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!

The Internet's Broken. Who's Going To Invent a New One?

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the my-money's-on-al-gore dept.

The Internet 162

aarondubrow writes: "The Internet has evolved to support an incredibly diverse set of needs, but we may be reaching a point at which new solutions and new infrastructure are needed in particular to improve security, connect with the Internet of Things and address an increasingly mobile computing landscape. Yesterday, NSF announced $15 million in awards to develop, deploy and test future Internet architecture in challenging real-world environments. These clean-slate designs explore novel network architectures and networking concepts and also consider the larger societal, economic and legal issues that arise from the interplay between the Internet and society.

Each project will partner with cities, non-profit organizations, academic institutions and industrial partners across the nation to test their Internet architectures. Some of the test environments include: a vehicular network deployment in Pittsburgh, a context-aware weather emergency notification system for Dallas/Fort Worth, and a partnership with Open mHealth, a patient-centric health ecosystem based in San Francisco."

cancel ×

162 comments

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

Lol what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994339)

Seriously.

WILL THIS NEW INTERNET HAVE THE SPYING BUILT-IN (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 4 months ago | (#46994367)

Or will it be "bolt-on", like the one we got?

Re:WILL THIS NEW INTERNET HAVE THE SPYING BUILT-IN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994629)

Can't you read?

"These clean-slate designs explore novel network architectures and networking concepts and also consider the larger societal, economic and legal issues that arise from the interplay between the Internet and society.

So yeah.. that's spying and censorship and making sure you pay extra for it too.

Re:WILL THIS NEW INTERNET HAVE THE SPYING BUILT-IN (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46994741)

Then they can keep it.

Something new must be better to eventually overcome the old. It's already hard enough to convince people to move away from what they know, when it got bad press it's not really something that will sell well.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995979)

We shall use what they already use to keep them from knowing about the new things they won't. So shush!

Re:Lol what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994645)

Who invented a new net?? ;}

The NSF (1)

Sigvatr (1207234) | about 4 months ago | (#46994347)

Don't shoot. I surrender.

Al Gore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994349)

He can claim it this time!

500 pages to announce we're still broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994373)

spiritually bankrupt as well with shortages of tears innocence compassion & mercy (the real justice) see also; pbs piketty shyloks shysters corepirate nazi deception

Um.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994377)

My internet connection works great, in fact it's far far better than it was a decade ago with nearly 100Mbps performance (vs the shitty DSL I had in the past) and before that, 53K baud modem.

Re:Um.. (2)

j35ter (895427) | about 4 months ago | (#46994605)

Yes, but your future 4k Pr0n will need more than just 100mbps (filtered by Comcast) :)

Internet2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994383)

I win. Send me the money.

Waves!!! (3, Funny)

jeff13 (255285) | about 4 months ago | (#46994403)

I've got it!!! We could send some sort of waves out that would be easily picked up by some sort of antenna. We could have stations transmit these waves so there's no gap, and best of all they would cover wide areas as the waves would bounce of the atmosphere. People would only have to buy a receiver set with the antenna and all the programing could be paid for with advertising alone! No more bills! ;p

Re:Waves!!! (2)

j35ter (895427) | about 4 months ago | (#46994621)

Apples got a patent on that, and you infringed on it by posting it onto /. ! Please report to them immediately for settlement negotiations :)

How is it broken, exactly? (4, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | about 4 months ago | (#46994423)

Honestly, the only thing I can think of that might qualify as really so "broken" that it simply needs replacing with something different is ipv4.

A replacement for that has been invented already, but nobody seems to want to use it. I can't imagine it would be any different with anything else people might try and point out about the internet that they think is broken would get any better public reception.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (3, Insightful)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 4 months ago | (#46994471)

How about starting with TCP & UDP? They were somehow designed on the assumption that all participating machines are well behaved good citizens. In practice this ain't happening (see SYN flood for example, there are "mitigation" measure but none is a definitive "fix"). These need to be replaced with something that would be resistant to mischief by design.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46994639)

Everything these days should be designed from the ground up with the assumption that the requested actions are hostile in nature.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (4, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 4 months ago | (#46994661)

That sounds great in theory, but at this point I'm kind of reserved to the fact that "resistant to mischief" just means we would have a year or two of peace before the inevitable flaws were so totally exploited that we were right back where we started.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46994765)

Then that "new internet" should keep that in mind as part of its design. It needs to be updateable without breaking compatibility. That's the core element of making something secure: Making it patchable.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (2)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 4 months ago | (#46996015)

Not really possible. Usually people expect very specific responses. Even if we "upgraded it" then everyone would have to rewrite their code. Some people may never rewrite the code so we'll by necessity then also have a "legacy mode" for those older solutions. All of the attackers will simply communicate in "legacy mode" and we won't be able to tell if they're a way out of date grandmother on a 10 year unpatched machine or else a hostile application.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994817)

And add to that TLS/SSL. Layering encryption on top of an insecure protocol like TCP results in a network layer that provides authentication and privacy, but fails to provide robustness. A secure transport layer should provide all three: robustness, authentication and privacy, and I would add a fourth: authorisation.

Of course this is all protocol that can be fixed by adding another IP protocol value to the proto field in IPv4 or IPv6.

There is a problem in IPv4, that is partially but not sufficiently mitigated in IPv6, and that is the lack of topological addresing. The IPv4 address, with CIDR, in no way reflects the topological location of a subnet, and even in IPv6, large national routing tables have to be maintained to find the optimal route to a single-homed network. This is a small enough problem today that every PE router at the edge of the multihomed internet can simply have a large lookup table, but scales quickly out of control when you start talking about mesh networks, where every node is potentially and likely multihomed. The addresses are also centrally allocated by a very expensive bureaucracy, I won't say corrupt, but the cost per IPv6 address is certainly high considering their abundance and the seemingly low effort required to store an allocation into a database.

With topological addressing, the node addresses would be allocated dynamically based on the position in the topology and supplementary information like GPS coordinates or public key (in onion networks).

The DNS system is an enormous problem. The architecture is very flaky, totally insecure especially with the addition of DNSsec. relies on a very expensive, and in this case, I will say corrupt bureaucracy for the allocation of names and is a generally ill thought out and ineffective way for locating network objects.

HTTP is a massive failure for end-to-endedness, breaks peer to peer expectations of the internet, adds massive protocol inefficiencies that buy next to nothing in the way of added function, and is generally ill specified. A good protocol is one that both allows reservation for future extensions in an efficient manner, and tightly constrains how the protocol must be spoken to the bit. By contrast HTTP allows vast latitude in the spelling of protocol messages, resulting in a large probability for implementation failure and failure for two implementations to interoperate, and yet has very inefficient and unreliable extensions due to the lack of foresight in designing efficient reservations into the original protocol.

Every protocol built on top of TCP fails robustness tests, as it necessarily inherits the irrobustness of TCP. Yet every protocol built on UDP, where one could implement robustness, fails because of the epic clusterfuck that is NAT. And yet there are utter morons out there who are considering (there are RFCs published) NAT for IPv6.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (2)

w_dragon (1802458) | about 4 months ago | (#46994927)

SCTP already exists, and is reasonably well supported. No one uses it because it turns out TCP and UDP actually do most of what we need pretty well.

Re: How is it broken, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995699)

SCTP rocks. But too many firewalls block it.

We could do a ton of cool things with the Internet that we have. But too many people violated the end-to-end principle.

We don't need a new internet. We just need less firewalls. IP is sufficient to carry all but the most radical of protocols.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (2)

swillden (191260) | about 4 months ago | (#46995881)

SCTP already exists, and is reasonably well supported. No one uses it because it turns out TCP and UDP actually do most of what we need pretty well.

A more recent alternative, which gets through firewalls better, is Google's QUIC protocol (successor to SPDY). It's built on top of UDP which means it can't do quite as much as an IP-level protocol can, but it can be and is a lot smarter than TCP. It also provides multiplexed streaming, server push and other performance features and has NO unencrypted mode. It's all encrypted and authenticated, all the time.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (4, Interesting)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 4 months ago | (#46995777)

How about starting with TCP & UDP?

I would rather start above layer 4 with DNS, SNMP, NTP, SIP and other niche UDP based offenders giving away insane DOS amplification to any script kiddie in the world who wants to cause havoc. These are relatively trivial problems to fix from protocol design perspective and provide highest returns on investment even after factoring in lag time to get changes propagated thru a good enough percentage of worlds network stacks.

They were somehow designed on the assumption that all participating machines are well behaved good citizens. In practice this ain't
happening (see SYN flood for example, there are "mitigation" measure but none is a definitive "fix").

SYN flood has never offered an attacker amplification..it was limited to a cheesy device to overload host TCP implementations. Cookies have since been universally deployed rendering these attacks useless. Today they are only useful for covert signaling and masking source of non-amplified attack... More importantly these things only work at all because operators are lazy and refuse to implement Ingress filtering. It isn't IP's fault.

These need to be replaced with something that would be resistant to mischief by design.

I'm all ears ... what do you propose?

Personally I think the premise is invalid. All the network need do is deliver packets with some degree of probability of being delivered. I think it is architecturally correct to leave the edge to sort out how to conduct business in in a mischief avoidant manner.

Otherwise as far as I am aware the only way to stop "mischief" is to turn the Internet into a trusted network. A trusted network is not a free and open network...neither is it particularly practical as we have seen again and again the demonstrated futility of managing planet scale trust anchors.

If ever there was an example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions this type of "secure the Internet" thinking I assert fits that bill.

I think our time is better spent looking above IP layer to fix what is most broke and that which causes most actual damage to actual users. (e.g. SMTP)

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (2)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 4 months ago | (#46996053)

Otherwise as far as I am aware the only way to stop "mischief" is to turn the Internet into a trusted network.

Not this won't really work, what would you do, after verifying the identity of the other party and comparing with your whitelist you would assume that it's "trusted" and thus well behaved citizen. Which may not be true (compromised host with a trojan sending malformed packets etc).

The only robust method would be to assume at protocol design phase that the stack would be connected to a hostile environment where every single packet could be mischievous. "Trust no one" and design to not crash in such conditions.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (1)

mozumder (178398) | about 4 months ago | (#46994593)

Latency is a terrible problem on the Internet.

And it's not just for phone/video conferencing.

Try driving a car with a remote control over the Internet.

Games also need deterministic latency.

Re: How is it broken, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994795)

Good luck changing that regardless of how you design your new shiny internet.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46994749)

It started to become broken once corporations butted in. Now it's probably broken beyond repair.

Next time you plan an internet, keep the beancounters away from it.

Re:How is it broken, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994829)

You also forgot one of the biggest services on it, the web.
I say we just delete the web and move on as a society. It is nothing but awfulness, corruption, and silly pictures made by 14 year olds with terrible spelling.

nothing is broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995839)

a bunch of control freak non-tech fags want more control, so they claim something they don't control is "broken", so they must "fix it" so they can control it.

just replace the word "broken" with "not under my complete control so I'm paranoid as shit about my totalitarian plans"

No one! (4, Funny)

plopez (54068) | about 4 months ago | (#46994425)

We just let the Free Market, may its name ever be praised, sort it out. As stated in the immaculate scripture given to us by the
Profits (sic) Rand and Smith points out we just need to deregulate and the miracle will follow. Praise be!

Re:No one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994443)

it was the bloody free market that broke it , damn spammers and advertisers and corporations rent seeking and money grubbing

Re: No one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995179)

Free market? You mean the one driven by government grants, payoffs, incenti ve programs and closed door meetings? There is no free market when multi billion dollar international companies get bailouts because they made bad decisions.

Re:No one! (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46995177)

Smith actually new we would need regulation. What people quote from him was about a economic based society that could only exist inside the head of an economic philosopher, and he knew that.

So don't blame Smith, blame the jack asses that either don't read him, or don't understand them.

These people cherry pick his quotes out of context... just like they do with the bible..hmm I see a pattern.

Internet2 (4, Funny)

antdude (79039) | about 4 months ago | (#46994433)

What about Internet2? :P

Re:Internet2 (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#46995933)

Why do we even need an internet when we can just get all our data from the cloud?

Buzzword bingo 2.0! (2)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 4 months ago | (#46994439)

So I guess we've moved on from "TEH CLOUDS" to "The internet of things"?

Fucking shoot me.

Re:Buzzword bingo 2.0! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994519)

internet of things was a buzzword before the cloud was a buzzword

be that as it may, i agree whoever shoots him shoot me too

Re:Buzzword bingo 2.0! (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 months ago | (#46996095)

internet of things was a buzzword before the cloud was a buzzword

Everything old is new again. The cloud was around long before it was called the cloud.

Re:Buzzword bingo 2.0! (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 months ago | (#46994523)

You forgot terms like "paradigm shift" and "monitization" also "hashtag."

Re: Buzzword bingo 2.0! (4, Funny)

lazybeam (162300) | about 4 months ago | (#46994641)

Don't get caught up in the synergy!

Re:Buzzword bingo 2.0! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994827)

I hear you like to get smacked in the face by hard faggot dicks.

Re:Buzzword bingo 2.0! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994935)

I hear you like to get smacked in the face by #HardFaggotDicks.

FTFY

Re:Buzzword bingo 2.0! (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46995187)

well, one depend on the other, so not moved on so much as just about solved and now dealing with the next advancement.

But hey, people like you have no grasp of technology and society, so you just belittle the terms.

Re:Buzzword bingo 2.0! (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 4 months ago | (#46995835)

No, I'm the poor bastard that continually gets sucked into meeting after meeting with ignorant salesdrones spouting nonsense like "Internet of Things" and "Clouds" ( when they, themselves, haven't got a god damned clue what they're saying ), wasting time I should be spending on actual IT work.

High enough to be technical lead, not high enough to farm that shit out to my staff.

Ah, but if I don't go to it and correct the bullshit as it happens, it will have time to implant itself into management's head, and by the time I become aware of it it's already gained enough momentum to be called a "Project".

Mesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994447)

Mesh networks.. Problem solved..

Re:Mesh (2)

maliqua (1316471) | about 4 months ago | (#46994527)

seems that the internet already is a mesh network...

Just no. (2)

pla (258480) | about 4 months ago | (#46994469)

The internet has nothing wrong with it that we couldn't fix with a combination of net neutrality and convincing American ISPs to get off their asses and bring us up to speed with the rest of the third world.

As for this BS marketroid term "Internet of Things"... Please people, just... Don't let them win. The internet has always had "things" on it. Whether that "thing" means your PC or your phone or your microwave. The idea of having every device in your house online should terrify you, not delight you, so fuck upgrades that make it easier for your fridge to tell the NSA that you eat the same things as Joe Terrorist.

Re:Just no. (0)

taikedz (2782065) | about 4 months ago | (#46994649)

The main thing that is wrong with the Internet is that it's still an academic plaything.

It was invented for use in a lab, and extended for use by trustable peers across the country. Then someone opened the floodgates.

What we need is a base infrastructure that is paranoid by design, not trusting by nature.

Oh and one that is capable of handling bazillions of entities on it.

Re:Just no. (3, Insightful)

dnavid (2842431) | about 4 months ago | (#46994779)

The internet has nothing wrong with it that we couldn't fix with a combination of net neutrality and convincing American ISPs to get off their asses and bring us up to speed with the rest of the third world.

Net neutrality and speed increases would not solve the intrinsic problems with DNS architecture, NAT proxies breaking things, gigantic non-aggregate BGP tables, limited IPv4 address space, limitations of TCP protocol, ICMP mismanagement, lack of standards to address continuous disruption in mobile environments, and a whole mess of other problems that are currently addressed by patchwork solutions, or simply no solutions.

As for this BS marketroid term "Internet of Things"... Please people, just... Don't let them win. The internet has always had "things" on it. Whether that "thing" means your PC or your phone or your microwave. The idea of having every device in your house online should terrify you, not delight you, so fuck upgrades that make it easier for your fridge to tell the NSA that you eat the same things as Joe Terrorist.

At one time, people said the same thing about PC connectivity to the internet. Who are you that you need to connect to the global internet. The internet is for mainframes and important computers; why would you want anyone else to be able to connect to your computer, and why should we allow you to connect to everyone elses?

Paranoia notwithstanding, it should be up to individuals to decide what they connect and how they connect and what capabilities they decide to leverage. But if you think its bad for your fridge to be connected to the internet, I have no idea why you would allow your computer to be connected to it either. That's infinitely more dangerous.

Re:Just no. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46995193)

Security.

Re:Just no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995635)

It isn't just the fact that with IoT, the refrigerator monitors and tells your health insurance companies what you eat... but the fact that it is a wide open field for remote attacks. Think companies that make devices will have decent security. Nope... doesn't make them money.

With the IoT, I can see asshole-ness going up a notch. Blenders and small appliances get run while dry and burn out. The A/C's compressor run without a fan and burns out. The furnace run without a fan, cracking the heat exchanger, then CO detectors are disabled, so the occupants of the house are all killed. A stove turning on and causing a fire. A microwave set to have it turn on when opened, immediately giving cataracts.

Of course, all the info that these devices will be going to advertisers, and possibly, DA offices. In the US, there is a need to jail people because private prisons need to show they are a growth industry, so 24/7 gathering of evidence wouldn't be surprising.

Trust me, keep the amount of Internet connected devices to a minimum. A computer/phone/tablet, the router, and that's it. The CCTV cameras should be on a network segment NOT connected to the Internet.

Simple. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994483)

We must integrate cloud solutions with modern app interfaces. Then we can utilize a lateral optimization strategy to compete on a global level.

Re:Simple. (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about 4 months ago | (#46994543)

i love what you've done there

sad thing is, I've been in meetings which you would have only just barely met the minimum level off bullshit buzzwords in a sentence to hang out with the cool kids

Commercial Internet (0)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | about 4 months ago | (#46994487)

Back when they started to allow commercial content on the Internet, they should have made a few more rules:

1. Require a business license to get a .com
2. Require 501 non-profit status to get a .org
3. Require a /24 network to get a .net
4. Make a new TLD for everything else.

Look at how well this worked for .edu. (must be an accredited, four year, degree-granting organization).

Re:Commercial Internet (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 4 months ago | (#46994517)

Or it should have been setup in such a way that we had no TLDs in the first place. It's just obnoxious to have CocaCola.org Cocacola.net Cocacola.org Cocacola.tv Cocacola.biz etc.

Just have CocaCola. The end. Nothing more.

Re:Commercial Internet (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46994651)

Just have Pepsi.

FTFY!

No wait, screw that.

Just have Water.

There we go.

Re:Commercial Internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994563)

Look at how well this worked for .edu. (must be an accredited, four year, degree-granting organization).

Community colleges are not four year schools and they all have .edu addresses.

Re:Commercial Internet (3, Interesting)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 4 months ago | (#46994599)

1. Require a business license to get a .com

A business license from whom? Not everyplace requires a business license to have a business.

2. Require 501 non-profit status to get a .org

Good. Limit .org to US only.

Look at how well this worked for .edu. (must be an accredited, four year, degree-granting organization).

Really? The local community college has a .edu name. As I recall, phoenix.edu too.

Re:Commercial Internet (3, Informative)

gewalker (57809) | about 4 months ago | (#46995039)

Surprisingly, Phoenix University is accredited, although it has been placed on notice -- i.e., subject to losing its accreditation as documented on their website [phoenix.edu]

Of course, this indicates that accreditation is not exactly a true Gold Standard.

use POT (Personal Open Terminal) 24/7 comms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994505)

improve... can you see us {;^)-(-)=? not only is everybody on the same page with POT the obvious corepirate nazi gestapo hired goon hypenosys talknicians stick out like a nun at an abortion clininc like spirit based mirrors of each other us ordinary citizen socmed participants

We can do it. (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 months ago | (#46994515)

We'll build our own Internet. With Booze, Blackjack and Hookers!

Wait, that's the current Internet. Uhm, how about faster speeds, lower prices and some privacy? That'd be a good start.

Re:We can do it. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46994797)

I'd already settle for lower speeds, higher price sand some privacy. Like, say, it was two decades ago. Before the arrival of corporations.

In other words, the easy fix for better internet is simple: Kick corporations out and hang spammers from their nuts.

Re:We can do it. (1)

gewalker (57809) | about 4 months ago | (#46995161)

Actually, I like being able to order stuff online, maybe watch a funny vid from YouTube, org check the news online, or run a search, etc.. -- I don't have an inherent problem with commercial activity on the net -- Not that there isn't a lot of total garbage from commercial sources.

I would really like to see the proposed action against spammers. Unfortunately I don't know how to achieve this reliably and quickly (so as to discourage spammers and other evils) using the current trust every packet by default design internet.

I remember explaining email to my dad many years ago. Once he understand it, his first question? Who pays for it. This is in fact part of the problem on the Internet (spammers push the cost onto everyone else) and will continue to do so as long as the current design is used. Look up the history of mail delivery in England and you will see that changing from receiver pays to sender pays fixed major problems with the mail system.

Switching costs to a better design are unfortunately very high as well. So fixing real problems is slow indeed, even when well-designed and mostly up-ward compatible

Re:We can do it. (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 months ago | (#46996141)

So you want like AOL and Earthlink back?

Doing my part to help fix it as is instead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994525)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - E.F. Schumacher/Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:Doing my part to help fix it as is instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994671)

"** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!"

You're right, like using an actual hosts FILE rather than a dubious piece of malware to accomplish the same damn thing.

Good luck doing these to it by hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994723)

Sorting, Deduplicating, & worst of all, removing all the garbage in hosts from sources intermittently thru some of their files, over potentially millions (you start with 250k or so lines) of lines as I have built up since 1997...

* :)

I designed this to make it easier for less techy end users & to do a good job of what it states it can do for you in its download page I note (noted as best of its kind on the malwarebytes/hpHosts website -> @ the top/outset, in fact...http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download )

APK

P.S.=> You can emulate some of what it does in scripts, yes, THAT is ugly + primitive & users don't want/use those - they want GUI easy!

So, this gives them that (along with speeding them up 2 ways, making connections more reliable vs. dns failure or redirects of many varying kinds, + more secure & even more anonymous to an extent) in 1 easy to use file, a couple button clicks away with data from a dozen++ reputable & reliable sources in the security community no less... apk

The only broken (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 4 months ago | (#46994557)

thing about the Internet is numbnuts like you and others thinking it is broken. Mandate that ISPs be nothing than dumb pipes and any "perceived" problems disappear or resolved.

require a test (2)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 4 months ago | (#46994583)

Just like getting a HAM license, and use call letters as unique identifiers too.

He did it once (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994601)

Al Gore

Seems OK to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994615)

Never been a better time to be into Down Syndrome BBW fetish porn.

My ideal internet (1)

MpVpRb (1423381) | about 4 months ago | (#46994619)

It's fast and secure

Anonymous if you want, although I think most people really don't care

Totally free of any and all censorship..of any kind..absolutely..no exceptions

I don't care how compelling your argument is..no censorship..ever..for anything..ever

Reality may be ugly..but truth is good, no exceptions

Here's our chance (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46994659)

Let's make the evil bit flag a reality!

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994709)

Bigger tubes, then?

Where the f*ck is Al Gore when you need him?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994731)

Oh, he's busy inventing the solution to the problem of "Climate Disruption" (R) so he must be out of ideas for his baby, teh internetz of thingz.

my guess? (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 4 months ago | (#46994737)

Al Gore's son.

The internet is not broken... (1)

Eddy_D (557002) | about 4 months ago | (#46994805)

If anything, the ISPs are broken, in that they see no justification in expanding their bandwidth as there is no profit in it. True that IPv4 has reached saturation, however that rolls into the ISPs attitudes (including wireless carriers) who are sitting on the fence instead of upgrading to IPv6. It all comes down to the bottom line... there is no profit in going to IPv6 for them.

Doing my part to help fix it as is instead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46994835)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> Reposting to spite a troll that downmodded me here already once before http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

"The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

...apk

Internet is broken. Health care is broken. (4, Insightful)

SensitiveMale (155605) | about 4 months ago | (#46994909)

Immigration is broken. The VA is broken. Congress is broken.

Can we please stop labeling everything as being "broken."

Don't forget the slash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995249)

Don't forget the slash. New versions are now worse than old ones. Slash is not broken? Or it is? Please opine, Sensitive one.

so really the point was this: (2)

nimbius (983462) | about 4 months ago | (#46994923)

NSF:$15 million to support three, multi-institutional projects that will further develop, deploy and test future Internet architectures.
news toilet:: science men confirm internet is fucking broken, and will efax new code to ensure epals can cyber talk better. Possibly related to hillary benghazi female kidnapping tea party obamacare, actually.

Re:so really the point was this: (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 months ago | (#46996101)

Possibly related to hillary benghazi female kidnapping tea party obamacare, actually.

I knew it all made sense!

Its not broken (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 4 months ago | (#46995003)

But it is being perverted into something it isn't intended on being. ( a privacy sucking marketing tool )

OSI ? (1)

ArmchairAstronomer (724678) | about 4 months ago | (#46995051)

I spent a lot of time OSI-ing (Open System Interconnect) in my youth. Had lots of great features, even way back then. Much thought went into how to solve many of the problems that we seem to have with today's Internet. No need to start from scratch. We could even run DECnet over it. I could hook up my old VAX!

Needs an IQ test to enter (1)

hessian (467078) | about 4 months ago | (#46995475)

The problem with the internet is that if you add commerce and a clueless general population, you get behavior that is only appropriate in dive bars.

Make the same internet, put an IQ test on the door, and let in 120s and up and you'll have someplace worth attending.

Replace IP addresses with public keys (2)

Baldrson (78598) | about 4 months ago | (#46995525)

You shouldn't be connecting with "host IPs" but with services addressed with their public keys.

I was about to say about the same thing (1)

Marrow (195242) | about 4 months ago | (#46995721)

The DNS/IP thing is a nightmare. The system should be based on discovery, and not a distributed list like it is.

I was going to go with some kind of md5hash deal, but your idea is much better. And I think ports should become
part of the address. So that you can run thousands of services on the same machine. Instead of the virtual hosts
thing they do with websites.

Re:I was about to say about the same thing (1)

Baldrson (78598) | about 4 months ago | (#46995759)

Just have a different public key for each service whether they are on the same machine or not. Every public key is a "port" into the service space.

Re:I was about to say about the same thing (1)

Marrow (195242) | about 4 months ago | (#46995831)

Hmm, I kinda like my idea better. I think having the port in the key, will cut down on extra connections. The port could be delivered during discovery, but I would hate to get that mangled by evildoers running a service on the same machine somehow.

But I am probably not undertanding your idea. Anyway, well done.

Re: Replace IP addresses with public keys (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995751)

And how would you route those packets?

We should have content-addressable and identity-addressable protocols. But we can build those on top of IP. The problem is firewalls. Unless your app uses TCP, or in many cases HTTP, you cannot reach a good portion of the end nodes.

Re:Replace IP addresses with public keys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995793)

how would you scale the routing tables?

Uh OK (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#46995553)

How about we just make use of the technologies we have already, namely mesh networks and IPv6, to make backbone providers irrelevant aside as links between countries? Oh wait, the entrenched powers writing the laws won't have any of that shit.

Re:Uh OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995809)

yes. exactly. ipv6 came with a geographic addressing option that would have substantially limited
the power of backbone providers and essentially ensured network neutrality and a level competitive
playing field

do you think the people in charge of the business of addressing and routing thought that was a good
idea?

drinkypoo?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995943)

Your username is "drinkypoo"?? Man, this whole time I've been calling you "dinkypoo". Sorry 'bout that bro.

Re:Uh OK (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 months ago | (#46996113)

I'm absolutely in favor of mesh networks, and think they are great idea.

However, they have a problem I've never been able to see how to resolve. In the mesh, everyone has a limited amount of bandwidth, maybe gigabit or even let's say terabit or something, but still limited. The people who live next to Google or Netflix or Facebook are really going to be screwed, because all that traffic is going through their wireless routers.

How do you solve the problem that ultimately most of the traffic on the internet goes to a few places?

internet of things (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 4 months ago | (#46995557)

shut up, just shut the fuck up.
ahem, sorry.
i definitely look forward to the day when my fridge and microwave can start blogging about about what a pig i am.

It's these kind of headlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46995857)

That make me think slashdot is just an opinion directing entity.

So? (1)

paiute (550198) | about 4 months ago | (#46995909)

Will this newfangled Internet still have to come into my house over the Comcast wire?
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>