National Projects Aim to Reboot the Internet 335
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.'"
My connection works just fine (Score:5, Insightful)
And get ready for a whole heap more IP claims and big corps attempting to own the internet.
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its also about inserting more DRM'able protocols along the way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. There are many, and often even stronger, motives than money. Which starts with such motives like fun and pleasure (which most people are even willing to pay money for), then there's love, hate, the desire for power, and the dream of a better world (RMS surely didn't found the FSF in order to get rich!). I don't claim that list to be exhaustive.
My ownership works just fine (Score:2, Funny)
Who owns it now?
Re:My ownership works just fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, duh. The way the Internet is right now, there is no way to incorporate or monopolize any particular aspect of it, and that makes some folks very fidgety.
Yup, some "needs" are just impossible to meet with the Internet in its present state. Like the "need" for a single agency to monitor all Internet traffic. Or the "need" for some folks to control every physical traffic channel. Or the burning need of one familiar industry group to be able to decide unilaterally which computers are "trustworthy" enough to connect to the Web. As it stands, anyone can set up routers, anyone can lay cables and install WAPs, anyone can run a root DNS, an email server, a search portal, or simply host a universally accessible website, etc., etc... What a nightmarish world for a monopolist to live in.
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were redoing the internet from scratch, what is wrong with it that ought to be fixed? Can we hear some new-internet wishlists?
The first things I can think of, off the top of my head, are things that are already talked about fairly often: bigger address space (ipv6), and revision to SMTP to make it more difficult to spoof addresses and easier to catch spam.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:4, Interesting)
For the most part, I don't think spam is the Internet's fault. I think superfluous messages are the cost of ridiculously cheap and convenient communication. Spam a pain, but not worth locking the Internet down to combat it IMHO.
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's the point. Why would anyone want to rebuild it from scratch, to "reboot" it? I can make a long list of wishes that could improve the Internet, like higher speeds, universal access, better email service, more addresses, better DNS, and so on. And the beauty of the Internet is just this: we can implement any of these changes whenever we want and however quickly we need them. We can do these things in a coordinated manner, over a single month, everywhere in the world, or we can do them host by host, on an opt-in basis, over a period of ten years. There is not a single reason to scrape the whole thing, unless there is a fundamental problem with the design. And, sure enough, there is such a problem, and I've outlined it above: no single aspect of the Internet can be effectively monopolized.
RIAA, for example, can start their own DRM-net tomorrow, no one is holding a gun to their head. Microsoft can patch Vista to refuse connections to non-Vista computers. We'll see if that very secure design catches on. As others have noted, anyone can start using their own non-SMTP email server, either in isolation or with a bridge to the SMTP world. Anyone who wants a better Internet can just start with their own server or router and then spread the word (and people do that already with IPv6 and email, afaik). Anything more than that is an attempt by a single party to extract more value at everyone else's expense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, we've had RTP for over a decade, and it's widely used inside the major carriers. And this illustrates the weakness in the argument: It's true that IP doesn't do lots of things. But it was designed to have other protocols layers on top of IP, and they can do such things. From the start, IP has had other protocols (ICMP, U
My wishlist (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, here are a few of my "ideal world" wishes. Deciding their technical feasibility in real life is left as an exercise to the reader.
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, we've long had other networking protocols that satisfied all these "needs". In fact, pretty much every network ever invented has satisfied them, except for the Internet Protocol.
The reason that IP won was that it's the only one that scales up to the size we have now. If you implement any of those "needs", you restrict your network to a small subset that doesn't violate that "need".
Organizations tend to prefer nice, neat setups that are organized hierarchically and can be monitored and audited. This is very useful for a single organization. But it isn't workable for a universal system. That requires parallel, independent development of the parts. If there's a central authority with local veto power, the system can't grow past what that authority's management can understand.
With any sort of central controlling authority, you can't have the explosion of development that has happened on the Internet. This can only happen if people have a way of developing what they want on their own. We can see this pretty clearly by comparing it the cell-phone system, which has the potential to give everyone full access everywhere and make the Internet look puny in comparison. But it's blocked by being limited to only devices and apps that the cell-phone companies' management approve and permit.
For a "new, improved Internet" to succeed, it must make independent local development easier than the current Internet. If it has any sort of controlling central authority, it will just remain a niche player that can't be adopted by enough people and expand to replace the current Internet.
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure.
Let's just rip up the entirety of Interstates 10 and 80 from coast to coast, replacing them with automated super car-like systems because of all the traffic in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?
Monorail!
What's it called?
Monorail!
That's right! Monorail!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My connection works just fine (Score:5, Funny)
Forward this on to everyone in your address book. This is serious stuff!
Tubes (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Less flexible, though...
Come on, be realistic (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Come on, be realistic (Score:5, Interesting)
You are right it'll probably be a second, third or even fourth network. I can see the banks wanting a private network as well as diplomats, and the military, there is no reason why this couldn't be done.
I think the whole 911/999 VOIP "crisis" is overblown, it would be simpler just to make local emergency only cell phones for the home or just have a emergency registration site for the VOIP providers I don't know why so many people are getting worked up over it.
Now as far as setting up a new internet, the trick is to keep quite a few countries outside of the US and the majority of the EU from having a say how things are set up because far too many of them want way too much control over what people can do.
Re:Come on, be realistic (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead I think the entire thing should be organised by Yukoslavia, not because they'll be neutral about it, but because they never get a turn at having way too much power.
Re:Come on, be realistic (Score:4, Informative)
All in all the physical core of the internet is pretty much agnostic to the type of data that goes through it. The Internet as we experience it could change quite radically without much impact on the way the core operates. Even if you create a "new" capital-I Internet, chances are it's going to have to be routed through the lowercase-i internet at some point, though you'll probably never notice.
Re:Come on, be realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
IPv6 addresses many of the current problems. IPv6 is a standard, supported by many vendors. IPv6 plays nicely with IPv4, so you don't have to break the world in order to deploy it. IPv6 has been around for years...
Seriously, if we can't get people to adopt IPv6, what's the chance that people are going to adopt something more disruptive?
I've seen some of these proposals, and technically they're interesting. From the perspective of getting the market to move in a new direction, things will have to get a lot worse before they're even taken seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cancel/Allow (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A file is in use aborting
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you want to restart the Internet now?
[ Restart Now ] [ Restart Later ]
Re:Cancel/Allow (Score:4, Funny)
Two minutes later:
Changes have been made to the Internet and it needs to be restarted.
Do you want to restart the Internet now?
[ Restart Now ] [ Restart Later ]
Lather, rinse, repeat...
Has any technology ever "satisfied all needs"? (Score:2)
this fucking REEKS of big money and government wanting to control people on the internet even more, it bug the hell out of them that w
THANK GOD!!! (Score:4, Funny)
This is a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Any new design will inevitably be corrupted by the interests of large companies, and of governments who would feel the need to have their ability to spy on and control traffic protected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another way to look at it is historically accurate.
There were many "locked down" information networks available for people to connect to before the Internet got popular. Like Compuserve, AOL, and others. For a period, the Internet was in direct competition with these big online information services (as were smaller bulletin board systems).
The Internet won because it wasn't controlled.
So any new Internet that tries to compete with the now Internet surely must be as free.
EXACTLY! btw.. this REEKS of the MPAA (Score:2)
since the current internet allows p2p applications to "adapt" around any attempts to control their traffic, this new net would, of course, have numerous, onerous, overlapping lockdown and lockout schemes to keep joe user from violating the precious copyrights.
of course, the big telcos dont object either, because they can then implement all the dirty tricks most people are currently fighting tooth and nail to prevent.
this said.. if they try to push this
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the major problems with IP6 is the lack of really much of an expectation that it will need to interoperate with IPV4 for a very long time. One problem is, no one will upgrade to IPv6 since there are few websites that use it, and since no one is upgrading to IPv6, few websites are inclined to provide it. ISPs, with newer OSs if IPv6 is autoconfiguring, the users computer will automatically configure itself for IPv6. But to expect all ISPs to adopt IPv6, especially before IPv4 address space runs out, is just beyond arrogant. There has to be expected that IPv4 ISPs will be online long after IPv4 address space is maxed out, and IPv4 systems will need to be able to access IPv6 systems coming online then. Ipv6 accessing ipv4 hosts is simple, make ipv4 a subset of ipv6. One of the major problems is IPv4 being able to access IPv6 hosts, new hosts can be given v6 and v4 addresses, but this means that the address space problem has not been solved. But ISPs can be expected to continue using only v4 with some existing users, for some time after v4 address space is exhausted. There are ways for v4 to access v6, through a concerted effort of DNS servers and routers. When a v4 peer askes the local DNS server for a the IP address of a server which is v6 only server, the DNS server will return a fake v4 IP address to the v4 peer, and tell the router (which would have connections to the Ipv6 net) to to route all packets going to that fake IP coming from that v4 peer, to the IPv6 destination, converting the packets to Ipv6 as well. If a IPv4 peer wishes to access a Ipv6 peer by Ipv6 address, a neat trick also using DNS would be used, a special ip6 top level domain would be created, and ipv4 clients could request Ipv6 addresses by specifying ipv6 addresses as subdomains as of this ip6 tld. such as: 2222.2222.2222.2222.2222.2222.ip6 A portion of v4 address space needs to be set aside for this scheme for use for the fake IP addresses. Proxy servers could be provided by ISPs to convert Ipv6 hyperlinks to hyperlinks using the ipv6 tld notation. Newer web browsers could automatically do this for the user if they are on an ipv4 only network. Problem solved! This would require no changes on the user end, and the ISP could even use 6-over-4 to connect their routers to ipv6 networks even if they are not directly connected to an upstream ipv6 provider.
proper management (Score:5, Insightful)
The current internet is working well, and with proper management it will continue to do so.
That't the problem. The powers that be don't want the internet to work as well as it does. Instead they want to control it.
FalconRe: (Score:3, Interesting)
Henry Ford made a car that ran on pee (Score:3, Interesting)
Henry Ford did build a car that not only used hemp in the construction but also ran on ethanol alcohol made from hemp. Before this Rudolph Deisel designed his deisel engine to run on hemp oil as well as other vegetable oils. In 1898 when he demonstrated his engine at the Paris Expo he had it running on peanut oil. A History of Biodiesel/Biofuels [ybiofuels.org]. In the 1930s a study by MIT found an acre of hemp would produce more paper than an acre of forest. Yet despite, actually as it treatened many wealthy and powe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IPv6 certainly did cause some disruption, but that was all caused by needing to support both AF_INET and AF_INET6 addresses. Once you switched from inet_addr() to inet_pton() and made sure to check sockaddr_in.sa_family_t, the rest of the code was pretty much the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Other than that, if they plan to change for good reasons, nice. However, among all the protocols, what would prevail if is not a corporation based one? Would Vista come with SCTP or XCP support in the case they decide to change transport protocols?
Maybe technology will take part, but as usual mone
tagged: internet2 (Score:2)
Who's "Internet" are they talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anyone reference a national system that was successfully replaced? I heard rumor that a very small country changed which side of the road they drove on in the past ten years. The Internet is a global system - fat chance of any cold turkey changes.
Besides which, lets assume that there is a massive change to the internet. There are plenty of geeks in the world with the knowledge and capabilities to set up their own networks and build an internet of their own. How many of us have wired and wireless internetworks between apartments, dorms, and neighboring houses already? It would just become even more prevalent.
Re:Who's "Internet" are they talking about? (Score:5, Funny)
I heard rumor that a very small country changed which side of the road they drove on in the past ten years.
The trick was they did a staggered implementation--they had all the truck drivers change to other side first.
I'll be here all week, try the veal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The currency of 13 European nations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I can. It might not be recent or entirely relevant, but the entire US rail network south of the Mason-Dixon line was converted [wikipedia.org] from broad 5ft gaguge to the "standard" 4'9" gauge that was used in the North on May 31 1886. The work was completed in less than 36 hours.
No matter how you spin it, that's pretty darn impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
ISA Has Been Pitching This For Years (Score:5, Informative)
"What needs to happen is a profound change in protocols and in implementation," ISA Chairman Bill Hancock said in that 2004 interview. "Getting people to talk about it isn't hard. I've talked to the geeks, I've talked to the executives, I've talked to everyone. It's a total issue of money. The realistic approach is to look at the economic impetus. ... We need some strong, highly-secure protocols, and they've got to be able to last a long time. The problem is that we have 655 million or so users of the Internet right now. Deploying security enhancements to that many users at once is a non-trivial matter. The problem is complex, big and will take a while to solve"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I recommend bittorrent.
Re:ISA Has Been Pitching This For Years (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been talking about this since 1998. On Halloween [catb.org] of that year, Eric Raymond had several Microsoft internal emails forwarded anonymously to him. They outlined how Microsoft could respond to the Open Source Threat. The single most telling quote runs like this [catb.org]:
At the World Wide Web conference in Amsterdam In 2000, Lawrence Lessig spoke clearly about the threat to the principle of the 'end to end' network (i.e. the Internet as designed). At that time he was speaking about the intent of the telcos to subvert it through WAP, but the prophetic nature of his comments are made visible by endeavours such as these.
Make no mistake, folks: the shiny new future that's being laid out for us here will have none of the freedoms that we enjoy today, where access to information is concerned. This is something that needs to be opposed early, loudly and without compromise.
It's like nobody has heard of research anymore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't we got something else we could spend $ on? (Score:5, Insightful)
You never know. The guys raising money for this will beat the pr0nography and DRM drum enough that some politicians will be impressed and throw some of (your) money at it. But are they going to convince business and the public for massive retooling costs, when in the end, we'll have something very similar to what we have at the moment.
There are better uses for money. Try Cancer research or something else instead please.
Re:Haven't we got something else we could spend $ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Without pr0n, the "new" internet will go nowhere. Pr0n drives innovation!
Of course the government wants it (Score:2)
I'll bet it has. Make sure all that surveillance and control architecture is in place before people get to use it, right?
Re:Of course the government wants it (Score:5, Insightful)
You better believe that if a new Internet were designed today, it would be another TV: You'd have your choice of ad-riddled corporate crap and nothing more. There would be no blogs, no personal servers, no freedom at all. Anything genuinely good would be a rare exception, not the rule. You would be locked out from doing what *you* want to do and forbidden from taking the initiative.
We're at the rising edge of a frightening tide. Governments are forcing federal spyware into the central offices and trunks of the Internet (see: AT&T installing signal splitters and roomfuls of NSA spy computers in main offices). Media corporations are perverting hardware into limiting rather than enabling you with DRM. Microsoft, Intel, and AMD are all playing along with it, putting in DRM at every level. If something isn't done, NOW, it's gonna get seriously bad. Now they want to do a ground-level rebuild of the software running the internet... You expect them not to install corporate and government control throughout if they succeed?
At any rate, this will never happen... There's far, FAR too much intertia behind the current internet. I hope.
Gradual transition (Score:5, Insightful)
There's more loss in scrapping everything and starting over than it is to improve existing solutions in a compatible manner.
Another example: everybody knows the x86 instruction set and interface sucks. It so sucks, that for quite some time AMD and Intel don't produce x86 chips anymore. Have you felt any revolution or "scrapping" going on"? No because all modern chips will take the x86 instructions and translate them internally, so on the outside the chip works with x86 software.
This is how progress works: if something is used massively world-wide, and something sucks about it, expect slow gradual transition, where the offending problems will be tucked away in a compatibility, emulation, translation layer and earth keeps spinning.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Then explain why Verizon is installing fiber all over my town, instead of just improving modem speeds...
"everybody" is wrong. The instruction set and interface isn't too bad. x86 couldn't have been so successful if that was the case. It's CISC CPUs that suck, so with P6/K-6 (anything AFTER the original Pentium), ev
Re: (Score:2)
Some 'needs' I can do without... (Score:3, Insightful)
And there would be unforeseen side-effects. I don't mean the easily foreseeable abuse-of-power kinds of side-effects, I mean the exploitation of such fascist features by the criminal element who today does things like spam and run bot-nets.
We would end up with a marginal improvement in performance, a huge loss of individual freedoms and equal or worse levels of personal risk and annoyance.
Your Attention Please: IPv6. That is All. (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand IPv6 is kinda the result of this already. Read it very literally: Inte
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that was a long time ago, when the internet was very small and lonely. From wikipedia:
Is this even news? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me: I2 is an experimental US backbone with a catchy name.
Universities realized that they would never have the funding to be able to afford high speed lines (today, multiple 10Gbps) which can reach the generic "outside world".
So, they worked together to get a better deal from Qwest than commercial entities could get. Then, they just didn't peer their network with anyone else in order to keep costs down.
90% of the traffic on I2 is plain ol' TCP - mostly
i agree with the Luddites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Inevitability (Score:4, Insightful)
I wondered how long it would take before the topic of re-designing the Internet started making general rounds.
No one really owns it, and governments can't really control it. How long did we think that would last? I'm sure there are plenty of true benefits that would emerge, but we all know what we will really end up with is a DRM infested wiretap paradise that only serves the financial interests of corporations and the control aims of governments. Mind you, whether its an incremental upgrade or a complete replacement I think these aspects of the Internet will become inevitable - it's just a question of how long it will take.
It's an evolution thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
There can't be a sudden "oh, here's something new" because of how strictly society is coupled with the current internet. It could, however, be part of a gradual evolution with the internet... something which I think we can all agree *has* been happening (think of the internet you were introduced to compared to the internet you know now).
And all of that "it needs to be more secure" sentiment really needs to be seen as "the current hackers are getting bored, let's make it interesting." It's the digital ag
Rebooting the Internet (Score:3, Funny)
A better idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Complete Anonymity would be a great feature (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully, this "next big thing" will be designed so there is no information (like IP address) that can be used to trace an internet persona to an actual person or geographic area.
Re: (Score:2)
This means any criminal act that would be prosecuted "off the net" would be a free ride if the Internet was used. No fraud prosecutions, you can threaten anyone in any manner, post naked pictures of your neighbors and try to scam people to your hearts content.
Isn't there enough crime on the Internet already?
Would just a little thinking hurt you too much?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest shortcoming of the current internet (to me) is that anonymity wasn't designed in from the ground up.
Hopefully, this "next big thing" will be designed so there is no information (like IP address) that can be used to trace an internet persona to an actual person or geographic area.
More like they'll design it so no body can hide. All of your communications, whether political speach or not, will be kept in a file with your name on it. J. Edgar Hoover [wikipedia.org] and COINTEL [wikipedia.org] all over again. The NAZIs an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You probably wouldn't want what you're asking for. To my house there is exactly one line. I could of course be sharing it inside the house or running an open WiFi net, but beyond that it's quite limited who the traffic is for. Any serious attempt at anonymization I've seen have been based on relaying information, which means I'd h
At an IEEE convention in 1976 ... (Score:4, Funny)
Fine by me (Score:4, Insightful)
So let them redo the internet into a new corporate-friendly version. Let them rape us six ways from sunday. After working in the industry as I have, I could just as easily walk away and leave it to other more patient and gullible folks to handle.
Encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Thankfully, this is a problem that can be solved at the edges of the network. If you are a developer of a networked application, you should embrace encryption, no matter what you are sending. Only after a significant part of the traffic is encrypted will the Internet truly be an end to end network as it was originally intended. This is a good thing, and is the primary reason why the Internet has flourished to date.
Until then, more and more intelligence will be stuffed into the network, and it will offer no benefit at all to the users of that network. It only serves to further the special interests of large corporations and government, and will continue to be severely abused. It only serves to make the network more expensive, and one thing is for certain; it won't move the data any faster.
Only after this becomes a reality can we really concentrate on making the network faster and better, rather than inventing new ways to squeeze more money out of people for the same crappy infrastructure.
It's a dupe, Chief (Score:2)
Am I the only one who remembers seeing this same bit 'o news last month:
Researchers Scheming to Rebuild Internet From Scratch [slashdot.org]What's being proposed is the next ISDN (Score:3, Interesting)
Much of what's in there is the classic telco dream - virtual circuits, charged by usage. What's being proposed is not the next Internet. It's the next ISDN.
Remember what went wrong with ISDN in the United States. The US telcos tried to use it as a way to get away from flat-rate pricing for local voice calls. That made it a non-starter for voice. The data pricing was so high it wasn't even feasible for data in the era of dial-up.
The Stanford "clean slate" document [stanford.edu] is basically "ISDN 2.0". Or, at the bulk level, "ATM 2.0".
From their own words, the agenda is clear - create a billable Internet where the price of each service can be cranked up by the service provider to the point that maximizes the provider's revenue.
There are times when I'm embarrassed that I graduated from Stanford computer science. This is one of them.
what about a separate but equal internet? (Score:3, Funny)
If you're a blackhat, you get internet A.
If you're an asshat, you get internet B.
Don't do it! (Score:3, Interesting)
However, in the same vein, I'd be totally against it: I simply cannot see in the current world the ability to pull together an equally brilliant group of people who could do the task with an equal political objectivity. Indeed, as the internet is an acting infrastructure and not simply a set of rules on paper, it would be even more necessary to pull together resources from various who all have very different and conflicting biases. The BEST one could hope for would be something "designed by committee" ala the shuttle or the EU constitution. At worst, you're going to have interests conceding power in various facets to each other to suit their various needs. How would you like the internet *designed* by the RIAA? By the Republicans? By the Illuminati?
Thanks but no. I'll keep the creaky, leaky thing we've got. At least at it's CORE it's a fundamentally good thing. We just have to keep patching it.
Let's Put It This Way (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sick and tired of waiting thirty seconds or more for somebody's slow ass Web server or puny pipe to feed me my porn!
This is nearly as bad as twenty or thirty years ago sitting at a green screen dumb terminal waiting for the mainframe to respond. At least then the wait times were shorter!
Not to mention the times the sites are totally down, or "you do not have permission to access this page" because some moron misconfigured his Apache Web server. (Remember that idiot in some Southern city who thought the site was hacked because the Apache configuration page was up instead of the home page?)
Run stats on your goddamn Web sites! Then buy another box or pay for more bandwidth! Or better yet, get the fuck off the Net because you don't know what you're doing!
Are you listening,
Anybody who thinks the Net is ready for "software as a Web service" is out of his goddamn mind. No company in its right mind would ever trust company business to the Net as the only option. It's hard enough to get the stuff on the company servers to work right. Trust somebody ELSE to do it right? It is to laugh,
May as well fix gravitytoo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Not knocking Slashdot here, it is news for nerds, but we all know what's really going to happen, and envisioning a clean slate internet is a waste of time IMO.
Tag this article "Still no cure for cancer."
Re:Encompassing? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the last paragraph is disconnected with reality, but the second paragraph makes a good point or two.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Something of a community-spread movement might gain success and momentum, for example an anonymity drive, organised by a central website that gives ISPs/websites stickers... etc. Yes, this is prior art.
Re:Encompassing? (Score:5, Insightful)
As to the rest of the paragraph, it's just as misguided. When was the last time you weren't able to connect to the internet due to "equipment failures" other than your own CPE? Or the last time you couldn't get to a site because there was no route to it? Personally (and I use the internet every day, and have for the last 7-8 years, just like almost everyone else on this site), I haven't seen it. The only time I get "Cannot connect to site" is when a page tries to access doubleclick, which I have routed to 127.0.0.1 in
This article sounds like propaganda from the Committee for a More Profitable Internet.
Re:Encompassing? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, IP is not a routing protocol, and will not find new routes. This task is performed by routers, talking over specialized routing protocols to forward routing updates to each other. Examples of routing protocols are OSPF and BGP. Note that these protocols run on top of IP, but that does not make IP a routing protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
You are, as usual.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)