a system that is more intelligent and less prone to attack."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Researchers Scheming to Rebuild Internet From Scratch
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 254 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.luelinks.net/)
Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://skippus.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 19 2005, @07:25AM)
Didn't you see the story the other day?
We are [reactos.org].
Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday October 22, @10:09PM)
Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.outpimp.com/?x=57020 | Last Journal: Wednesday September 12, @09:15PM)
Unfortunatly, I'm afraid they will make it more censorable, more business oriented vs. regular people, less anonymous, more regulated, govt/UN controlled, politically correct...and as someone mentioned, full DRM support forever.
Frankly, for all its faults, I like the internet now as it is...kind of the 'wild west' of information. That just has to 'kill' some of those in power around the world.
I think the last thing we want to do, is recreate it, now that those in power know what free flow of information can do...
Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Wild West" exists (and perhaps always has existed) mostly in fiction.
In history it begins with the discovery of gold in California in 1848 and ends in 1876 at the Little Big Horn. The Last Stand for the Plains Indians as well as for Custer.
It's a brief moment in time - and, in some ways, a pattern of settlement unique to the United States.
It shouldn't surprise anyone if the Internet frontier has it's own ending.
Damnit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damnit (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.misscellania.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @11:47PM)
~ Some Microsoft noob
Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
(http://carroll.org.uk/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 09 2006, @05:16PM)
Pssst... I think you may find this page informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke [wikipedia.org]
Re:What material will they use? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://stiffproposition.com/)
Actually they discovered the problem is that the current internet is a bunch of tubes. Tubes get clogged. The new internet will be big trucks you dump stuff on.
What are the odds (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday December 30 2002, @04:18PM)
Re:What are the odds (Score:4, Informative)
In my opinion, there are a lot of things that need to be fixed for an "Internet for the future". One of the biggest hurdles of course is the address space shortage of IPv4, but there are a lot of other issues which need to be solved. Just to name a few:
- More flexible routing of unique identifiers (let's call them IP numbers), so I can take my "identifier" with me (think mobile phones)
- A solution to the ever growing "global routing table" (BGP4 as it is used today)
- Better support for quality of service from end-to-end.
- Better "multicasting" support, also end-to-end. (Let's avoid burning down networks during "cataclysmic" events)
- Better redundancy. Although dynamic routing protocols should heal this problems, in practice they often fail to do this. Especially in cases where connections are semi-dead)
- A much better built-in protection against DDoSes and other kind of abuses.
Unfortunately, IPv6 really fixes none of those problems, except the IP number shortage. IPv6 also comes at great costs, since you need to upgrade your whole infrastructure at once, or it isn't really usable.
So, IPv6 might have been a nice lesson for the next generation "IP protocol". IMHO this next generation should take the following things in mind:
- Transition only works if it plays nicely with the legacy stuff during the transition.
- Transition has either to be cheap or must have so many advantages that you simply cannot refuse.
- Vendors need to agree upon a single standard, or somebody with a large impact should "dictate" it in the worst scenario.
Reading TFA, I was quite disapointed, because anything about how this transition to this cleanslate network seems to be absent at this time. But it is still a research project and maybe somebody did learn something from the IPv6 "fiasco".
Re:What are the odds (Score:5, Insightful)
The flip side is that some of your suggestions can have detrimental effects too:
In other words, better support for introducing favoritism between ISPs and content providers, so that (for example) AT&T can extort money from Google and shut down BitTorrent. No thanks; I prefer the "dumb," route-everything-equally, neutral Internet we have now.
And much better protection against free speech, anonymity, etc. Again, no thanks.
Yeah, that "somebody" being AT&T or Microsoft, who would undoubtedly screw it up with Treacherous Computing, built-in "micropayment" toll booths, and assorted other bullshit. Still sound like a great idea?
Re:What are the odds (Score:4, Insightful)
Not exactly (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www-oss.fnal.gov/~mengel | Last Journal: Monday August 30 2004, @05:02PM)
-
There are several mechanisms for running IPv4 and IPv6 side by side, and that was a major part of the discussion in the IPv6 rollout early on. Medium sized chunks of the net were running IPv6 [6bone.net] for quite a while, and were routed in and out of fairly seamlessly.
transition mechanisms were designed [tascomm.fi], long before IPv6 was adopted by the IETF. (the linked RFC is from 1995).
-
IPv6 designers also put in tools designed to provide for mobile endpoints, although better designs have come out since.
-
IPv6 provides and uses multicast addresses as part of it's initial design, and its multicast is being used [cisco.com] successfully.
You can claim that the implementations provided weren't good enough (although I'd like to see some actual data to back that up), but in fact the folks that did IPv6 did have all of those goals in mind when they put IPv6 together.Re:Won't work IMO (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ceyah.org/~jandrese/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 13, @11:11AM)
I want to know how they're going to avoid the second system effect with their new internet. One of the big reasons the Internet works is because a lot of effort was spent in keeping everything reasonably simple. Time has shown that anything that start out highly complicated tends to be only very slowly adopted, if at all. IP may have terrible security but at least it doesn't require someone 10 man-years to build a fully compliant router.
anonymity vs. accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday November 10 2006, @02:16PM)
One of the most interesting criteria for a new internet, to me, was criteria #7:
Support anonymity where prudent, and accountability where necessary.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems true anonymity is becoming more and more important, and less and less available, as governments snoop more on the internet.
Re:anonymity vs. accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, unless you want this to be a tool only for and by the government, you've got to get businesses comfortable with it. Banks. Retailers. Airlines. Anonymity (of the you-can't-track-my-pr0n-use, or the posting-as-a-troll, or the PRC-can't-ID-the-rebel variety) is antithetical to trustworthy transactions, and without money changing hands, the plumbing is WAY less useful to the huge swaths of the economy that would fund (indirectly) the growth and adoption of such a thing.
"Where prudent" and "as necessary" etc., are completely subjective. People who like to rip off movies have one set of priorities, and people who administer your payroll or need to transmit your cancer meds prescription are looking at it from a very different perspective.
Hasn't this been tried before? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.underreported.com/)
Who's In Charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of Meskimen's Law... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This reminds me of Meskimen's Law... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.axiom-developer.org/)
In theory, ten years of computer science research might have produced a better design for the internet than the one we have today, back when it was first being developed. However, we have learned a lot from the scale-up that on a practical level would be fairly hard to duplicate in a research setting. Sometimes you just don't think of the possible consequences until you see them happen, particularly things due to human beings TRYING to bring down the system. Think about how long telnet lasted, for example.
In all honesty, it's a miracle the world wide web has scaled the way it has - consider the original scope of the military networks and the small amounts of data they were transmitting. The original designs were to Get Something Working and Justify Our Budget - that's how it has to work. I'd say the return on investment for the various stages of the internet has always more than justified even the costs of redoing it. Sometimes you can't wait to figure out how to do it right, because that will take too much time and what you can build NOW is still useful. Think about automobiles - 10 years from now we will undoubtedly be building better ones than we can build today, but the costs of waiting until we know how to do it "right" are much higher than the costs of replacement.
Now, of course, the question of knowing how to do something right is distinct from doing correctly what we already know how to do - one is a research problem, one is an implementation problem. I'm inclined to think that the web is more of a research limitation than a "do it right" issue, although I could be wrong - it depends on how much was known in the beginning states.
Re:Clean Slate vs. Gummed-upTubes (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
Re:Clean Slate vs. Gummed-upTubes (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats it... I'm gona make my OWN internet. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah, we really need this :( (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's get the guys that designed all those "wonderful" networks:
Oh yeah, let's get the "EXPERTS" involved!
Rebuild the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.aesgi.com/)
Lets rebuild the internet because it uses too much open source software and we are not making enough money. I know! Lets get all the vendors together and rebuild it using proprietary crud so that it is impossible for any of these "open source" guys to make server platforms that are freely available.
Lets kill open standards too, because well....who needs those IETF guys anyway! They are just a bunch hippies!
Seriously, though. The internet works better than my cell phone does.
It doesn't need "fixing".
It just needs a few upgrades.
IPV6 would be a nice place to start!
GAD.
The thought of CISCO having a hand in anything the future internet could be makes me want to quit my current network manager job and open an Italian Restraunt.
-gc
-hack
Re:Rebuild the Internet (Score:4, Informative)
hey, lets revive DECnet Phase V! (Score:3, Insightful)
(and it got about as much attention as ipv6. they both planned for 'big networks' but we all know how popular OSI is, in the real world...)
They'll end up with a nice neat network (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's going to be useful, it has to talk to everything, that's the whole point of the network effect.
Internet Mail 2000 anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
The name is crappy, but the concept is a really good start. It's a shame this never caught on. Basically, Email's Subjects and Bodies are split, and the Subject is sent to the Receiver, and the Body is stored at the Sender's server. When the Receiver gets the Subject notification, they connect to the Sender's server and download the Body.
The point of this strange scheme would be to crush spammers under the weight of their own To list, by having millions of incoming connections. The burden of storage goes to the Sender, not the Receiver.
That should be one of the technologies Web 11.0 should implement. Somebody call up Al Gore and tell him this.
A new Internet economics. A worse Internet. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Outrageous! The rich treated the same as the poor!" They want an internet in which a porn movie downloaded by a CEO preempts and disturbs a critical communication from a hospital to an investigation center.
The internet as we have it is an open field. A dumb, simple, protocol so that people can innovate in the sides. This enabled us to be independent from ISP and to design new protocols (Gnutella, Bittorrent, etc.). Of course, they now say that this "dumbness" produced lack of innovation:
It's not clear to me how having a more complex internet in the middle will be able to ease its growth. It seems as the opposite, as more complex middleware will be more complex to upgrade and setup. In fact, the main reason the current internet has "ossificated" *is* dumbness in the middle, but other kind of dumbness. The commercial companies' dumb administrators, dumb managers, who didn't care to provide us multicast, IPv6, mobile ip, IPsec, etc.
The Internet as we have it could never had happened if it were for the private sector. It's too open, private companies don't like standards. See how the classical internet infrastructure got frozen when the commercial companies took over internet in the last century. HTTP, IMAP, POP, HTML, etc. got stuck in their last versions. It's because Internet needs a strong *public* presence. Companies can exist, provide service, but Internet needs a strong presence by the people (in the form of the state..? Universities? I don't know...)
This group is not aiming at a better, utopic, internet. They are trying to recapture what they've lost when their CCITT (X.25, X.400, X.500) network wreck.