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!

Military To Spend $42M To Build Advanced Network Control

CmdrTaco posted about 5 years ago | from the thats-a-lot-of-green dept.

Networking 102

coondoggie writes "BBN, which was bought by defense giant Raytheon today, got almost $11 million to help build self-configuring network technology that would identify traffic, let the network infrastructure prioritize it down to the end user, reallocate bandwidth between users or classes of users, and automatically make quality-of-service decisions. The advanced network technology is being developed by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and will include support for features like 32 levels of network traffic prioritization that will let data with a higher priority will be handled more expeditiously than traffic with a lower priority."

cancel ×

102 comments

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

Dose it (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 years ago | (#29274471)

Does it work via twitter? If it does I think IBM's lawyers want a word...

Re:Dose it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29274585)

Does it work via SHUT THE FUCK UP? If it does, I think the rest of us will be relieved that we didn't have to suffer a bunch of retarded Twitter references.

Re:Dose it (5, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29274731)

Early experiments using the STFU protocol showed that network traffic went to zero. While this had positive cost impact, for example because you could omit all those costly cables without further harm, it was finally concluded that data rates above zero had enough advantages to offset those costs.

Uhm (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29274493)

And what exactly is low priority traffic?

Re:Uhm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29274545)

Your post.

Re:Uhm (4, Interesting)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | about 5 years ago | (#29274613)

They're talking military networks so low priority traffic would be non mission/time-critical traffic. For example, email with a bunch of power point slides for a briefing might be low priority traffic, whereas an Alert for an incoming cruise missile to the Command and Control Systems might be considered slightly more high priority.

Re:Uhm (5, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29274769)

Well, every manager knows that power point slides have always the highest priority. Fuck those missiles.

Re:Uhm (2, Informative)

pixr99 (560799) | about 5 years ago | (#29275427)

Fuck those missiles.

I believe the expression is "Damn the torpedoes!"

Re:Uhm (1)

St.Creed (853824) | about 5 years ago | (#29277093)

That is soooo 2006... :)

Re:Uhm (1)

Tir-Gwaith (1493039) | about 5 years ago | (#29279485)

I think Admiral Farragut gets over-quoted. That's the only US Civil War one-line quote I've every really heard, and I hear it all the time. Or I hear it so much that it makes me forget any others...

Re:Uhm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29281135)

Fuck those missiles.

I believe the expression is "Damn the torpedoes!"

Dude! Get with the new century!

Seriously, thanks to both of you for the laughs.

Re:Uhm (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 5 years ago | (#29280701)

"whereas an Alert for an incoming cruise missile to the Command and Control Systems might be considered slightly more high priority."

Those shouldn't even be on the same physical network.

Re:Uhm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29282011)

Are you suggesting that they should build an entirely new network for every application rather than simply using proper security and hard encryption to secure the data?

Re:Uhm (4, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | about 5 years ago | (#29275013)

The lowest bidder.

Re:Uhm (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 5 years ago | (#29275347)

Whereas you always buy from the highest bidder, right?

Re:Uhm (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 5 years ago | (#29275391)

Since the context is someone paying you for a limited resource, then yes I usually would...

Re:Uhm (1)

Z34107 (925136) | about 5 years ago | (#29278693)

I have a product to sell you for $infinity. I can guarantee that you won't find a better price.

Re:Uhm (-1, Flamebait)

d474 (695126) | about 5 years ago | (#29275383)

"Low Priority Traffic" = Names on the "terrorist" watch list, journalist posting a non-desirable story exposing government corruption, citizens attempting to organize a protest, etc.

This is Network "Control". Not control like in TCP, more like Psychological Control.

Re:Uhm (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | about 5 years ago | (#29275823)

Why would a journalist be posting a non-desirable story inside the military's internal network? I'm pretty sure this will be applied to the military's internal classified networks for better transferring important command and control information at a higher priority than non mission and time critical data.

This isn't likely to apply to the internet as a whole, just their own internal networks. And I'm sorry, but in an operational environment where people can die if the right information doesn't get there on time, all information shouldn't be routed equally. Your power point briefing on the last uneventful patrol can probably take a backseat to the incoming missile warnings on the network.

Re:Uhm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29276039)

Yo mama pr0n.

Re:Uhm (1)

Menelkir (899602) | about 5 years ago | (#29277159)

Every traffic that isn't mine I consider low priority traffic.

Wow (4, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | about 5 years ago | (#29274503)

$11M to reimplement IPv6 QOS. I suppose it's a bit more advanced since it makes QOS determination based on users or groups, but that doesn't seem that difficult.

Consider me unimpressed.

Re:Wow (3, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29274785)

Someone else with no experience doing massive implementations of new infrastructure spouting off.

Consider me unimpressed.

Re:Wow (-1, Redundant)

KingMotley (944240) | about 5 years ago | (#29277675)

Lol. You do realize that DARPA created the internet, right? The whole TCP, UDP, IP protocols were created by them.

Re:Wow (1)

kcitren (72383) | about 5 years ago | (#29279849)

You do realize the grand-parent post [by geekoid] was talking about the great-grandparent post [by digitalunity].

Re:Wow (1)

youn (1516637) | about 5 years ago | (#29284885)

Oh! and I thought it was al gore.... had it all wrong ;)

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

elnyka (803306) | about 5 years ago | (#29275111)

$11M to reimplement IPv6 QOS. I suppose it's a bit more advanced since it makes QOS determination based on users or groups, but that doesn't seem that difficult.

Consider me unimpressed.

Dude, there might be strategic/tactical decisions for deciding explicitly not to use IPv6. Notice that I'm not saying that those strategic/tactical decisions are necessarily valid for long-term maintenance, extensibility or external compatibility (the later of which might even be undesirable from a strategic/tactical POV.)

The road of technical divergence can either take you to innovation or to a complete technical fiasco. That fork is many times not only dependent on technical merits alone. Besides, iirc, IPv6 QOS is still as of yet to be developed (not a criticism mind you). It supports only 7 priority levels whereas the proposed technology will support 32 levels. A typical military subnet, with stationary and mobile units, all of them plugged and receiving feeds from a bunch of disparate devices might never need more than 7 or 8, but as you start plugging those nets together, you can (and will) easily require a finer priority granularity than that.

Add to that the ability to determine priority by user or groups, and the problem cannot be dismissed as "meh, should not be that difficult." There might be other defense-specific requirements that we might not know (.ie. limiting jumbopackets by priority or origin.)

Besides, this is being researched by DARPA, the harbinger of ARPANET and MQ-Predator, not some 2009 rendition of kozmo.com.

I know that here on /. we like to fling turds at the government's white elephants, but c'mon. There must likely be be good technical/domain-specific reasons (or at least good enough) for an entity like DARPA to perform research on it, reasons beyond the ones that might impress you.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29276243)

Assigning priority by user *cannot* be a hard problem, because anything you'd do to make it more than trivial would make it impossible.

The options are essentially:
        User == source address
or:
        User is embedded in packets
because if you don't either know who the user is explicitly or provide some sort of mapping from "user" to "something discrete already in the packet" there's no way to determine the user for arbitrary traffic.

And once you've established which user sent a packet assigning the priority is just a table lookup, which is something routers are already pretty good at.

Re:Wow (1)

elnyka (803306) | about 5 years ago | (#29278403)

Assigning priority by user *cannot* be a hard problem, because anything you'd do to make it more than trivial would make it impossible.

The options are essentially: User == source address or: User is embedded in packets because if you don't either know who the user is explicitly or provide some sort of mapping from "user" to "something discrete already in the packet" there's no way to determine the user for arbitrary traffic.

And once you've established which user sent a packet assigning the priority is just a table lookup, which is something routers are already pretty good at.

Well, if you paint all user-mapping problems in such a generic way, then obviously that problem *cannot* be that hard.

Determining who the user is when you know a-priori that it is at the network layer (user == address) or at the transport/application layer (user identifiers within the packets) is vacuously easy, ergo irrelevant. In fact, it's not even part of the overall problem.

In certain domains, a user might be a composite of it's source address and additional user information within the packets. Also, a user might have one or more roles (in a RBAC model) and/or relationships (in a ReBAC model) which might also be a function of source address and user info embedded in packets (and perhaps even by destination address.)

Generically speaking, yeah, it's not a *hard* problem. Put that in the context of a specific, non-trivial architecture, and then we are talking about potentially very complex problems.

Even if user identity is not a hard problem, that still does not cover the other problems that this specific project is trying to investigate : advanced prioritization (which the more I think about it, the more that it might be based on not only on identity and data type, but permissions), authentication, authorization, confidentiality, integrity, availability, perhaps even fault-based attributes according to other attributes (fail-safe, fail-deadly and all that stuff).

Easy problem my ass.

Re:Wow (1)

digitalunity (19107) | about 5 years ago | (#29278979)

Assigning QOS by user explicitly makes little sense. Not all traffic a person can generate should have the same priority.

An NSA military intelligence officer accessing a satellite mat should have greater priority than his commander surfing the net.

Re:Wow (1)

elnyka (803306) | about 5 years ago | (#29279261)

Assigning QOS by user explicitly makes little sense. Not all traffic a person can generate should have the same priority.

An NSA military intelligence officer accessing a satellite mat should have greater priority than his commander surfing the net.

Well, no one is saying that QOS is to be assigned explicitly by user identity alone every single time and for all domain cases. I'm not sure exactly what on earth makes you think that's the argument, considering the following fragment in the second to the last paragraph in my previous post:

advanced prioritization (which the more I think about it, the more that it might be based on not only on identity and data type, but permissions)

Even w/o considering permissions, it's a fact that QOS is very likely a function of identity/role and data type.

So let me know what part of my previous posts sounded like an argument of assigning QOS by user identification explicitly as a general rule. Let's go back again to the points of contention:

  • Except in trivial cases, user identity is not a trivial thing. It's more often than not an architectural issue. In other words "it cannot be a hard problem" is an innacurate statement.
  • IPv6 QOS is still in the air, not to mention that there might be strategic reasons within a defense domain to create a new infrastructure as opposed to use IPv6.
  • IPv6 QOS only provides 7 levels of priority whereas the proposed solution will have 32.
  • For some aspects of a large system, user identity might be a composite value derived from information carried at both transport and application layers - uncommon but not impossible.
  • Priority might be assigned by user identity/role, data types and permissions (the later could be a function of other attributes such as time.)

Regarding your "NSA officer vs web-surfing commander", that's a bit silly example (assuming both are using the exact same infrastructure). Obviously here, priority is assigned by role AND by resource. A more interesting example is a NSA officer assigned to a case has a higher priority in pushing alerts down the pipeline than fellow NSA agents receiving general status updates.

This assignment can be implemented as a relationship to the case (and thus, indirectly a function of the agent's identity) or purely as a direct function of his identity. One cannot say that one is better than the other without knowing the specific domain, the specific context in which such an implementation takes place.

There are similar priorities in term of access that can also occur in other domains .ie. "primary care physician" relationship between an identifiable entity with a "doctor" role and a patient. This is an explicit priority/access right assigned from one identity to another under a given role.

Perhaps the word you want to use is "exclusively" instead of "explicitly".

Re:Wow (2, Interesting)

mckinnsb (984522) | about 5 years ago | (#29275523)

It's not just that. They are trying to build in a whole complex classification system into the network that doesn't base its decisions on content or traffic - it considers both in its analysis. It's trying to shuffle all users into 32 different slots - "Normal People", "High Volume Users", "Bots", and 29 other different 'categories' of user. Honestly, it doesn't sound like *enough* money.

$11 million doesn't seem like that much... (1)

klubar (591384) | about 5 years ago | (#29278091)

An $11 million infrastructure/research project doesn't strike me as excessive. Assuming about $1 million of parts, equpment and travel, that leave $10 million for salaries. A fully allocated (or loaded in the accounting sense) employee is probably about $300k/year (salary, overhead, space) which means the project employed about 33 people for one year. Some of those were probably engineers, tech writers, while others administrators. A small team at cisco, IBM, apple or other non-government firm would probably cost about the same and produce equivalent results.

There might be a bit more overhead for DOD projects if it needed security requirements. Security adds to the cost and means that the project can't be off-shored to cheaper employees.

It about... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29274561)

It's about f-ning time.

Re:It about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29275019)

f-ning

fanning? fining? or maybe you meant f-ing?

Re:It about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29275447)

i laughed until i read your crappy comment.

$11M v $42M, before anyone asks... (0)

erpbridge (64037) | about 5 years ago | (#29274587)

From the article:

"This one-year contract includes two, one-year options, which, if awarded, would bring the cumulative value of the contract to about $42 million, BBN stated. "

Re:$11M v $42M, before anyone asks... (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29274843)

$42M? Does it include searching for the answer to life, the universe and everything?

Re:$11M v $42M, before anyone asks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29281245)

$42M? Does it include searching for the answer to life, the universe and everything?

No, that search requires less than 14 Altarian dollars a day.

Re:$11M v $42M, before anyone asks... (4, Informative)

WindowlessView (703773) | about 5 years ago | (#29274985)

This has a lot of complicated requirements. If you scan through the pdf "DARPA's Military Networking Protocol" link in the article I don't see how this doesn't extend well beyond 3 years and $42 million. E.G. "As deliverables, performers must provide protocol implementations that replace or modify both the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) for the user level devices and the Network Controllers."

Throw in the pace of defense companies move and it would be a miracle.

Re:$11M v $42M, before anyone asks... (1)

mkramer (25004) | about 5 years ago | (#29277415)

This is DARPA... It's been a LONG time since they've ever actually paid for development through final production.

Their strategy is to pay for initial technology development and proofs of concept, and then encourage (and probably help) to find a government customer who actually wants a product based on those technologies.

So the timeframe for a real product winds up being much longer. And the final bill to the taxpayers, much higher.

Re:$11M v $42M, before anyone asks... (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | about 5 years ago | (#29279089)

Maybe they can get these guys [www.cfos.de] to make it. They seem to have experience with all that protocol/prioritization crap.

The Next Internet? (2, Insightful)

MikePo (579147) | about 5 years ago | (#29274617)

Interesting, could be a precursor to the next evolution of the Internet.

I don't know how well people would like QOS determination on users though, but I see the appeal to the government(s).

Re:The Next Internet? (1)

BigHungryJoe (737554) | about 5 years ago | (#29274697)

the traffic prioritization thing seems ripe for abuse

Re:The Next Internet? (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29274761)

Yes. For military use it make sense.
IF we could get enforced guidelines with court protection, it would be fine. Of course we won't get that until after years of abuse from verious corporate entities.

Re:The Next Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29274749)

Net Neutrality is dead?

captcha: paranoia

Re:The Next Internet? (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29274861)

Yes. In the future you'll only get Gross Neutrality.

Re:The Next Internet? (3, Funny)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | about 5 years ago | (#29274963)

Oh! You mean like marking P2P as "low priority" during peak usage hours...oh wait...

Didn't they make a movie or two about this (2, Funny)

Gendo420 (656068) | about 5 years ago | (#29274745)

"self-configuring network technology" I seem to remember something about this in a movie once, I think it sounds like something that was called skynet......or something like that. I dunno maybe y'all can help me remember

Re:Didn't they make a movie or two about this (2, Insightful)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | about 5 years ago | (#29274993)

Sounds more like the way that the network in the Legacy Trilogy is set up in that the lower level soldiers can get there net access cut back or removed when needed to provide command guaranteed access to the network when they need it.

Re:Didn't they make a movie or two about this (1)

gruhnj (195230) | about 5 years ago | (#29277443)

lower level soldiers can get there net access cut back or removed when needed to provide command guaranteed access to the network when they need it.

Ding Ding Ding. This is taking what we already have in the DSN military phone system and applying it to the tactical and strategic networks. This is more of an issue on the tactical Joint Network Node (JNN) networks as the military continues to expand with the entire BCS suite. CPOF alone demands priority networks to work well between sites. As everything gets digitized the network is getting saturated and it cant grow like this without some sort of traffic control. A JNN can take a good amount of load but the associated Command Post Nodes (CPN) max out real quick.

Opportunity! (3, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 5 years ago | (#29274751)

I'm counting the new Internet Control Czar in the White House to use this to shut down the Internet as-needed for "national security" or other "emergencies" so I'm going to dust off my old BBS software and install another landline.

Re:Opportunity! (4, Funny)

FudRucker (866063) | about 5 years ago | (#29274933)

if the US Gov gets any more czars this place is going to start looking like Russia before the soviet era, it could be a government plot to make post soviet Russia jealous.

Re:Opportunity! (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 5 years ago | (#29275629)

In Soviet America the Internet Czar is a Headless Server...

Re:Opportunity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29277627)

I applaud you sir!

Re:Opportunity! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#29278645)

That thing was better than I expected. But aren't all politicians nowadays headless servers, that just blindly follow orders from their lobby masters?

Re:Opportunity! (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 5 years ago | (#29280723)

"if the US Gov gets any more czars"

Fuck the Czars, worry about the Rasputins!

Re:Opportunity! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29274935)

so I'm going to dust off my old BBS software and install another landline.

Better yet, get your Amateur Radio [arrl.org] license and practice using Packet Radio [wikipedia.org] and PSK31 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Opportunity! (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 5 years ago | (#29274999)

Except the FCC (and I'm assuming the new Packet Radio Czar) will be "managing" us through that venue as well. On a slightly more serious note (!) if the White House is even hinting about controlling access to the Internet what is that going to do to businesses that want to use the cloud? In my case I can tell you that I'm not gonna put my stuff up there if "they" will be threatening to shut it down.

Re:Opportunity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29276901)

In my case I can tell you that I'm not gonna put my stuff up there if "they" will be threatening to shut it down.

So you're going to send your stuff over your phone line.

Good thinking!

Prioritize my SPAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29274767)

Can it prioritize my SPAM over to that homing pidgeon network?

Re:Prioritize my SPAM? (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29274813)

Just upload that spam to missiles and deliver it physically. You surely will get highest priority that way.

In Soviet Amerika: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29274793)

Advanced network control build YOU !

Yours in Samara,
Kilgore Trout

is it ipv6? (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 5 years ago | (#29274841)

if it isn't, an awesome example of government stupidity, since just as this thing gets off the ground, ipv6 will probably finally take over

it it is ipv6, look for ipv6 to be mandated on the industry

Re:is it ipv6? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 5 years ago | (#29275421)

DoD is already in the process of transitioning to IPv6.

20th century statist thinking (1, Offtopic)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 5 years ago | (#29274859)

This is an extreme example of 20th century anti-capitalist statism from Barack Hussein Obama's neo-communist cabinet. Why not try free competition? Why does the "government" have to have an inefficient, non-competitive monopoly on armed force? Just like the electric monopoly and government health care, these invite waste, abuse, bureaucracy, and lowlife leeches like the Iraqis who think they are "entitled" to the U.S. Army. The whole system should be replaced by privatized corporate militias responsible to the shareholders. If there is a national interest, like attacking black people after a hurricane or raping a third-world country, expedient coalitions can be formed. But this whole government army welfare thing smacks of socialism.

Re:20th century statist thinking (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 years ago | (#29274949)

Why does the "government" have to have an inefficient, non-competitive monopoly on armed force?

Looking at the countries where the government doesn't have an effective monopoly on armed force, I really prefer the monopoly in that case. At least as long as it is democratically controlled.

Re:20th century statist thinking (1, Troll)

megamerican (1073936) | about 5 years ago | (#29275261)

Why does the "government" have to have an inefficient, non-competitive monopoly on armed force?

Looking at the countries where the government doesn't have an effective monopoly on armed force, I really prefer the monopoly in that case. At least as long as it is democratically controlled.

So 51% of the population can put the other 49% into camps?

The 2nd amendment was supposed to ensure that the government didn't have a monopoly on armed force.

Re:20th century statist thinking (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | about 5 years ago | (#29277211)

Yeah...nuclear missiles and stealth bombers should be the property of private companies...what could the harm be? (rolls eyes)

And now.. (5, Insightful)

kronosopher (1531873) | about 5 years ago | (#29274879)

we hear the death knell of net neutrality.

The corporate think-tanks that envisioned the internet have known for a long time they had unwittingly created a network without strong authentication. This means anyone can jack-in anonymously and spread whatever socially dissident or commie/terrorist agenda they want. So in the interest of controlling our minds and the accessibility of information they are now attempting to re-implement the internet and in doing so shape traffic along arbitrary guidelines which of course will be entirely influenced by corporate profiteering.

I know that this project is only for military use, but it is only a matter of time before corporations are lured in by the promise of an unprecedented amount of power/control/oversight on their networks.

Re:And now.. (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | about 5 years ago | (#29276177)

What's the likelihood of a corporation being able to convince ALL the corporations that own the infrastructure of the entire internet at large that they should switch to such a system because ALL of them will somehow benefit from the others having control over their sections of the web and none of them will have financially significant backlash from their customers or be breaking any regional laws? I think you'd have better luck unifying the world under a single religion.

Re:And now.. (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 years ago | (#29276411)

If we are to have telemedicine, displacement of copper telephone infrastructure, etc., then we do need guaranteed levels of service for some things.

Traffic shaping is not necessarily opposed to net neutrality. I see nothing wrong with prioritizing traffic based on how much a customer paid, or how much bandwidth they've used recently, for instance. An ISP account should come with X gigabytes/month of "first class" service, where you get to decide what to send/receive first class, and the rest is bulk. I have wasted too much time kluging with LARTC [lartc.org] . Traffic prioritization needs to be end-to-end, not just at the network layer of one end.

Re:And now.. (2, Insightful)

kronosopher (1531873) | about 5 years ago | (#29277609)

If we are to have telemedicine, displacement of copper telephone infrastructure, etc., then we do need guaranteed levels of service for some things.

Traffic shaping is not necessarily opposed to net neutrality. I see nothing wrong with prioritizing traffic based on how much a customer paid, or how much bandwidth they've used recently, for instance. An ISP account should come with X gigabytes/month of "first class" service, where you get to decide what to send/receive first class, and the rest is bulk. I have wasted too much time kluging with LARTC [lartc.org] . Traffic prioritization needs to be end-to-end, not just at the network layer of one end.

You're right. This is just another example of how the technology itself is not malevolent but rather how its employed.

That being said, I can assure you that simply by reviewing the level of divisive manipulation of traditional corporate media, while technological advancement have historically entailed a net benefit for purveyors of truth(thinking here, printing press, telephones, etc), it also has enabled morally bereft institutions to expand and refine their influence on the hearts and minds of the masses. Now we're talking about a fundamental change in the infrastructure of the internet which could easily force social dissonance or protesting underground by simply making it inaccessible, thus negating all of the great advancements in information transparency we've achieved on an *almost* fully open internet. An open internet is exceedingly difficult to control, and malevolent corporations have made little headway here like that seen in print, television, radio, etc.

On another note, the suppression of thought and technology permeates every facet of our modern lives, and now with the explosion of the internet we not only have an abundance of air and water but also information, which quite certainly is the most important tool in mitigating and extinguishing the suppressive and unaccountable corporate influence over our lives. This to me is indicative of a greater economic and social transition resulting in the replacement of antiquated short-term socially detrimental corporate group-think with something so open and free that none of us can possibly fathom its colossal magnitude.

IMO, defeating net neutrality, or enabling corporations to do so(even with the best of intentions), will result in humanities failure once again to recognize and respond adequately to threats to the our overall social and economic cohesion. Quite simply, in order for humanity to succeed as Bill Hicks said "..as one race explor[ing] outer space together in peace, forever." we must educate and enlighten people in order to encourage reform and the discontinuation of the broken components of our establishment.

Re:And now.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29278975)

It might seem so, but you need to realize that most internet access on government posts and installations is already monitored and filtered (for example-youtube, craigslist, ebay, etc.) Access to systems is restricted again by PKI/CAC cards with unique serial number identifers. Add to this the state agencies (National Guard comes to mind), where each DOIM office is run independently of the other states, following both their own internal ideas on security and the ones pushed down by NGB. Finding a "unified" standard of network prioritization would help immensely against DOS attacks or tracing the source of malicious code trying to spawn across a DOD network. I see this attempt as a cost-saving measure and one that will make the future DOD systems more robust and reliable. Plus, if you are interested in the battles some people fight to standardize the Gov/Internet interface, check out http://www.gureilla-ciso.com/ [gureilla-ciso.com] (I'm not affiliated).

Cheers!

Sounds like a workaround (3, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | about 5 years ago | (#29274887)

to move net neutrality to /dev/null

$42M? (1)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | about 5 years ago | (#29274893)

That sounds like enough to pay for the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything!

Are they replacing DSCPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29274895)

With stars, bars, stripes and other insignia attached as GIF images ?

Isn't "Digital Sentience" a prereq? (2, Interesting)

Erelas (1077365) | about 5 years ago | (#29275181)

US has begun research on Secret Project "Network Backbone". "Where do you want your Node today?"

Iran (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 5 years ago | (#29275291)

This is about censorship, plain and simple.

Well Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29275293)

I'm a contractor. That means I will be below the lowest Civil Service employee. My connection will be worse than dial up while the guys mowing the grass will have T3 speed during their lunch breaks.

OK, guys... (4, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | about 5 years ago | (#29275377)

The DoD is big into what they're calling "Network-Centric Warfare". US doctrine relies heavily on information dispersal and access.

This is (currently) an effort to make sure the right info gets into the right hands on the battlefield.

DARPA Error 1205 (1)

Halotron1 (1604209) | about 5 years ago | (#29275417)

This slashdot post was deadlocked on resources with another higher priority slashdot post and has been chosen as the deadlock victim

Terminated (1)

geoffball (1195685) | about 5 years ago | (#29275609)

Are they calling it SkyNet?

Re:Terminated (1)

KC7JHO (919247) | about 5 years ago | (#29276647)

If not, they sure are missing an excellent chance to "Stir the pot".

Does it take that much (1)

fataugie (89032) | about 5 years ago | (#29275699)

to run an On/Off button to the Oval Office?
This way he can take down the Internet to save us all.

Change YOU can believe in.....

Those 1985 .com names are getting snapped up (1)

Pheidias (141114) | about 5 years ago | (#29276001)

Wasn't BBN.com the second domain name ever to be purchased? (Was reading the article about Symbolics.com earlier.)

Who cares how much they spend (2, Insightful)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | about 5 years ago | (#29276103)

It's my tax money anyway and I have no saying on it.

Plan9/Minix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29276117)

Starting founding plan9/minix for distributed micro-rebooteable systems.

Sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29276409)

Typical Defense mentality here; pay 1000x the price of proper net admins to have equipment that supposedly doesn't need it. The only catch is that the people to fix the new system cost 100,000x what it would have cost to properly admin the existing system.

Oh well. Nothing new under the sun here.

Shiny tool (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29276727)

the problem with this will be that any idiot general or SES exec (as in idiot in terms of comms/technical issues) will be able to order his "comm guys" to make "priority one" all traffic having anything to do with him and/or his cronies. the sycophantic bureaucrats hanging onto this general's/SES's coattails and their hours of grainy video-laden powerpoint slides about the battalion/unit/agency bake sale will crash base networks all over the world. packets carrying beat-the-dead-horse PowerPoint slides with 30mb pictures of smiling ethnically-diverse suit-drones waxing poetic about how neat the government budget system is will take priority over mission-related packets.

anyone who has spent any time in the military or working for the federal government will know exactly what i'm talking about. it will be, as always, some guy with a powerful, shiny tool to use for his own interests.

32 levels of traffic prioritization (1)

Tolkien (664315) | about 5 years ago | (#29276781)

32 levels of traffic prioritization? That sounds like prioritization by bitshift.

I call dibs on Priority 0!

Already been done (2, Funny)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 5 years ago | (#29276867)

$11 million to do what Comcast already does?

I hope the military enjoys it more than the average peer-to-peer user on cable.

Re:Already been done (1)

linzeal (197905) | about 5 years ago | (#29281179)

Yeah, and we all know how well Comcast QOS works.

As any good progammer knows... (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#29277393)

and will include support for features like 32 levels of network traffic prioritization

...a fixed number of levels means a badly designed program. Or else it would not put any limitations on the number of levels.

Why not just make it go trough the rules recursively like all cascading rule parser? You could even put a configurable limit on it, so it does not crash when coming in contact with infinite levels of rules.

Re:As any good progammer knows... (1)

Thimo Langbehn (1278116) | about 5 years ago | (#29283183)

and will include support for features like 32 levels of network traffic prioritization

...a fixed number of levels means a badly designed program. Or else it would not put any limitations on the number of levels.

This is not always true. Consider a real time system. If you want to guarantee response times with bounded computational power, you cannot handle an arbitrary number of priorities. Instead, the number might depend on the available timespan and the worst case execution time of your computation. If you combine this with the creation of a protocol, it might very well make sense to reserve a fixed number of bits for the priority designator. This even can help increasing the number of levels or decrease QOS-associated overhead.

Now, it may very well make sense to code the resulting values of such a constraint based design into constants. If you get into the situation that the specification boundaries change (faster minimum hardware for example), you can derive a new set of parameters, change the constants and the eventual piece of code accordingly and distribute the new firmware.

In the end, reconfigurability is only one of the properties in the equation.

The Military w/o Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29278193)

If we do not have Net Neutrality, military communication coming from non-military IPs or encrypted data could be stalled by the major ISPs if that data crosses their networks. Building your own network sounds like the logical choice to me.

Sounds a lot like traffic shaping. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29279617)

Sounds a lot like traffic shaping.
  Is the government condoning this??

Some Recession (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29280907)

Media born, Media killed. Nothing more than that. Fuck the media. And, while you're at it - fuck ALL of the banks who raped us - while laughing.

Old Technology (2, Interesting)

Tetch (534754) | about 5 years ago | (#29281267)

> The advanced network technology ... being developed by ... DARPA .. will include
> support for features like 32 levels of network traffic prioritization that will
> let data with a higher priority will be handled more expeditiously than traffic
> with a lower priority

Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa .... "advanced technology" ?

We were doing this in 1980 with the ICL VME mainframe operating system using their proprietary comms protocol "ICLC03", which prioritised traffic according to which of 6 different categories the relevant device was defined to be in. That's how we could support a cluster of 16 dumb terminals and half a dozen printers down one 9.6Kbps line without all the terminals stopping dead every time somebody printed something.

I hardly think the technique can be described as "advanced" ... "common sense" maybe. I've always wondered why TCP-IP doesn't include such a feature.

(Sorry - ICL died such a horrible death that I can't find a link on this modern intarweb thingie to anything usefully describing VME operating system features such as its ICLC03 protocol - but I assure you it's well described in technical manuals in various ring binders in my spare room.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>