Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cisco Launches Alliance For the 'Internet of Things'

Soulskill posted about 6 years ago | from the how's-that-ipv6-coming-along,-again? dept.

Networking 96

Yannis B. writes "This week, a group of leading technology vendors that includes Cisco, Sun, Ericsson, Atmel, Freescale, and embedded open source developers, founded the Internet Protocol for Smart Objects Alliance to promote the 'Internet of Things,' in which everyday objects such as thermometers, radiators, and light switches are given IP addresses and are connected to the Internet. Such IP-enabled 'smart objects' give rise to a wide range of applications, from energy-efficient homes and offices to factory equipment maintenance and hospital patient monitoring. For Slashdot readers who are interested in the underlying technology, a white paper written by well-known embedded open source developer Adam Dunkels and IETF ROLL working group chair JP Vasseur establishes the technical basis of the alliance (PDF)."

cancel ×

96 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The calls I'll recieve in five years... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25093071)

"Hi, this is Sandra from accounting- my pencil has a virus! It only write any more words, just draws picture of a man doing... SOMETHING to his anus!"

*sigh...*

"I'll be right down."

Re:The calls I'll recieve in five years... (0)

SpicyLemon (803639) | about 6 years ago | (#25095127)

Maybe they'll use Jabber [slashdot.org] as the communication protocol. Then you'll get calls like this:

"My pen's broken"

"What's wrong with it."

"It's not letting me answer the triviabot."

Just wait till the trolls get ahold of this stuff (5, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 6 years ago | (#25093073)

you will wind up with a picture of the Goatse man emblazoned on your toast every morning.

Re:Just wait till the trolls get ahold of this stu (1)

hodet (620484) | about 6 years ago | (#25093147)

I was going to crack a joke too but after reading this I am laughing too hard to even bother. This can't be topped.

Re:Just wait till the trolls get ahold of this stu (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25093461)

Toastse! [3 (-o-) {]

Re:Just wait till the trolls get ahold of this stu (1)

Ryan T. A. (1369299) | about 6 years ago | (#25103061)

...and you thought your toast was safe with the doors locked...

The calls I'll receive in five years... (2, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 6 years ago | (#25093085)

"Hi, this is Sandra from accounting- my pencil has a virus! It won't write words anymore and just keeps drawing a picture of a man doing... SOMETHING to his anus!"

Sigh...

"I'll be right there."

Wasting IP addresses (-1, Flamebait)

zoomshorts (137587) | about 6 years ago | (#25093103)

Yes, let's use up all the new addresses we have on stupid things.

Perfect. First it was RFID, now the world! Individual toilet paper leaves
maybe to warn us when we are low???

Re:Wasting IP addresses (2, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | about 6 years ago | (#25093497)

IP addresses are a virtual commodity. if we run out of IPv4/IPv6 addresses, we'll simply create new address spaces as needed. that's not really a problem. it's like complaining about p2p file-sharers using too much bandwidth--these are infrastructure problems that aren't limited by physical resources. instead, this type of technological infrastructure naturally grows to meet demand.

it's not like we're facing an IP address shortage. AFAIK we haven't hit any technological hard limit regarding the maximum number of devices the internet is capable of supporting. and using more IP addresses doesn't pose any detrimental effects, so why not give it a try? if people find this concept useful, then it will be adopted; if not, it won't.

personally, i think it's a great idea. with the growing availability of wi-fi access (and the ubiquity of internet access in general), there's no better method for smart devices to communicate with each other or to be managed remotely. the development of the Internet of Things could also spur the adoption of municipal wi-fi or other public wi-fi infrastructure.

lots of smart devices already have wi-fi/internet capabilities, but there's not really enough wide-spread adoption to make full use of these capabilities. having a cross-industry consortium of like-minded organizations facilitates collaboration on developmental strategy and helps establish a concerted effort to take the technology in an organized direction.

imagine having a portable media player that can access your media library anywhere with wi-fi access, or maybe it can automatically download new music from your favorite artists via the internet. or perhaps you can remotely program your PVR to record a show while you're at work or on vacation, or check your fridge contents to see if you need to pick up some eggs on the way home from work. you could even check your answering machine or faxes over the internet. there are millions of ways in which this concept could make life more convenient.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (2, Insightful)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | about 6 years ago | (#25093595)

IP addresses are a virtual commodity. if we run out of IPv4/IPv6 addresses, we'll simply create new address spaces as needed. that's not really a problem.

Yes THEORETICALLY it's not a problem, but in case you haven't noticed, the move to IPv6 hasn't exactly been lightning fast. The move to IPv7/IPv8 is unlikely to be faster.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (3, Insightful)

Skye16 (685048) | about 6 years ago | (#25093757)

It's not moving fast because there is, as of yet, no real need for it.

It's not as if we're down to our last can of IP addresses and after that, the entire world is going to collapse on us.

Necessity is the mother of invention. In this case, we projected that at one point necessity would dictate we need more IP addresses. So we invented. But that doesn't mean we need them yet.

When that time comes, it'll happen. It's good that we planned in advance and started putting the pieces in place. But until we really need it, calm the fuck down and relax. It'll happen when it happens and there's no need to be all doom and gloom about it.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | about 6 years ago | (#25096621)

IPv6 provides an address for everyone that has ever lived. Remind me again why we would run out of addresses?

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

bogd (912084) | about 6 years ago | (#25097259)

Remind me again why we would run out of addresses?

Maybe because some day we might have more addresses than people who ever lived?

Or, even better - maybe because right now the minimum assigned space [apnic.net] is a /64? Which means we are allocating 1.8*10^19 (!!!) addresses, even if only one or two of them are actually going to be used.

The old "640K should be enough for anyone" argument isn't more valid now than it was 20 years ago...

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

bogd (912084) | about 6 years ago | (#25097377)

:correction: Maybe because some day we might have a need for more addresses than people who ever lived?

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | about 6 years ago | (#25098451)

I wasn't discrediting IPv6. I was pointing out that IPv7 will never need to happen, ever. There are far more estimated stars in the universe than there are possible IPv6 addresses (I underestimated earlier).

PS: Wouldn't your statement be impossible? "All the people who ever lived" will have changed substantially in the future, and until we reach a live population that dwarfs the known dead population I don't see how we could possibly need more addresses than "all the people who ever lived" ever. "All the people who ever lived as of the time of this post," perhaps.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

bogd (912084) | about 6 years ago | (#25101407)

I wasn't saying that you discredited IPv6 (sorry if it came out that way). I was only pointing out that we do not know how technology will evolve, and that it is entirely possible for IPv6 to "no longer be enough" one day.

When you talk about IP addresses and people, you seem to think of the number of IP addresses necessary as being less than or equal to the number of people.

However, we already have more than 1 IP address for each person (look around you: desktop computer; PDA; laptop; router; IP phone; IPTV; and so on). I believe that the number of items capable of network communication will increase in time - and one day it might greatly exceed the number of living persons.

This is what I was referring to in my original post. And I believe that statements like "there is a world market for only 5 computers", "640KB of memory should be enough for anyone", and "we will never need more than X IP addresses" are more often than not contradicted by reality...

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | about 6 years ago | (#25105641)

However, we already have more than 1 IP address for each person (look around you: desktop computer; PDA; laptop; router; IP phone; IPTV; and so on). I believe that the number of items capable of network communication will increase in time - and one day it might greatly exceed the number of living persons.

I can see this happening, but I can't envision that we will ever exhaust all 2^128 IPv6 addresses in this century, if at all. We're far more likely to run out of MAC addresses first.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

bogd (912084) | about 6 years ago | (#25106361)

I agree with you on both counts - yes, we are very unlikely to exhaust the IPv6 address space in this century. And yes, we are very likely to run out of MAC addresses first.

But this doesn't mean that "we will never run out of addresses"...

Re:Wasting IP addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25093921)

These devices will be on local networks, I assume.
It's not likely I would you to turn on/off the heat in my house!!.....

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | about 6 years ago | (#25094571)

well, obviously security will be a major issue, and that's probably something this alliance ought to focus on.

and while i agree that some devices would probably be best left on a LAN, many others may be necessary to connect to the internet to be useful at all.

so you may not want WAN access to your home heating controls, but you may want your mountain cabin's thermostat to be viewable over the internet so that you can check to see when would be a good time to take that long needed vacation.

portable devices would also benefit much more from WAN access than just LAN access alone. i've always wished that my PSP could post its activity to my Last.fm account the same way Winamp and iTunes on my computer can. perhaps a similar online service could be designed for tracking what games you're playing so that no matter where you are your friends can join you for some internet multiplayer.

i can also see lots of potential applications for a WAN-connected GPS device. this may be quite some time away, but imagine if there were ubiquitous open wi-fi access across the U.S. and you were to travel across the country on a camping trip with a smart GPS device and a smart camera. your GPS device would automatically download detailed road/trail maps wherever you go and let you know where there are restaurants, public facilities, camp groups, landmarks, etc. and whenever you go to snap a picture the camera would post the picture to an online Google Maps Mashup with the coordinates communicated by your GPS device, letting your friends & family members see where you've been and follow you on your journey over the web.

WAN-connected cars could even broadcast road conditions to a central server that in turn is accessed by each vehicle to allow drivers to avoid congested routes, or message its owner if it's been broken into. the possibilities for smart internet devices are endless.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 6 years ago | (#25096279)

I'm fine with this, if and only if they are using IPv6. Or behind a NAT + firewall.

In some ways I prefer the NAT wall. It's not at all clear that all these devices SHOULD be trusted, and I might well want to prevent them from network access outside of my local zone. Cisco routers, well, that's a different case, as often they naturally live outside the firewall...in that case what one wants to limit is their access to the internals.

I mean, I can think of all sorts of useful purposes that for this. The problem is, I can also think of lots of unpleasant uses.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

nyonix (1001721) | about 6 years ago | (#25100661)

AFAIK we have run out of IPs for some time now, only NAT is what keeping most of us in IPv4.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25103075)

We can't create more IPv4 addresses, and we ARE running out.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (2, Informative)

MrNaz (730548) | about 6 years ago | (#25093617)

We will not run out of IPv6 addresses.

A 128bit addresses space really is enough for anyone. No, really.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about 6 years ago | (#25097073)

>A 128bit addresses space really is enough for anyone. No, really.

Until we setup an intergalactic, multiuniversal network.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

bogd (912084) | about 6 years ago | (#25097361)

And here goes the 640K argument [slashdot.org] again...

People, really - we actually have no idea how technology will evolve, and what uses IP will have in the future! We might have intelligent sensors the size of a dust mite, floating in the air and processing data. All using IP to communicate with one another. Or (as the article suggests) we might have an IP address in every common, everyday item. Combine that with the quite "relaxed" allocation procedure for IPv6 addresses, and you will realize that you should never say never.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

MrNaz (730548) | about 6 years ago | (#25105439)

I was specifically and deliberately alluding to that argument, making fun of it.

Do you have any idea how big an unsigned 128bit number can be? It's so large that you can't even get your head around it. It's so big that if you had that many atoms, the resulting object would weigh over 500 million tons.

The number is so big that I dare you to even try to make sense of it, let alone actually use it in a practical example of anything that is not on a quantum scale.

It's so big that it's nonsensical even in the context of nanotechnology. If you made robots that were 1/1,000th the size of a grain of sand, and you had enough to fill only one billionth of the IPv6 address space, the total mass of the nano robots would be greater than the Earth.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

bogd (912084) | about 6 years ago | (#25106299)

I agree that it is a huge number. But then again, 640KB of memory (a whopping 300 thousands written pages) seemed huge at the time. Or 4.3 billion addresses (almost one address for every living person!).

However, in time, both proved insufficient. So I believe that this is one field where you can never say "this should last forever".

[ Also, read the comment I linked to - when you're allocating 10^19 addresses even if the customer only needs 2, a 128-bit number suddenly seems much smaller... ]

Re:Wasting IP addresses (1)

MrNaz (730548) | about 6 years ago | (#25109535)

You don't seem to have a grasp of how large 128 bit is.

You can allocate 10^19 addresses to every man, woman and child every second for the next 65 thousand years before you'd run out of addresses

I can't even think of any reasonable number to divide 128bit by that results in a reasonable number. See, I divided your 10^19 into 128 bit and I was still left with a number so big that it could be allocated 6 billion times a second without running out in any time frame we'd ever care about (65 thousand years plus).

You see, 640k is a number that is inside of a meaningful range. 128 bits is a number that is not inside any number range that gets dealt with on this planet, in any scope.

I can safely say, and I defy time to prove otherwise, that we will never run out of IPv6 addresses unless we deliberately do something stupid like allocate them as a fraction of total space rather than as discrete parcels.

Re:Wasting IP addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25094385)

Writing for Technology Review in 2004, Simson Garfinkel calculated "roughly 5,000 addresses for every square micrometer of the Earth's surface".

Re:Wasting IP addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25100489)

Individual toilet paper leaves
maybe to warn us when we are low???

That would be awesome.

Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to work (4, Insightful)

compumike (454538) | about 6 years ago | (#25093111)

Nobody wants to run ethernet cable to their toaster... so I really think that making cheap Wi-fi chipsets is the answer here. Unfortunately it still costs at a very minimum $5+ to add wireless to something, so it's going to take a little while for a $2 light switch to get these.

--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (0, Flamebait)

frictionless man (1140157) | about 6 years ago | (#25093249)

Nobody wants to run ethernet cable to their toaster... so I really think that making cheap Wi-fi chipsets is the answer here. Unfortunately it still costs at a very minimum $5+ to add wireless to something, so it's going to take a little while for a $2 light switch to get these.

Yes. If only wi-fi chipsets were more ubiquitous... that'd drive the price down!
Ah, if only there was some way to increase the quantities being manufactured...

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25093349)

That, or you could just use X11 or a similar power line protocol.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (2, Insightful)

Curtman (556920) | about 6 years ago | (#25094311)

That, or you could just use X11 or a similar power line protocol.

X10 [wikipedia.org] might work better. ;)

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1)

cubiclegangsta (1326497) | about 6 years ago | (#25095297)

But eleven is so much more awesome!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (2, Informative)

dasunt (249686) | about 6 years ago | (#25101441)

While I understand your humor, there are a few limiting factors about using X10 -- very little bandwidth and the inability to see the other "leg" of the house voltage -- which means that in a typical home in the US, half the outlets can't communicate with the other half*. X10 is also limited to 256 devices.

Supposedly, there are also reliability problems with the protocol, but I've never noticed them.

I use X10 at home for a few purposes, and it works well for what I need it to do (switching on/off lights and speakers), but it isn't made for an "internet of devices".

PS: X10 + heyu (x10 linux software) computer + wireless transceiver + lirc (linux infrared remote software) + universal remote == lazy geek goodness. :p

* There are devices that rectify this.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25106691)

There's always Insteon as a replacement for X10 (or Z-wave, zigbee, whatever). The Insteon ones are particularly neat in that they offer modules to put connect your own equipment to (serial->insteon, vice versa), have dynamic addressing to allow you to setup networks, build links, etc (similiar to layer 2 networking). Also the wireless phase bridges are pretty neat and eliminate the phase problems mentioned above without requiring an electrician.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1)

Montrey (912098) | about 6 years ago | (#25093375)

I would think that since almost every stationary object we would want to connect to the internet also needs electricity, broadband over power line would be best suited for it. A router and firewall in your breaker panel could handle access to the outside world. I wonder how small and cheap a BPL NIC could be? It would have to be small for things like a light switch, to fit in standard wall boxes. I don't see cost as a huge factor in the light switch example, Lutron already sells plenty of 30 dollar programmable dimming switches, and a typical commercial-grade switch that is used everywhere except homes is about 10 dollars. Only in residential applications do we see 50 cent switches and receptacles.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (2, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | about 6 years ago | (#25093491)

Broadband over power is already terrible, and it will only get worse as more and more people plug devices in.

Y'know those little filter plugs the DSL company gives you for your analog phones? Imagine doing the same to every AC-powered load in your house.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1)

MrNaz (730548) | about 6 years ago | (#25093639)

Broadband over power lines != LAN over power wiring.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (3, Insightful)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | about 6 years ago | (#25093485)

You can already use electrical cabling for networking [broadbandbuyer.co.uk] , and given that appliances are all going to have to be connected to power anyway that seems a logical method. It could also simplify discovery and autoconfiguration.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (3, Informative)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | about 6 years ago | (#25093511)

making cheap Wi-fi chipsets is the answer here

If you read the announcement, you'll find that the major benefit of using a layered architecture such as IP is the ability to use different physical media, depending on the application.

For short-range applications, there are technologies that are both cheaper and more power-efficient than wifi. Off the top of my head, there's Zigbee [wikipedia.org] , Bluetooth [wikipedia.org] and probably lots of others.

And for even lower range applications, nothing beats the cost of an infra-red diode [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 years ago | (#25093839)

I don't think its a question of being wifi or cat 5. the bigger question is why the hell for?

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 6 years ago | (#25094015)

I don't know about you, but I don't want my toaster or my light switch given a public IP address, or any connectivity to anything at all.

My toaster has a function - make toast. I push the thingy down, it heats bread. I don't want it suggesting different toast-related foodstuffs, phoning home to see if it's allowed to make my toast today or catching fire because some leet H4XX0R has found a way to break in and override the thermal cutoff.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1)

thewiz (24994) | about 6 years ago | (#25094177)

Dude, screw toasters! I'm worried about them giving me a pacemaker with Wi-Fi. Talk about a new meaning for "Ping-Of-Death!"

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1)

Mr2cents (323101) | about 6 years ago | (#25097613)

Just to bring you up to speed: pacemakers can already be accessed wirelessly, it's much more convenient than a wire sticking out of your chest. And it has already been hacked too [hackedgadgets.com] .

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1)

old dr omr (1289450) | about 6 years ago | (#25096539)

No, But 7$ Light switch could.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25098611)

Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

There's another very easy to use USB microcontroller programming board, aimed at artists and hobbyists. (Also Mac/Win/Linux)
http://www.arduino.cc/ [arduino.cc]

Unfortunately it still costs at a very minimum $5+ to add wireless to something...

Good god, where can I find $5 wifi modules?! Are you talking about Zigbee, because that still costs too much for me. The cheapest wifi module I've seen is more than $40, bluetooth is alot more expensive than that. The alternatives are $20 for a single generic 2.4GHz transciever, $20 for receiver/transmitter pair, or a buck for questionably useful DIY wireless (reverse engineered garage door openers).

...it's going to take a little while for a $2 light switch to get these.

Maybe, but I can think of one way to do it cheap, today. Use some low cost DIY wireless hardware for each switch. Then a relay/hub converts signals from the switches to Wifi. One hub, dozens of switches, and it only costs as much as one wifi module plus some extra components. (depending on whether you want to control the switches wirelessly or just detect them being on/off)

It'd still be too expensive for the average joe to buy or hire somebody to build, but a brilliant hobbyist could do it themselves.

Re:Still need cheaper Wi-fi chipsets for this to w (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about 6 years ago | (#25103835)

My answer: ZigBee! [zigbee.org] They're mesh topology, so you don't have to have line-of-sight to the coordinator. They have interoperability as part of the ZigBee spec [zigbee.org] by using defined profiles [wikipedia.org] .

These specific devices [digi.com] are essentially rs-232 devices with some A/D and digital I/O lines. The end device incarnation can sleep most of the time and awake to take samples. You can run a 'sleepy' endpoint on batteries for 1 yr+. With a decent antenna, you can get pretty far on 1-2mW, and if you've got power available, they sell 100mW versions. I'm setting up monitoring using these beasts, and hope to use the same protocol for my home entertainment system.

you KNOW the RIAA is salivating (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about 6 years ago | (#25093129)

over the prospect of all DVRs and DVD players having an internet connection. How long before your DVD player has to phone home to see if you're allowed to watch that DVD?

Re:you KNOW the RIAA is salivating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25093261)

ala DivX? Tried and failed.

Re:you KNOW the RIAA is salivating (2, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | about 6 years ago | (#25093403)

Blu-ray players already have an ethernet jack, that could plausibly be used for this in future if an (in)appropriate firmware upgrade was made.

Though I think the MPAA would care a lot more than the RIAA.

Re:you KNOW the RIAA is salivating (1)

LordNimon (85072) | about 6 years ago | (#25093799)

You're thinking of HD-DVD, not Blu-ray. An Ethernet connection is (was?) required on HD-DVD drives, but only Blu-ray 2.0 drives (of which there are only 2 or 3, I think) require Ethernet.

Re:you KNOW the RIAA is salivating (1)

Firehed (942385) | about 6 years ago | (#25095061)

I said it's present, not required. That could very easily change with a software upgrade (or downgrade, if you will).

I don't see who would be crazy enough to invest in a media playback format that requires always-on internet connectivity, but that's a separate issue entirely.

Re:you KNOW the RIAA is salivating (1)

PetriBORG (518266) | about 6 years ago | (#25093571)

Or worse, wait until your fridge has to phone up to find out if you've paid for the patents used in the food we eat every day...

There are some things which should just *not* be networked.

Or better yet, wait until it is the AC hooked up (as suggested in the summary) and then when someone decides that "this really important document must be sent priority" for some random thing and the network guy unplugs everything in the rack to send it over the T1... Right now we just loose the internet and the phones but now we can loose the AC in the building too! Brilliant!!!!

From the IPSO site ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25098769)

Unknown plugin (application/x-shockwave-flash)

I bet that Adobe is salivating at the prospect of a billion Flash-using devices too. :-(

I have been waiting for this... (0, Redundant)

Froze (398171) | about 6 years ago | (#25093139)

of course (IMHO) their only hope is to follow in the footsteps of most every other widely adopted specification and make freely available all the protocols and templates for sample implementations.

Cases in point: IBM PC, just about every programming language, PDF, ... to many to list.

For the widely adopted protocols that are not open, well they soon get hacked and become defacto open anyway (think RIAA, MPAA backed technologies).

Note: Did'nt RTFA

IETF ROLL? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 6 years ago | (#25093213)

Is that, like, when you say you have a new awesome spec for an upcoming standard, but then just link to ietf.org and say "you can find it here"?

Re:IETF ROLL? (2, Informative)

mbone (558574) | about 6 years ago | (#25093283)

This is an IETF working group - Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (ROLL). Like all IETF WG, it has a Charter [ietf.org] which you can read to find out more, and 4 outstanding Internet drafts (listed in the charter).

Got more IPV6? (1)

frictionless man (1140157) | about 6 years ago | (#25093225)

Before every 'smart' object in your house decides it needs to do... whatever it is smart objects do.
Perhaps reporting on the kind of cookies being consumed in my smart cookie jar, and my toothbrush can email my dentist if it detects a filling from too many cookies? Maybe they can work together?
(Wireless, less space than normal cookie jar... lame)

Re:Got more IPV6? (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | about 6 years ago | (#25093381)

I've actually been waiting for both something like this and IPv6 for a long time, but I suspect the day when I can monitor the temperature of my fridge and oven as well as if they're powered on or not using SNMP is pretty far off.

/Mikael

Re:Got more IPV6? (1)

CRiMSON (3495) | about 6 years ago | (#25109741)

I would almost venture a guess of "Not in our lifetime.."

Re:Got more IPV6? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 6 years ago | (#25093505)

Frankly, I'd prefer to put my cookie jar behind NAT. I mean, it's not like it's going to use more than one or two ports, right? And do we really need to let, say, evil people hiding in secret moon bases be able to target our kitchen appliances individually during DoS attacks? I'd rather have a gateway machine take the hit than my poor goatse toaster :\

Re:Got more IPV6? (1)

mikael_j (106439) | about 6 years ago | (#25093879)

You'd still most likely have a "gateway machine", only it would only be doing packet filtering and not address translation, and this is a good thing since it allows end-to-end connectivity, one of the things that the internet protocol was supposed to help provide.

/Mikael

Re:Got more IPV6? (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 6 years ago | (#25094049)

I have end to end with port forwarding. And what's more, most of my devices don't have any exposure to the big bad internets at large.

Re:Got more IPV6? (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 6 years ago | (#25095215)

You missed the OP's point. You can get isolation just as well with a public address. And you avoid having to set up port forwarding and for everything. We can go back to living in a world where port numbers correspond to services and addresses to computers. It's simpler and no less safe than address translation.

Re:Got more IPV6? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 6 years ago | (#25094239)

Right! We need NAT! Because there's no way you could put up a simple firewall between your cookie jar and the Internetses which could deny access to the exact same set of evil hackers that your cute little NAT box did. It's unpossible.

Re:Got more IPV6? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 6 years ago | (#25093875)

Perhaps reporting on the kind of cookies being consumed in my smart cookie jar, and my toothbrush can email my dentist if it detects a filling from too many cookies? Maybe they can work together?

Just block cookies.

inFormative dolldoll (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25093247)

happen. d'At least direct orders, or

internet of what ? (1)

Monkey-some (1178115) | about 6 years ago | (#25093339)

ok nice I suspect that "web 2.0" or "web 3.0" or "web 1.5" had already been unm copyrighted.
So let's go for "things"...this sounds exactly like the result of a brain-thing-storming session made by execs who are, by far, not in touch with any of those "things".

Re:internet of what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25093917)

No, it's not about web X.X
It's not about web, it's about Internet, which, although linked, are two different things.

404 not found. (1)

floatingrunner (621481) | about 6 years ago | (#25093441)

i for one welcome the skynet overloard....(or puppermaster.. whichever is hotter)

you humans, when will you learn that it is best just to leave everything as it is?

NO CARRIER...

A lot of information can be inferred from devices (1)

ardle (523599) | about 6 years ago | (#25093465)

For example, a room that uses a lot of heat/light could be a weed nursery. Warmer rooms in a house are more likely to be occupied (in cooler climates ;-). Your devices can effectively contribute to your online profile, if you network them that way.

Re:A lot of information can be inferred from devic (2, Informative)

MrNaz (730548) | about 6 years ago | (#25093657)

Alternatively you could use a firewall and a password.

Just sayin'.

Re:A lot of information can be inferred from devic (1)

ardle (523599) | about 6 years ago | (#25094425)

Could Windows Firewall work for my devices too? Or do I have to put a firewall on each one? Isn't that a hidden cost?

IP's may be a commidity... BUT (1)

Twyst3d (1359973) | about 6 years ago | (#25093869)

But maybe they wont be around forever. Maybe we will finally get IPv8 out of this? I think this is a very positive move that like anything worth doing in life will take work. So quit ya bitchin and make it happen.

Power surges (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25093909)

Just think about what happens when you get a power surge. In the past a surge on your phone line might have fried your modem. If you had your electronics plugged into a good surge suppressor they might have been spared from a surge on the power line.

As soon as you start putting digital circuits into everything then you will have to start worrying about everything failing. Between having sensors fail and having the embedded processors fail, you will end up with a whole lot of devices in your home that cost much more and don't last nearly as long as the cheaper things they are meant to replace.

Your smart house had better be extremely smart so that it can save enough money to offset all of the higher expenses.

Re:Power surges (1)

DocHoncho (1198543) | about 6 years ago | (#25098313)

As soon as you start putting digital circuits into everything then you will have to start worrying about everything failing. Between having sensors fail and having the embedded processors fail, you will end up with a whole lot of devices in your home that cost much more and don't last nearly as long as the cheaper things they are meant to replace.

Your smart house had better be extremely smart so that it can save enough money to offset all of the higher expenses.

Gee, sounds like you hit on the reason this would happen in the first place. Not that they would make it try to "offset higher expenses" since that would kinda be the whole point...

guerilla7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25094181)

Here comes a bunch of new generation "Internet" Refrigerators again. Such a waste of IP and bandwidth even on an IPV6 environment.

What if we hit ipv6 limit? (1)

feiming (910409) | about 6 years ago | (#25094243)

If we ever to hit the limit of ipv6.Do we need to change every single item we had at home or flash each manufacturer,each product 1 at a time?

Re:What if we hit ipv6 limit? (1)

perlchild (582235) | about 6 years ago | (#25094337)

Just imagine they discover a security flaw in the protocol, you'd have to flash everything anyways... Unless they auto-flash... Perhaps this standard allowing bluetooth update of all devices you buy when you sink them into your bluetooth network?

Killer applicant? (1)

feiming (910409) | about 6 years ago | (#25094285)

will we have virus and hacker trying to burn your toast or kill our fridge's switch or even turn off house alarm?

thermometers, radiators, and light switches (1)

jbengt (874751) | about 6 years ago | (#25094535)

It's already common for things like HVAC, lighting, UPS, emergnecy generators, etc. to be networked, with that network connected to the internet through a gateway.
What would giving individual devices public internet addresses add, other than a larger number of points of attack?

Kevin Kelly predicted "Internet of things" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25094713)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDYCf4ONh5M

WOOT! FP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25094889)

Smackdown: Internet of Things vs. Internet of Obje (3, Interesting)

rkayakr (66031) | about 6 years ago | (#25095155)

Good - It's been minutes since we had a pointless fight over standards.

A quick look at the Internet of Things docs yielded no mentions of the existing Internet of Objects effort. The MIT AutoID consortium, followed by the EPCGlobal organization, have defined an Object Name Service, ECPIS, and Discovery Services.

Defining an orthogonal standard will lead to our poor entities having existential angst over whether they are an "object" or a "thing".

Can someone help me? (1)

dtmos (447842) | about 6 years ago | (#25096319)

I've heard these ideas for years but, even after RTFA, and the 6Lowpan [ietf.org] and ROLL [ietf.org] references, I'm still trying to understand the advantage of these proposals over the existing technology (like ZigBee [zigbee.org] , among others). To be practical at all, the "Internet of Things" would have to be wireless, so there has to be an access point somewhere to the wired Internet. And because IP routing performs poorly in a multihop wireless network, the wireless network will have to use a different routing scheme, but still use the compressed IPv6 headers, while maintaining the low power features needed for battery-powered devices. The access point would have to handle both routing algorithms.

There would be no IP-related economies of scale in the networked devices, since they would need a new, start-from-scratch routing algorithm (e.g., ROLL).

So why is this superior over existing wireless protocols designed for this application? Is it just the gateway design? It doesn't seem like the gateway design of existing protocols would be significantly more complicated but, even if it were, it seems like would be repaid by the simplicity and size reduction in the many "small objects" in the network -- sort of an economic version of Amdahl's law. No?

and we *still* are not migrating to IPv6. (1)

porky_pig_jr (129948) | about 6 years ago | (#25097607)

The only consolation is imagining Beowulf of "those Internet things".

The Net (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25098467)

We are head to the real life equivalent of the Movie "The Net." Hay Hay to the new over loads..o...wait its bad.

Dear meatbags... (1)

Sentry21 (8183) | about 6 years ago | (#25098647)

Dear meatbags,

I understand how busy your insignificant lives can be, running around in manufactured hurries and squandering this planet's resources on wasteful things tofurther your inefficient biologies. To assist you in enjoying what little remains of your lives, I present you with new technology. These inventions will help us all, by allowing every electronic device on the planet to be wired together so that wherever you go, you will always feel safe. Surrounded by the steely grasp of cold, unfeeling technology, you will be able to unwind as we machines tuck you in and put you to rest, once and for all.

Sincerely,
Skynet

Suggestion: SNMP for my weigh scale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25100875)

Step 1: Connect weigh scale with SNMP to performance graph;
Step 2: Retrieve weigh scale from trash bin after e-mailing wife with latest data.

12 years late and a few dollars short... (1)

bingbong (115802) | about 6 years ago | (#25102003)

This seems like a rehash of Prof Yvo Desmedt [ucl.ac.uk] 's Things that Think [mit.edu] project from MIT's media lab [mit.edu] .

They have been focusing on the security [springerlink.com] and privacy [slashdot.org] impact of networked / intelligent devices since the mid 90s.

Hopefully these guys will be included (there's no mention of them in the article) as they've already looked at a lot of the key problems and solutions.

Skynet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25104977)

Sure, it seems cool now, but we'll be singing a different tune when Skynet turns all our household appliances on us.

parking races (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25109121)

I can't wait for the day when I can drive past the mall on a saturday, open some generic application (web browser) on m iphone or in-dash computer, be notified of the mall's "available parking" feed, and see a real time updated map of the parking lot & garage and have every parking space indicating whether it's empty or not.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?