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!

Researchers Scheming to Rebuild Internet From Scratch

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the can-i-have-the-old-one-when-you're-done-with-it dept.

The Internet 254

BobB writes "Stanford University researchers have launched an initiative called the Clean Slate Design for the Internet. The project aims to make the network more secure, have higher throughput, and support better applications, all by essentially rebuilding the Internet from scratch. From the article: 'Among McKeown's cohorts on the effort is electrical engineering Professor Bernd Girod, a pioneer of Internet multimedia delivery. Vendors such as Cisco, Deutsche Telekom and NEC are also involved. The researchers already have projects underway to support their effort: Flow-level models for the future Internet; clean slate approach to wireless spectrum usage; fast dynamic optical light paths for the Internet core; and a clean slate approach to enterprise network security (Ethane).'"

cancel ×

254 comments

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

The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (5, Funny)

mikecardii (978929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365829)

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the techonology. We can make it better, faster, stronger.

Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (1)

Fyre2012 (762907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366075)

We can make it better, faster, stronger.
Now if we could only rewrite Windows from the ground up :)

Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (4, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366139)

Now if we could only rewrite Windows from the ground up

Didn't you see the story the other day?

We are [reactos.org] .

Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (3, Interesting)

kaizenfury7 (322351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366117)

....and with DRM baked in.

Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (2, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366253)

Funny, that was exactly what I thought even before I read the summary. I bet there will be no chance to browse anonymously this time.

Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (5, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366351)

"Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the techonology. We can make it better, faster, stronger."

Unfortunatly, I'm afraid they will make it more censorable, more business oriented vs. regular people, less anonymous, more regulated, govt/UN controlled, politically correct...and as someone mentioned, full DRM support forever.

Frankly, for all its faults, I like the internet now as it is...kind of the 'wild west' of information. That just has to 'kill' some of those in power around the world.

I think the last thing we want to do, is recreate it, now that those in power know what free flow of information can do...

Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366521)

I think the last thing we want to do, is recreate it, now that those in power know what free flow of information can do...

Indeed, the only way to "recreate" it is to make it even more decentralized and unregulated!

I don't want The Six Million Dollar 'Net. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366667)

Every time I download a file or visit a web site, I'll have to hear that cheezy "na-na-na-na-na" sound effect.

Damnit (5, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365843)

I haven't even upgraded to Internet2 and Web 2.0 and they're already doing work on Internet3.

Re:Damnit (1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365905)

I haven't even upgraded to Internet2 and Web 2.0 and they're already doing work on Internet3.

They're not just working on Internet3. They're working on Internet360, which is 120 times better than plain old Internet3.

Re:Damnit (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366099)

Maybe we could have email then, that doesn't tell me that my penis is too small, and needs C1alis. Because, like, those are both totally not true. I blame the Internet.

Re:Damnit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366355)

I haven't even upgraded to Internet2 and Web 2.0 and they're already doing work on Internet3.

Me neither. I'm waiting until at least Internet XP and may even hold out until Internet Vista with the built-in DRM (Digital Rights Manacles). Of course, then I'll have to buy all new hardware in order to run the Internet at full resolution.

Hmm.. (2, Funny)

chowder (606127) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365855)

Is someone going to call Al Gore and get his opinion on this?

Re:Hmm.. (0, Redundant)

whorapedia.com (1070006) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365991)

Oh right - because he invented the internet... hahaha... good one, jackass [sethf.com]

Re:Hmm.. (4, Funny)

choongiri (840652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366193)

Pssst... I think you may find this page informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366465)

Only a dumbass [wiktionary.org] would think that that joke was funny, jackass [wiktionary.org] .

Re:Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366491)

I think I love you

Sounds great... (2, Insightful)

cedricfox (228565) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365859)

...but the biggest hurdle is convincing people not to connect to these shiny new networks until it's all in place, end-to-end. It seems like this would have to be physically secured while it is being put together.

Re:Sounds great... (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365925)

> ...but the biggest hurdle is convincing people not to connect to these shiny new networks until it's all in place, end-to-end. It seems like this would have to be physically secured while it is being put together.

Oh, that's simple. Don't put any pr0n, MP3z, movies, or warez on it until it goes live. Then, unleash the .torrents of hell.

Re:Sounds great... (1)

fmobus (831767) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365933)

Why? I'd rather let it grow "organically" than getting everyone online at once. Nevertheless, I think the burden would be interfacing legacy stuff (the tubes we are using now) with the shiny new stuff consistently.

Re:Sounds great... (1)

cedricfox (228565) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366137)

Well yes, but then you have the new fast Internet with its own security protocols, and they're compromised, de facto, by being attached to the old Internet and its legacy protocols and modes.

Re:Sounds great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18365973)

Exactly what I thought when I saw this news. The good thing about the internet is its contents. To get people to use the new internet, you would have to bridge it with the old one and let people access old and new internets at the same time. But that would compromise the security, wouldn't it?

What material will they use? (0, Redundant)

Recovering Hater (833107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365871)

Are they going to go with rigid copper, flexible copper or PVC? It is just a bunch of tubes right?

Re:What material will they use? (1)

Tokimasa (1011677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365893)

Maybe pneumatic tubes. Or carbon nanotubes. Or inner tubes.

Re:What material will they use? (1)

xerxesVII (707232) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365977)

Inner tubes. It is the Innernet, after all.

Re:What material will they use? (1, Funny)

EinZweiDrei (955497) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366023)

I'm thinking manicotti.

Re:What material will they use? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366327)

Those transport ones in Futurama looked pretty fun.

Re:What material will they use? (4, Funny)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366361)

It is just a bunch of tubes right?

Actually they discovered the problem is that the current internet is a bunch of tubes. Tubes get clogged. The new internet will be big trucks you dump stuff on.

Re:What material will they use? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366631)

In soviet russia the internet trucks dump on you!

What are the odds (5, Insightful)

Lokatana (530146) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365877)

What are the odds that, even given a great plan, that this has any hope of making it to daylight. IPv6 has been out for how long, yet how much real adoption have we seen in that space?

Re:What are the odds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366069)

IPv6 is an incremental change to one component of the entire communications structure.

CleanSlate is apparently about stepping back from the entire structure and asking how we could best reach end goals of communication (e.g. sending a secure text message to a colleague, not "how to encrypt Email better").

And this is done with lessons learned in mind along with all the mathematical techniques we've honed since internetworking began.

Do the project initiators think their ideas will be put into practice? Who knows. I bet they don't either...yet. Looks like a grand thought experiment which may inform future, specific design in small areas or possibly-but-probably-not result in a well considered, complete replacement design for a new global networking structure.

I'm just happy some bright minds are going to put some serious time thinking about and discussing the idea.

Re:What are the odds (1)

SEAL (88488) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366279)

The only way such a project will succeed is if it can be implemented side-by-side with the existing infrastructure, and then provide a migration path to keep costs down for companies. If the hardware changes are minimal, and their existing business is not impacted, then companies may make the jump. However, part of it is a chicken-or-egg problem. Companies don't want to migrate to an arena with no consumers, yet consumers don't want to use an Internet with no stores.

There would have to be additional, compelling benefits to switch. Say, for example, the existing Internet continues to degrade in performance under the burden of spam and DDoS attacks. If the new network provides built-in avoidance of those issues, then the incentive to use it is stronger.

Re:What are the odds (4, Informative)

griebels2 (998954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366373)

The problem of IPv6 is due to the fact that it just doesn't work besides IPv4. You essentially need to build and maintain two seperate networks. Yes, you can share the same equipment, but the amount of configuration involved almost never justifies the efforts in corporate environments.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things that need to be fixed for an "Internet for the future". One of the biggest hurdles of course is the address space shortage of IPv4, but there are a lot of other issues which need to be solved. Just to name a few:
- More flexible routing of unique identifiers (let's call them IP numbers), so I can take my "identifier" with me (think mobile phones)
- A solution to the ever growing "global routing table" (BGP4 as it is used today)
- Better support for quality of service from end-to-end.
- Better "multicasting" support, also end-to-end. (Let's avoid burning down networks during "cataclysmic" events)
- Better redundancy. Although dynamic routing protocols should heal this problems, in practice they often fail to do this. Especially in cases where connections are semi-dead)
- A much better built-in protection against DDoSes and other kind of abuses.

Unfortunately, IPv6 really fixes none of those problems, except the IP number shortage. IPv6 also comes at great costs, since you need to upgrade your whole infrastructure at once, or it isn't really usable.

So, IPv6 might have been a nice lesson for the next generation "IP protocol". IMHO this next generation should take the following things in mind:

- Transition only works if it plays nicely with the legacy stuff during the transition.
- Transition has either to be cheap or must have so many advantages that you simply cannot refuse.
- Vendors need to agree upon a single standard, or somebody with a large impact should "dictate" it in the worst scenario.

Reading TFA, I was quite disapointed, because anything about how this transition to this cleanslate network seems to be absent at this time. But it is still a research project and maybe somebody did learn something from the IPv6 "fiasco".

Re:What are the odds (5, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366689)

The flip side is that some of your suggestions can have detrimental effects too:

- Better support for quality of service from end-to-end.

In other words, better support for introducing favoritism between ISPs and content providers, so that (for example) AT&T can extort money from Google and shut down BitTorrent. No thanks; I prefer the "dumb," route-everything-equally, neutral Internet we have now.

- A much better built-in protection against DDoSes and other kind of abuses.

And much better protection against free speech, anonymity, etc. Again, no thanks.

- Vendors need to agree upon a single standard, or somebody with a large impact should "dictate" it in the worst scenario. [emphasis added]

Yeah, that "somebody" being AT&T or Microsoft, who would undoubtedly screw it up with Treacherous Computing, built-in "micropayment" toll booths, and assorted other bullshit. Still sound like a great idea?

Won't work IMO (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365879)

No matter how good a set of tools you make, some^H^H^H^H most people will use them incorrectly. I have yet to see a corporate network designed in a way that both makes sense and is secure at any place I've worked or knew anything about, despite all the good information available on how to do both.

Re:Won't work IMO (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365951)

Most corporate networks make sense when they were first deployed, but that was back in the 80s and the technology (not to mention corporate layout) has changed enough that it seems crazy today. I know our tech guys here work really hard to keep everything up to date, and for the most part our network is sane, but sometimes there are cases of legacy systems that really look out of place next to everything else.

I want to know how they're going to avoid the second system effect with their new internet. One of the big reasons the Internet works is because a lot of effort was spent in keeping everything reasonably simple. Time has shown that anything that start out highly complicated tends to be only very slowly adopted, if at all. IP may have terrible security but at least it doesn't require someone 10 man-years to build a fully compliant router.

Re:Won't work IMO (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366421)

I think it would be far simpler to first build new protocols, to replace things like smtp, and pop first. kill off FTP to replace it completely with SFTP.

Once that part is done moving to better hardware will be easier.

Re:Won't work IMO (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366821)

But if you're just transfering publicly available files over using anonymous accounts, then what is the point of SFTP? I understand the need to get rid of telnet, which I would assume is never anonymous login, but things like FTP do have their place. Why not just get rid of HTTP, and use HTTPS all the the time?

Clean Slate Precursor (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365889)

>a clean slate approach to enterprise network security (Ethane).

Kinda flammable, and not shiny enough. I suggest we take it one step further and use ethylene.

Question for Slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18365901)

Totally offtopic but wtf is this [photobucket.com] ?

Making money is fine. Selling out with ads is fine. But putting a bright orangish yellow bar on the homepage of your site is just not friendly to the eye. We provide your content, Slashdot. Users first or you won't need to worry about your income, you won't have any content.

The Plan (0, Flamebait)

ReidMaynard (161608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365903)

Step 1. Make Outlook & Exchange Illegal
<eom>

Re:The Plan (1)

gregleimbeck (975759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365949)

Umm...IE maybe?

I'll get right on that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18365907)

And once it's completed, will the switch to it be as blindingly fast and as painless as moving to IPv6? Oh, look! An X.25 gateway!

anonymity vs. accountability (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365931)

Can be found here [stanford.edu] , is linked to within the first link provided in the summary.

One of the most interesting criteria for a new internet, to me, was criteria #7:

Support anonymity where prudent, and accountability where necessary.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems true anonymity is becoming more and more important, and less and less available, as governments snoop more on the internet.

Re:anonymity vs. accountability (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366313)

Yeah, I'm not sure how to fix this, but it seems to me that it's the single greatest problem with the internet. If you really know what you're doing, you can stay anonymous when you want to do something nefarious. However, if you're just a standard know-nothing user, all your innocuous activities are recorded all the time.

That's the exact opposite of what you want. It's not an unusual sort of security problem, and like I said, I don't know how to fix it because how do you distinguish between nefarious and innocuous? Still, it seems to me that it's at the heart of the virus/spam problem. How do you make sure that e-mail is coming from a valid source (which would allow you to eliminate SPAM and e-mail viruses) without requiring everyone to register their e-mail address to a real-life identity (thereby destroying anonymous e-mail).

Re:anonymity vs. accountability (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366341)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems true anonymity is becoming more and more important, and less and less available, as governments snoop more on the internet.

On the other hand, unless you want this to be a tool only for and by the government, you've got to get businesses comfortable with it. Banks. Retailers. Airlines. Anonymity (of the you-can't-track-my-pr0n-use, or the posting-as-a-troll, or the PRC-can't-ID-the-rebel variety) is antithetical to trustworthy transactions, and without money changing hands, the plumbing is WAY less useful to the huge swaths of the economy that would fund (indirectly) the growth and adoption of such a thing.

"Where prudent" and "as necessary" etc., are completely subjective. People who like to rip off movies have one set of priorities, and people who administer your payroll or need to transmit your cancer meds prescription are looking at it from a very different perspective.

WTF is Ethane? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365939)

Besides the obvious, I mean? This is what is wrong with using common words as names for major projects. You can't find them with google!

Re:WTF is Ethane? (1)

DBCubix (1027232) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366053)

Ethane sounds like 'vapor'ware to me. haha

Re:WTF is Ethane? (1)

jim3e8 (458859) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366257)

Generally true, although the highly popular projects such as Gallery [google.com] tend to rise to the top nonetheless.

Re:WTF is Ethane? (1)

VitrosChemistryAnaly (616952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366265)

You can't find them with google!
I typed in (or rather, copied and pasted) "enterprise network security (Ethane)" into google. You'll notice those are the last 4 words in the article summary. My first hit was this website [stanford.edu] .

What's so damned hard about that?

ChangeOver (1)

imscarr (246204) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365953)

Now if we can all just leave the planet for a while, while the people in charge can do the changeover...

Re:ChangeOver (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366201)

Now if we can all just leave the planet for a while, while the people in charge can do the changeover...

Just wait a few months for the USA to invade Iran, causing both Iran and North Korea to launch nukes, followed by the USA's inevitible retaliation. All the EMP's will burn out the vast majority of the existing internet, paving the way for the quick adoption of all this new technology!

Hasn't this been tried before? (3, Insightful)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365965)

I think it was called OS/2. Or maybe 68000. Or was it Itanium?

Re:Hasn't this been tried before? (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366065)

Yes, a great many projects that aim to "start from scratch" don't really make it. However, it's often the case that starting from scratch enables people to think about solutions from a fresh perspective, without all their old assumptions. Even if the actual "from scratch" product never really comes about, or if it comes about and is unsuccessful, often the solutions and the fresh insight creep into the old legacy systems' updates.

Re:Hasn't this been tried before? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366615)

Actually the 68000 was very successful. It is still found in many embedded systems and sold millions of units.
OS/2 failed not because it was a clean sheet but because it wasn't. IBM insisted that it run on the 286. Microsoft wanted to drop the 286 and design a version that would be multi-platform and 32-bit so IBM pushed ahead with Microsoft's help with OS/2 2.0 and Microsoft started work on Version 3... They later stuck the windows GUI on it and called it Windows NT.

Itanium? Who knows. The PentiumPro as looked down on because it ran 16 bit code slower than a Pentium it was only used in some high end workstations and servers. Later it grew into the Pentium III.

What I really want (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18365981)

If they make a second Slashdot, I hope it will have a better dupe checker.

Who's In Charge? (5, Insightful)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 7 years ago | (#18365983)

Unless this is being run by the IETF with EFF looking over their shoulder the whole time, I don't trust this to end up as something I want to use.

Re:Who's In Charge? (1)

JohnnyGTO (102952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366105)

Amen to that brother. It would be like the current boobs in office rebuilding the American Constitution!

Ethane ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366009)

Is it a Green House gas ? I guess that they are working on a protocol named Kyoto ?

Just my two cents.

Clean Slate Design (1)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366013)

...sounds so much better than Not Invented Here [wikipedia.org]

This reminds me of Meskimen's Law... (3, Interesting)

wuie (884711) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366043)

"There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over."

Re:This reminds me of Meskimen's Law... (3, Insightful)

starseeker (141897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366427)

As frustrating as it may seem, there are actually fairly sound reasons for this in some situations. I would argue the internet was one.

In theory, ten years of computer science research might have produced a better design for the internet than the one we have today, back when it was first being developed. However, we have learned a lot from the scale-up that on a practical level would be fairly hard to duplicate in a research setting. Sometimes you just don't think of the possible consequences until you see them happen, particularly things due to human beings TRYING to bring down the system. Think about how long telnet lasted, for example.

In all honesty, it's a miracle the world wide web has scaled the way it has - consider the original scope of the military networks and the small amounts of data they were transmitting. The original designs were to Get Something Working and Justify Our Budget - that's how it has to work. I'd say the return on investment for the various stages of the internet has always more than justified even the costs of redoing it. Sometimes you can't wait to figure out how to do it right, because that will take too much time and what you can build NOW is still useful. Think about automobiles - 10 years from now we will undoubtedly be building better ones than we can build today, but the costs of waiting until we know how to do it "right" are much higher than the costs of replacement.

Now, of course, the question of knowing how to do something right is distinct from doing correctly what we already know how to do - one is a research problem, one is an implementation problem. I'm inclined to think that the web is more of a research limitation than a "do it right" issue, although I could be wrong - it depends on how much was known in the beginning states.

Clean Slate vs. Gummed-upTubes (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366051)

"With what we know today, if we were to start again with a clean slate, how would we design a global communications infrastructure"

Get rid of the porn, scam sites and domain squatters - however, this may not be possible.

Re:Clean Slate vs. Gummed-upTubes (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366183)

Get rid of the porn? That's what the internet is for. Everything else is just interfering with porn.

Re:Clean Slate vs. Gummed-upTubes (4, Insightful)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366269)

What's wrong with porn? The network design shouldn't care about content. That's a place for your personal morals or corporate rules, not network topology.

Re:Clean Slate vs. Gummed-upTubes (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366329)

Get rid of the porn, scam sites and domain squatters - however, this may not be possible.
I'm with you on the domain squatters and scam sites. But you'll take the porn from my cold dead... no, wait... warm sticky hands.

Re:Clean Slate vs. Gummed-upTubes (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366375)

Dude, no [google.com]

(Yes, I know the song is from Avenue Q... it's still a funny video)

Thats it... I'm gona make my OWN internet. (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366071)

Thats it... I'm gona make my OWN internet. With blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget about the blackjack and the internet.

Re:Thats it... I'm gona make my OWN internet. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366779)

I'm going to make my OWN Slashdot. Where this stupid non-joke doesn't come up all the time. With hookers, in fact forget the hookers, I've got a GF. (What the fuck am I doing on Slashdot then you might ask? Well fuck you is my reply.)

From overlooked-irony dept (1)

carpeweb (949895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366089)

Admittedly, this is a quibble and slightly off-topic, but they could use a clean slate for their web design. It doesn't fit in my 1024x768 display.

Design isn't everything (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366093)

Often times the best designed technology will lose out to ones that are either marketed more aggressively or are easier to implement. That being the case, inertia is going to be a big factor in this (current internet is already implemented and works fine enough for most people). Something either about the design or "marketing" (government push?) will have to be impressive enough to overcome that inertia. It will be interesting to see if/how that happens.

Re:Design isn't everything (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366407)

I think your point is deserving of a mixed metaphor.

This new design is going to get steamrolled by the freight train that is Internet 1.0.

There. Much better.

Re:Design isn't everything (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366749)

Why exclude ease of implementation when comparing designs?

Re:Design isn't everything (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366805)

You shouldn't really, but I meant one that is more easily implemented will be chosen over one that functions better.

interesting.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366101)

It's an interesting idea considering the internet as it exists today was not designed for the types of usage we're seeing. We've bent and patched and hacked it all together so it'd work well enough but the efficiency and security aspects are seriously lacking.

So maybe we should put this out to the /. experts: If you were going to design the Internet today, knowing the kinds of problems we've seen and knowing the type of usage and availablility people expect, how would you implement it? And would you attempt to make use of the bazillion dollars of existing infrastructure hardware or start COMPLETELY from scratch?

Pushing the envelope with scratch (0, Offtopic)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366147)

For a great history of scratch, check out the documentary Scratch [imdb.com] .

I'm been a fan of scratch technology ever since DJ Qbert made the album Wavetwisters [amazon.com] completely from scratch, and later made the animated film Wavetwisters [amazon.com] from scratch. Now they're making the internet from scratch technology. Which makes sense -- in my mind, scratching is basically analog computation.

Oh yeah, we really need this :( (3, Insightful)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366159)

Hmmm, yep, let's get the experts to redesign the best network ever made.

Let's get the guys that designed all those "wonderful" networks:

  • Morse Code
  • TeleText
  • Telex
  • DECNet
  • IBM's VTAM
  • IBM's CICS
  • IBM's SNA
  • Banyan Vines
  • AppleTalk
  • TELENET
  • CDCNET
  • IBM's LU 6
  • ISO net

Oh yeah, let's get the "EXPERTS" involved!

Interesting (1)

claes (25551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366163)

I would like to see similar a clean slate approach for Unix as well. For example, I am interested in the question - how would Unix work differently if extended attributes were available in all Unix filesystems from the beginning. Tradition often holds back innovation, I feel

Re:Interesting (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366563)

Check out plan9. It was created by the same guys who built the orginial Unix to address some of the complaints they had with it.

What I like about plan 9 is that it would work with everything. You could install it on a tv to act just as a remote or local display. it doesn't care.

with plan 9 the network is just another conduit for passing back data. it doesn't matter what physical resource you are using or where on the network it is located. To the OS it is all the same.

 

Anonymous 'net? (0)

Alcimedes (398213) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366173)

I hope in their quest for better security they don't get rid of annonimity (sp?).

What good is a network to exchange free thinking and ideas if Big Brother is looking over your shoulder the entire time.

Re:Anonymous 'net? (1)

dokhebi (89124) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366385)

I would guess your are all for an anonymous internet until someone starts slandering you, then you will want "Big Brother" to step in and prosecute the individual while you slander somone else from the safety of your anonymity.

This is how it always works.

As always, just my $0.02 worth.

Re:Anonymous 'net? (1)

Alcimedes (398213) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366577)

Then you would guess wrong. Thanks for playing.

It has nothing to do with slander, and everything to do with not trusting government or those in power. When people in China are getting arrested for speaking out online against their leaders, it makes me nervous.

How long until disagreeing with the party line makes you a terrorist and yields you the same treatment here?

Involve the porn barons! (1)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366213)

Get the guys (and gals?) with the high multimedia delivery needs in on it from the start - they'll give you more bangs for the buck for both conception and practical trialling of the new system.

Great! (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366233)

I have already patented scratch. So I am in for a huge stream of royalty payments!

make world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366307)

Isn't rebuilding from scratch the quickest way to get nothing done??

On that note, I would like to rebuild the world from scratch, to make it more secure, reliable, and to eliminate religion. Who's with me?!

Rebuild the Internet (5, Insightful)

hackus (159037) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366337)

Translation:

Lets rebuild the internet because it uses too much open source software and we are not making enough money. I know! Lets get all the vendors together and rebuild it using proprietary crud so that it is impossible for any of these "open source" guys to make server platforms that are freely available.

Lets kill open standards too, because well....who needs those IETF guys anyway! They are just a bunch hippies!

Seriously, though. The internet works better than my cell phone does.

It doesn't need "fixing".

It just needs a few upgrades.

IPV6 would be a nice place to start!

GAD.

The thought of CISCO having a hand in anything the future internet could be makes me want to quit my current network manager job and open an Italian Restraunt.

-gc

-hack

Re:Rebuild the Internet (0, Troll)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366567)

It doesn't need "fixing".
Are you suggesting that the current design is going to be just fine in the year, oh, say, 2500? That we should just say "its as good as it will ever be, for as long as humanity exists on planet earth"?

Progress happens. Deal with it. You don't have to participate if you don't want. Seriously, don't worry, if we need you, we'll call you.

Re:Rebuild the Internet (2, Insightful)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366757)

What's to say the internet they create in 2007 will be any more suitable for the year 2500 than what was created 30 years ago?

The point is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The issues with the existing structure have already been addressed (IPv6, regardless of adoption rate), so I don't see what advantage there is to further development when we don't even have an idea yet what needs to be fixed.

About your sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366663)

Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I thought it was about car accidents that involved a Geo Metro

Awesome (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366357)

Committee designed systems never have faults!

Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366363)

The "internets" will no longer be a typo, huray!

Also, check those URLs!

Yeah, good luck with that. (1)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366393)

I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA won't try to force some kind of low-level piracy-monitoring/reporting mechanism into it. No, not at all.

I see the New Internet joining New Coke in the dustbin of history.

To-DO list (1)

Xymor (943922) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366399)

1- do NOT built-in DRM.

2- do built-in better anonymity and security support.

Interconnection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366401)

This is all cool, if it'll only work for the 200 people involved. I don't think they should use the term "internet" simply because they think globally. In fact, I think they should call it "alternet", because "the" internet is already here, and we have it. Unless they're interconnected, it's not going to gain adoption save for communities with common goals or practices (inter-university networks, interconnected company branches, etc). And IF they're interconnected as to lure the users of the internet to the alternative, how could the alternet maintain the qualities they strive for (accountabilty, safety, throughput) ? Sounds like another elitist innitiative, and from my perspective it has value as a Computer Science project. NOT as an everyday alternative, because it's just not feasible for the current users to switch.

Not just Stanford (1)

beaverbrother (586749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366409)

This kind of research isn't just occurring at Stanford. The NSF has had a big push recently to grant this kind of research across the country.

hey, lets revive DECnet Phase V! (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366515)

or, rather, no, lets not.

(and it got about as much attention as ipv6. they both planned for 'big networks' but we all know how popular OSI is, in the real world...)

So they're really gonna swing it... (1)

blindd0t (855876) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366525)

They're gonna download the Internet?

mommy to researchers... (1)

WheresMyDingo (659258) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366601)

"i turn my back for one second, and you go and start scheming again about building the internet from scratch! isn't this one good enough for you? bad researchers! bad bad researchers!"

fork? (1)

WheresMyDingo (659258) | more than 7 years ago | (#18366641)

why not just fork the internet instead?

Gore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18366653)

this is all just a conspiracy to discredit Al Gore
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>