Slashdot Log In
80 Gbps Deep Packet Inspection Hardware Announced
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon May 12, 2008 12:53 PM
from the comcast-on-backorder-for-months dept.
from the comcast-on-backorder-for-months dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: ISPs Using "Deep Packet Inspection" On 100,000 Users 309 comments
dstates writes "The Washington Post is reporting that some Internet Service Providers (ISP) have been using deep-packet inspection to spy on the communications of more than 100,000 US customers. Deep packet inspection allows the ISP to read the content of communications including every Web page visited, every e-mail sent and every search entered, in short every click and keystroke that comes down the line. The companies involved assert that customers' privacy is protected because no personally identifying details are released, but they make money from advertisers who use the information to target their online pitches. Deep packet inspection is a significant expansion over tools like cookies in the ability to track a user. Critics liken it to a phone company listening in on conversations."
Submission: 80 Gbps Deep Packet Inspection Hardware announced by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Your Rights Online: China to Regulate Internet Map Publishing 279 comments
hackingbear writes "After text, pictures, and videos, China starts regulating Internet map publishing (here is the google translation.) The government believes that Internet maps can represent the state's sovereignty and its political and diplomatic positions in the international community — and consequently, inaccurate maps could harm national interests and dignity, produce bad political influences, reveal national secrets and harm national security, in addition to harming consumer interests. So from now on, publishing maps would require approval and (yet another) license from the state survey bureau. That means Google, Yahoo, etc., need to remove China from the map; or maybe they just pay up some officials and their agents to acquire yet another license. And our newest 80Gbps DPI monsters need to be upgraded to identify maps together with porn."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Just in time! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just in time! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
$800,000? (Score:5, Insightful)
Math is fun. (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect to see the surcharge in your next bill!!!
Parent
Re:Math is fun. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Math is fun. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Math is fun. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would any ISP NOT stoop so low as to try something like that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Math is fun. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:$800,000? (Score:5, Insightful)
Spend the money on a couple more 40Gb fiber lines instead.
Parent
Re:$800,000? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:$800,000? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:$800,000? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most ISPs would be geographically distributed. I can't think of to many places where you would actually see this much traffic. You'd need, what, 10 OC-192's to see 80Gb/s? Maybe they add all the GigE ports together and cheat to advertise a big number, but still.
Second, this is the kind of device you want closest to your customers, not down the line where your traffic aggregates. If you want to stave upstream traffic, do it as soon as possible in the network.
Third, it's better in almost every aspect of IT to scale out, not up. Every node would be different. You could have business customers in one CDIR or another and different configurations for each. I'm sure this thing is configurable per port, but I'd think it would be easier and more cost effective to have smaller distributed individually configurable devices only where you need them.
No, I don't think this thing is best suited to do traffic shaping for the typical ISP. If you can do DPI on that much traffic, there's bigger, less benign applications I can think of.
Parent
Re:$800,000? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
tank (Score:4, Funny)
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?
cost (Score:2)
DPI - Encrypt (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DPI - Encrypt (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but if they wanted to be pricks they could identify p2p users and give THEIR encrypted traffic a very low priority.
Even if you ran with full encryption and encrypted the communication with the tracker it's still trivial to identify you as a p2p user -- not many VPNs make connections with dozens (or hundreds) of remote hosts.
The only way around that would be to VPN somewhere and use that VPN link to pass all your p2p traffic -- but if you have the means at your disposal to set that up then you likely have the means to find an ISP that doesn't throttle your p2p traffic.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DPI - Encrypt (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:DPI - Encrypt (Score:4, Informative)
Also, a TCP packet contains a lot more than just an encrypted payload: you can tell a lot about a packet from the other parts: source and destination ports, sequence and acknowledgement numbers, header length, reserved ID bits, urgent flag, ACK flag, push flag, RST flag, SYN flag, FIN flag, Window size, checksum, urgent pointer and even the options field. I'm sure that it wouldn't be very difficult to set up a bayesian detection ruleset using this data to identify what protocol is being used. The checksum and flags wouldn't be all that useful, but the port numbers, header length, window size, urgent pointer and seq/ack number progressions can be quite telling.
Parent
Re:DPI - Encrypt (Score:4, Informative)
Freenet runs over UDP with fully randomized ports. It acknowledges messages, but even the ACKs are encrypted. Window sizes are hidden behind the crypto as well. Except for the initial connection, handshaking is done by routing through previously established connections.
I'd like to see them DPI that. The best they can do is traffic analysis and decide it looks like P2P and throttle on that.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely not. If people find that their online web purchases fail to complete because some marketing executron has decided to put shttp protocols in the slow lane, word will soon get round on the consumer newsgroups.
Re: (Score:2)
If only a effective QOS standard was applied then users could choose the level of quality they wanted.
Re:DPI - Encrypt (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A waste? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:A waste? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Ok... I have a question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone else getting this same riff??
?? subscribers @ 80gbps (Score:2, Interesting)
Welcome to Comcast - our new TOS allows you to view text-only web pages with your *high speed* internet connection!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lots of Issues (Score:2)
First big customers: Comcast, Rogers, Bell Canada, AT&T, and the others that we love to hate.
The FCC needs to investigate this thing NOW. It's a monopoly-maker in just 12U.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ne
slashdot likes to whine about big brother (Score:2)
those are just stunts, it is propaganda and hysteria to overinflate the significance of those developments
but this massive dpi stuff, this is big brother for real
but its not as sexy a lightning rod visceral symbolic issue like ankle bracelets on truants. so it won't experience the same outcry
I've decided: this is evil. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DPI is not evil so long as it is used to make the network better as a whole. As with anything it can be bent to the will of evil, but I disagree with that completely. I believe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you can avoid the network management complexity if you simply let networks 'work' as they always have.
are you running into a lot of dropped packets? simple: you are over-selling. there is an EASY way to fix that.
oh, and an evil way. guess which one most ISPs and large public networks pick?
by the time you factor in the cost of the snooper silicon, all its overhead and the training/support ove
No matter how you read it (Score:2)
I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Somethng Wicked This Way Comes (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Your $800K machine is no match for my puny skills (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Use IPsec (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will be obsolete... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)