Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category UCLA Says We Should Start All Over With The Internet
Best solutions to Internet problems is a clean slate do-over
(old news - 05:04PM Saturday Apr 14 2007)
tags: Oddities
Tipped by hurleyp See Profile
“Although it has already taken nearly four decades to get this far in building the Internet, some university researchers with the federal government's blessing want to scrap all that and start over,” according to AP reporter Anick Jesdanun. The reasoning behind the “clean slate” plan is that it is the most effective method of addressing ongoing issues such as those related to security and mobility. The article points out that, in addition to the general difficulties of restructuring the entire architecture of the Internet, it would be difficult to balance out the desires of all of the players in the Internet industry. The world is connected now in a way that wasn’t true when the Internet was first developed and the number of people invested in such a change would make the endeavor complicated, despite what UCLA researchers may think is best.

Related:
  1. When Customers Create Their Own Broadband Contracts
  2. Who Knew Senior Citizens Hated Net Neutrality?
  3. Retired Telco Exec Sent Sloppy AT&T Lobbying Letter
  4. Google: We're Blocking Fewer Nun Calls
  5. Why Run Fiber When You Can Run Ads That Pretend You Do?
  6. Parachutist Jumps From TV Tower
  7. FCC Broadband Problem List Omits 'No Competition,' FCC Itself
  8. Comcast Settles Georgia Overcharging Suit
Forums » UCLA Says We Should Start All Over With The Internet
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast

Start from scratch a good 10 years away at a minimum

»Scrap internet and start over say researchers

Here are some of the "start from scratch" research efforts going on:
Stanford program: »cleanslate.stanford.edu
Carnegie Mellon program: »100x100network.org
Rutgers program: »orbit-lab.org
NSF's GENI: »geni.net
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page

Happi

@charter.com

Re: Start from scratch a good 10 years away at a minimum

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

»Scrap internet and start over say researchers

Here are some of the "start from scratch" research efforts going on:
Stanford program: »cleanslate.stanford.edu
Carnegie Mellon program: »100x100network.org
Rutgers program: »orbit-lab.org
NSF's GENI: »geni.net
...don't forget the NSA's "project AT&T"

calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

Re: Start from scratch a good 10 years away at a minimum

said by Happi :

...don't forget the NSA's "project AT&T"
Amen to that. Dig deep enough on these studies, and you'll undoubtedly find the fingers and funding of those entities that are accustomed to being in control, but have badly been outclassed by innovation, brains, and drive in the Internet world.

This is a thinly-veiled attempt by large entities that aren't on top to get a "do-over"--one that they think they would have a better chance of controlling.

NO WAY!

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

EnasYorl
Thieves World

join:2001-12-02
West
·Verizon Online DSL

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

»Scrap internet and start over say researchers

Here are some of the "start from scratch" research efforts going on:
Stanford program: »cleanslate.stanford.edu
Carnegie Mellon program: »100x100network.org
Rutgers program: »orbit-lab.org
NSF's GENI: »geni.net
This has about as much a chance as wiping gas cars off the earth.

Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..

Seriously?

Whats the point millions lost.

As soon as a new internet is created it'll end up in the same mess we have now just $ wasted to rebuild a working infostucture.

Does this have anything to do with the limitations of ipv4.

I think someone just wants to recreate it for the sake of $not security...
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast

Re: Seriously?

Actually, researchers are doing exactly what researchers should be doing and what they have always done. There are a lot of theses that are conceived every year that look great on paper but will never be funded or ever thought about again.

Some of the concepts dreamt about may work their way into future network upgrades, but the likelihood of a full out Internet rebuild isn't going to happen due to numerous reasons, of which $$ is the obvious one.

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy

Re: Seriously?

said by openbox9 See Profile :

Actually, researchers are doing exactly what researchers should be doing and what they have always done. There are a lot of theses that are conceived every year that look great on paper but will never be funded or ever thought about again.

Some of the concepts dreamt about may work their way into future network upgrades, but the likelihood of a full out Internet rebuild isn't going to happen due to numerous reasons, of which $$ is the obvious one.
I dunno... The current TCP/IP based IPv4 Internet subsumed a number of competing networking standards over the decades. Were someone to come up with something that was sufficiently superior, then TCP/IP would be replaced too.

Am I the only one here who remembers the joy of sending email from one network type to another? Or working in an office where different work groups had incompatible LAN technologies?
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets.

StreetSpirit
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: Seriously?

Definitely not. I still have lucid nightmares about trying to integrate an ancient 10base2 network built from Artisoft Lantastic NICs with an ancient tokenring network and make the whole mess run Netware.

In my nightmares, everyone can hear me scream (but nobody has a clue why) - I scream in JCL.

Help!

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

.

TCP/IP 2.0?

I am down.

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable

What a stupid idea

You don't just tear everything over and start from scratch each time you want to make changes. Just because the internet isn't *designed* for lots of stuff doesn't mean it can't continue to handle it. We continue to do what we're doing now: modify it as we see fit.
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|-
Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|

LaZ3R
Premium
join:2003-01-17
·Rogers Hi-Speed

Re: What a stupid idea

Agreed... It's stupid to scratch all of the developments the Internet has had over the past few decades to start all over to fix a few things and add a few others. We should simply modify what we have now to make it better as opposed to breaking a building down and putting a new one so you can add a light bulb in one room.
--
Life is a game of blackjack. You keep playing until you bust.
thekiefs

join:2005-11-14
Newbury Park, CA

Re: What a stupid idea

Its not a bad idea in that in not like we nuke everything we've learned thusfar...but it gives nice thoughts as to get rid of all the "junk" on the web to build a better foundation.

But its never going to happen.

james

join:2001-02-26
antarctica

Re: What a stupid idea

The internet isn't a big building! It's a big truck you can dump stuff on! No I mean it's a series of tubes! Not a big truck or big building. So people should stop dumping their stuff on it like its a big truck!
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
For a bunch of people supposedly comfortable with hi-tech, there sure are a lot of people getting terribly upset about the suggestion of change, without even knowing what the change might be.

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..

Re: What a stupid idea

The problem we have ISN'T with the concept of change, but rather the concept of WHO THE CHANGE BENEFITS. Do you honestly believe that a new 'internet' would have benefits for the 'consumer'? If you believe that, then I have some land in florida for you. The so called 'changes' they are proposing are not for the benefit of the end users, they are for the benefits of the spy agencies, and the megacorps. Look at it this way, the 'new' internet will only allow 'trusted' devices to connect to it. That means you can kiss linux goodbye. That means that P2P networks won't exist. That means that the NSA and the FBI will have a complete log of EVERY keypress you make. There will be no encryption they can't break. There will be no privacy you can use. There will be no 'anonymous' news tidbits posted, because every, single, packet will be authenticated and logged. It's big brother on steroids.

The internet works just fine the way it is. We DON'T need a new 'secured' internet, because the only people the security will 'benefit' will be those in power.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS


2 edits

Re: What a stupid idea

All the article says is that some researchers think it's time to do a bit of ground-up research. It doesn't say what their particular plans are; they probably don't know yet.

The article does observe that any such researchers will not be quite as isolated from external demands as the previous effort (you know, the one funded by those liberals, the US military). That much I agree with.

It is also insane to say that the Internet works fine the way it is, when every day brings news of more 'bot nets, when 90% of the email that gets to my mailbox is spam, when it's inundated by scam artists.

Most of the rest of your posting is just fear talking.

You sound like someone 20 years ago saying that the old wired analogue phone network works just fine; we don't need to replace it, we can just improve it. If you want to think that digital cellular telephony is 'the same' as the analog landline net with just some improvements, fine - but I don't think the people doing the research into mobile wireless phones looked at it that way.

And furthermore, if you're worried about having your rights infringed, it seems a little weak if the only way you can see to protect those rights is to hope that no-one evr tries to think of an alternative way to do networking.

I say: research into alternative approaches is good. Alternative ways to do networking. Alternative ways to design operating systems. Alternative ways to organize computer hardware. (The trouble with all of this stuff is not that it works too badly to use, but that it works just well enough to use.)

swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable


1 edit

Re: What a stupid idea

There's nothing wrong with exploring new technology and ideas. Maybe something better than TCP/IP will turn up. Preventing DDoS would be nice.

But the claims that the internet is "broken" are very reasonably perceived as a bad-faith FUD campaign for a hidden agenda on the part of government and big business. Lines like "anonymity where prudent, and accountability where necessary" (»cleanslate.stanford.edu/CleanSla···erV2.pdf, pdf) and references to making the internet more "profitable" (id.) reveal an agenda that's hostile to trustworthiness and freedom of communication. Per links above, funding is from NSF (National Science Foundation) and big hardware companies. There may also be less visible backers.

The current internet is robust, scales well, can support much more bandwidth and traffic than it does now, and has the right balance of relative anonymity and traceability of participants. Edge-centric and impartially efficient inbetween is a good design. And the only security issue I can think of right off is DDoS.

All the other suppsosed "internet" security issues that are complained about are really problems at the edges. Spam? Defective protocol. Botnets/zombies, viruses, most trojans? A problem created and maintained by the Microsoft monoculture. P2p? Mostly a good thing; copyright extremism, rather than file-sharing, is the problem. Phishing? Partly an interface problem, partly just irreducible dumbness "between keyboard and chair".

Real internet problems are few and minor. Issues of bandwidth, neutrality and protocols mostly need to be addressed by political and social reforms that would make narrow, short term profit motives less of an obstacle to open standards and infrastructure improvements.

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy


I Think You Need This...
Whoa...
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
Once again, you have surprised me with your paranoid delusions

AdamB

join:2001-01-07
Westerville, OH

Yeah except this time it won't be just the researchers developing the net. The FBI, CIA, NSA, HLS, will all have their collective opinions on how to make the internet better aka spying on us all.
--
SBC/Yahoo DSL: 2478/427 on 3000/512
spk037

join:2006-09-02
Orlando, FL

Who will it benefit ?

I have a feeling if it ever happened it would wind up allowing the government and the riaa (basically the same thing) to eavedrop more efficiently.

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..

Re: Who will it benefit ?

Exactly the point. some of the needs are just impossible to meet with the current internet.

Like the need for a single agency to monitor all Internet traffic.
Or the need for the MAFIAA groups to be able to decide unilaterally which computers are trustworthy, and allowed to connect to the 'internet'

The current messed up internet allows anyone can set up routers, install WAPs, run an email server, a search portal, or simply host a website!

What a nightmarish world for a monopolist to live in! We definitely need to redo the internet to help the corporations!
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast

Re: Who will it benefit ?

Just when I thought it wasn't possible, you continue to surprise me with your comments.

I hate all of those "outside of the box" thinkers I guess we wouldn't want to consider redesigning the Internet because of the horribly inefficient TCP. Or the limitations of IPv4. Or routing inefficiencies. Or security issues. Or, etc., etc., etc. Granted, I don't think that the Internet as we know it should be totally scrapped in favor of a totally separate network, but new technologies do need to be incorporated to enhance the system.

And to insinuate that the "megacorps" want this is silly. They are the ones that would have to foot the bill. Why would they ever realistically entertain the idea of building another additional, and separate network?
ross

join:2000-08-16

Re: Who will it benefit ?

Megacorps NEVER foot the bill.
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast

Re: Who will it benefit ?

Riiiight. They never assume risk Yes, the bill is (hopefully) passed along to the consumers, but what happens if the consumers don't want it? Or aren't willing to pay it? Or the product totally flops and has to be written off? The "megacorps" then foot the bill.
ross

join:2000-08-16

Re: Who will it benefit ?

No, they right it off on their taxes, or, even better, depreciate it over and over again for 60-100 years. ALL costs are passed on to consumers/end users.
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA

Re: Who will it benefit ?

What? Then how do companies ever go bankrupt? Man if I can always "just right it off on taxes" and "depreciate my losses of 100 years", I'm starting a couple businesses for myself

calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

Re: Who will it benefit ?

Competitive companies in competitive industries go bankrupt at times. Monopoly, government regulated companies don't go bankrupt. Those are the loaded dice that the Whining Baby Bells seek to play with.

Look at Pacific Gas & Electric. Shortly after they convinced the California legislature to let them play in a competitive market, they badly misjudged market forces and went bankrupt. Such is the fate of monopolists who play in the competitive world thinking they are king.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast

Re: Who will it benefit ?

said by calvoiper See Profile :

Monopoly, government regulated companies don't go bankrupt.
WorldCom?

calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

Re: Who will it benefit ?

WorldCom was not a monopoly, and as a long distance company, it was as lightly regulated as any company in telecom.

I stand by my statement--the Bells are comfortable in a world where they can be government endorsed monopolies, and they will try anything they can to head in that direction.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA

Re: Who will it benefit ?

How are they government endorsed monopolies?

calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA


2 edits

Re: Who will it benefit ?

The Baby Bells spent decades as part of a government endorsed monopoly--the Bell System. Now, they seek government "help" in building the next generation of networks--they want to return to the government cocoon of protected/assisted markets, where their decades of lobbying can pay off, instead of wanting to compete in the market. As I explained in the related "2007 slowdown" thread, the next step is to exclude the competition, either through discriminatory regulation or unequal access to government sponsored funds.

It's a loser mentality--"I can't play in this market without the government's help." You don't hear it from Level 3. If the Whining Baby Bells can't play in this market, they should get the #ell out of the way and let real companies build infrastructure.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast

Re: Who will it benefit ?

said by calvoiper See Profile :

Now, they seek government "help" in building the next generation of networks--they want to return to the government cocoon of protected/assisted markets, where their decades of lobbying can pay off, instead of wanting to compete in the market.

You are making some assumptions here not warranted by the facts. Just because some university researchers say gov't help is needed in redoing the internet from scratch doesn't mean that the old Bells(Verizon, AT&T, Qwest) have asked for any gov't help. You assume they have bought the researchers and demanded they put that request for gov't help in the research. But that is an unproven assumption based on the left's belief that all research is bought and paid for by industry. Just more paranoia from the left.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page

calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

Re: Who will it benefit ?

Yes, I'm assuming that the consultants are kissing up to the funding fount of the Baby Bells. It is to be expected that consultants spout what their clients, and likely clients, want to hear. Who do you think has a bigger "consultant" budget for 2007--ATT(sbc) and VZ or Level 3?

But in any event, it's clear to any close observer that the Bells are EXTREMELY uncomfortable playing in any kind of competitive market where the table isn't slanted in their direction. That's one reason they are trying to gain additional control of what users send and request over their networks.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
ross

join:2000-08-16
·Digizip

said by openbox9 See Profile :

said by calvoiper See Profile :

Monopoly, government regulated companies don't go bankrupt.
WorldCom?
Worldcom is hardly an example of a Megacorp that went bankrupt due its inability to foist off all costs of restructuring the underlying theoretical and physical underpinnings of its technology/product upon subscribers.

Rather, it is a testament to the greed and corruption at the highest levels. The same level/type of people whom you would entrust with the redesign and rebuild of the Internet. That such a redesign would cater to Big Government and Big Business, with little care for, or acknowledgment of, the rights and concerns of consumers/users/citizens, doesn't seem to phase or even register with you at all.

While you can feign disbelief, and attribute the well-reasoned arguments of others in opposition to your ill-considered blatherings to delusional paranoia, I would urge you to actually READ the preliminary proposals, and scrutinize the considerations given the most weight by these so-called "high-minded" research authorities. Then, maybe you will apologize for your "asshat" behavior.
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast

Re: Who will it benefit ?

You're taking my comment out of context and twisting it into your discussion. My answer of WorldCom was an example in reply to calvoiper's statement that government regulated businesses can't claim bankruptcy. My answer has absolutely nothing to do with you or your comments. I've said nothing about entrusting the management of WorldCom (or equivalent) with the redesign and rebuilding of the Internet. And yes, you are delusional and paranoid if you think the government and the "megacorps" are going to rebuild the Internet into method of spying on you, disabling P2P, and ruining Linux.

I realize that I'm a mere lowly "asshat", but let me know if you have any other polite discourse that you'd like to engage me with

calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

Re: Who will it benefit ?

You twisted first, openbox. I clearly limited my statement to monopolies, and you tried (and are still trying) to make it look like I included WorldCom, which I did not.

Your self-description appears accurate.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast


1 edit

Re: Who will it benefit ?

said by calvoiper See Profile :

You twisted first, openbox. I clearly limited my statement to monopolies
Fair enough.
said by calvoiper See Profile :

Your self-description appears accurate.
So now you wish to call me names as well? Considering assumptions that you've made, I guess I'm in good company.

Back to the root of this thread, IMO it does not hurt anyone to think outside of the box and look at means to improve/replace existing technologies.

calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

Re: Who will it benefit ?

Name calling? Who was name calling? I was just agreeing with you....

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

RIRWIN1983

join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH
unless your At&T and sit by and do have ass products. while outher do it the right way (thus far)
spk037

join:2006-09-02
Orlando, FL

1 edit
edited by author

TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast


3 edits
said by karlmarx See Profile :

Like the need for a single agency to monitor all Internet traffic.

Or the need for the MAFIAA groups to be able to decide unilaterally which computers are trustworthy, and allowed to connect to the 'internet'

What a nightmarish world for a monopolist to live in! We definitely need to redo the internet to help the corporations!
General George S. Patton Jr. wrote a poem called "Through a Glass, Darkly"

So as through a glass, and darkly
the age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.


Never see any good, do you karlmarx See Profile?
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

The Internet's Shortcomings...

According to UCLA researchers, here is why they believe the current Internet needs improvement:

Shortcomings of the Internet

Designed over 30 years ago, the success of the Internet is a testament to the foresight of
a handful of visionary researchers. Hundreds of millions of users rely on it for business
and pleasure; and it is now hard to imagine a world without it.

But our reliance on the Internet makes us victims of its success, and vulnerable to its
shortcomings. Some of the shortcomings are self-evident, such as the plague of security
breaches, spread of worms, and denial of service attacks. Even without attacks, service is
often not available due to failures in equipment or fragile routing protocols. And its
behavior is unpredictable making it unsuitable for time-critical applications. Other shortcomings
are less obvious: The Internet was designed for computers in fixed locations, and
is ill-suited to support mobile end-hosts; it uses packet-switching making it hard to take
advantage of improvements in optical switching technology; it neither ensures anonymity,
nor facilitates accountability; and the demise and restructuring of most network service
providers suggests that providing network service is not profitable.

In summary, we don’t believe that we can or should continue to rely on a network that is
often broken, frequently disconnected, unpredictable in its behavior, rampant with (and
unprotected from) malicious users, and probably not economically sustainable.


My responses:

Security is a challenge but is it the network's fault?

I don't know enough about optical vs. packet switching. I'll take a guess and assume that IP packet switching must have throughput issues vs. optical switching. I would think this could be solved at the transport layer rather than the IP layer.

Mobility certainly is a challenge but I thought IPV6 is trying to address these issues with Mobile IPV6. Plus, isn't half the IPV6 address for the host (meaning the host portion can remain the same even if you move) and the other half for the subnet?

BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI

Re: The Internet's Shortcomings...

"In summary, we don’t believe that we can or should continue to rely on a network that is
often broken, frequently disconnected, unpredictable in its behavior, rampant with (and
unprotected from) malicious users, and probably not economically sustainable."

Sounds like these guys must still be using AOL. The rest of us moved on long ago, I don't know what "internet" they're using but mine is neither often broken nor frequently disconnected, its not very unpredictable, and if its so economically draining, why don't we ask Level3, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, etc to just pull the plug on it? As for being rampant with malicious users, get use to it and get over it, society is full of malicious users, and anything that man can make, man can break.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
the new network would be broken too security wise. build a better mousetrap and you end up fighting bigger mice.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA


1 edit
said by rradina See Profile :

According to UCLA researchers, here is why they believe the current Internet needs improvement:

Shortcomings of the Internet

... Some of the shortcomings are self-evident, such as ... Other shortcomings
are less obvious: The Internet ... uses packet-switching making it hard to take
advantage of improvements in optical switching technology; it neither ensures anonymity,
nor facilitates accountability; and the demise and restructuring of most network service
providers suggests that providing network service is not profitable.
...
Let's see. UCLA doesn't like packet switching (too hard to control "top down"? too decentralized for big-government loving university researchers?); they don't like the unsure nature of "maybe anon, maybe not" that is almost human in degrees of uncertainty; and they don't understand that frequent business failures in ANY developing market, especially a technologically driven market, are entirely normal.

It's UCLA that needs to start from a clean slate, not the Internet. One more sad bunch of folks that don't understand market economics and that fear and loathe the success others have achieved on the Internet.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:

All the internet needs...

Is to kick out all these greedy corporations and make it like it used to be. Good for reliable free information.
--
FWD#: 223611
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA

Re: All the internet needs...

Yep, bring back ARPANET and kick off all of the non-military and non-researchers. That's definitely where we should take the Internet.
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

Re: All the internet needs...

And furthermore, get rid of this TCP/IP crap. Let's run NCP between IMPs the way the network was supposed to work! We don't need this tear-it-down start-over IP. Let's just fix NCP!

robbob340
K.U. Sweet 16
Premium
join:2001-02-15
Wichita, KS
are bigger and longer tubes! Duh!

anonmemean

@bellsouth.net

Reality check

I doubt seriously that people working on this are thinking they're going to totally replace the Internet. More than likely they want a mindset and research that if you were totally free to start over how would you do it? How could you make it more secure? Faster? Reliable ? Doing it all from scratch. Some of these ideas *may* pan out and the internet of today will assimilate them and make it better. Other ideas will be sure that would be great, but it'll never happen.
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

Re: Reality check

If they ever replaced the Internet, they'd call it the Internet.

I think Metcalfe said it first: we'll always have Ethernet, because every time they invent a new datalink protocol, they call it Ethernet.

gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA

huh? Now... seriously...

... this might have been a good idea, in 1996. It's 2007, and we're a wired society... and it does work. Imagine the disruptions a complete rebuild would entail. We've been developing this medium since a few years after I was born, essentially. Early sixties had most of the landmark moments.

The problem was, nobody ever imagined that us average folks would want to use it, much less need to. It was a creature of the military-industrial-academic worlds. Tendency in all of those areas is to overbuild, like crazy.

DARPA ("defense advanced research projects agency" -- don't cringe - these guys really do earn their keep, they've been material players in almost every modern innovation we have going) came up with the concept; despite many apologists who claim it isn't true, the idea was to create a network that could survive massive nuclear attack, and stay up. Every aspect of the internet was designed to exploit multiple alternative routes, with minimal data loss. If the Soviets nuked St. Louis, we could route traffic through Chicago, hands off, automatically... if there was a bottleneck at Chicago, we could send the next packet through Memphis. Once they all arrived, they would be re-assembled, and replicate the message. Some might be lost, but most would get through. Enough, at least, would get through that a retransmit message would be feasible... you would know something was being sent to you, and by whom, even if just one packet arrived, containing contextual gibberish.

I'm wondering; what would UCLA start with? How would they transition the current medium over to it? Would it be as fault-tolerant? Face it, the internet, as long as the big players choose to support it, is a cockroach. It'll survive bombing, radiation, nuclear war, biological terror... insecure as hell, by nature... yeah... but a cockroach, in its simplicity and survivability.

I rather like that model... come up with a better one, and send me a note, meanwhile, I have a soft spot for infinitely extensible, infinitely survivable packet transfer mechanisms... I'm a child, at heart, of the thirties, not the sixties... and the internet, as we know it, would warm the heart of a Th. Edison wannabe, of the thirties... what, maybe they want to add in a bit of planned obsolescence, Detroit model, so we can make more money rolling out incremental upgrades? And lay belly up for any unforeseen crises that intervene?
--
Semper Eadem
--
We cut a great hole in the back of his pipe, and this is the tune that came out....
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS

Re: huh? Now... seriously...

That's an awful lot of assumption about how the transition will be handled, when you don't even know what the transition will be to.

How hard can it be to build a gateway, in any case? (And I speak as one who spent a good part of his career building gateways).

gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA


2 edits
Right... I'm getting old, Dave... that becomes our function, after so many years, a warning to the young... and a winking challenge to 'em... now, you whippersnappers... do it beautifuly, and, kindly, learn from my abysmal mistakes... I'm only doing this "life" thing once, for ya', ONCE, you know....
Janey Mac! I'm nearly 50!!!!

major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:

I Have Another Idea

How about we keep the same Internet we've always had and just not allow it to become overrun and over-commercialized to the point where you have to run multiple spyware, popup/popunder/popover, AV apps just to protect yourself from getting logo feces smeared all over you JUST to read your email from the web interface.

BF69

join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: I Have Another Idea

said by major marco See Profile :

How about we keep the same Internet we've always had and just not allow it to become overrun and over-commercialized to the point where you have to run multiple spyware, popup/popunder/popover, AV apps just to protect yourself from getting logo feces smeared all over you JUST to read your email from the web interface.
Overcomercialized?

So in other words people should bust their asses spend their own money putting out information to you for FREE with no recourse to recoup costs. Sounds like welfare.

Fact is if I have a site that gives you information and have a right to be compensated for my work. Want to get rid of ads? Then fine every site will be subscription based. How many people will go for that?
jsouth
Jsouth

join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS

Re: I Have Another Idea

Wrong. They should be able to recoup their costs. That's fine. Just don't hijack my computer or try and trap me at your site to do it.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead?

major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:

said by BF69 See Profile :

Fact is if I have a site that gives you information and have a right to be compensated for my work. Want to get rid of ads? Then fine every site will be subscription based. How many people will go for that?
You have your logo feces smeared anywhere you want. Just don't hijack my browser with your crapware to do it.
--
The Toll


antiphishing
Phishing Scam Terminator
Premium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA

»Researchers explore 'scrapping' Internet to address probl

Click for full size
This story was posted in the security forum.
»Researchers explore 'scrapping' Internet to address problems

Check out the network map of UU.NET (MCI/WORLDCOM)
UUNet Technologies Inc. (UUNET) was founded in 1987, and in 1988 it sold the first commercial connection to the Internet. For the next several years UUNET would be a pioneering Internet service provider (ISP) and offer innovative services.
»www.answers.com/topic/uunet
--

Specializing in "takes downs" of phishing and advance fee scams
Send your Phishing/Advance fee scams to: phish@antihotmail.com
»/profile/1021645

PhoenixAZ
Joshua
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Phoenix, AZ

Not going to work

I don't think this would work now that we have so many people using it, unless it works like telephones, where you can visit the same websites, etc.
--
Josh| About Me
Forums » UCLA Says We Should Start All Over With The Internet


Sunday, 29-Nov 21:57:32 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.