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!

UCLA, CIsco & More Launch Consortium To Replace TCP/IP

timothy posted about two weeks ago | from the still-involves-controls-and-protocols dept.

Networking 253

alphadogg writes Big name academic and vendor organizations have unveiled a consortium this week that's pushing Named Data Networking (NDN), an emerging Internet architecture designed to better accommodate data and application access in an increasingly mobile world. The Named Data Networking Consortium members, which include universities such as UCLA and China's Tsinghua University as well as vendors such as Cisco and VeriSign, are meeting this week at a two-day workshop at UCLA to discuss NDN's promise for scientific research. Big data, eHealth and climate research are among the application areas on the table. The NDN effort has been backed in large part by the National Science Foundation, which has put more than $13.5 million into it since 2010.

cancel ×

253 comments

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

Great idea at the concept stage. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47830785)

Just don't expect anyone to early adopt except the usual hypebots and yahoos. We can't even get rid of IPv4 and you want do replace TCP entirely.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (3, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about two weeks ago | (#47830805)

Yeah. And replace UNIX, too. You know? Like Plan 9 and Windows NT.

I ain't holdin' my breath.

Will Linux ever adopt Plan 9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831081)

BTW, how hard will it be to transform Linux's kernel structure into something that is equivalent to Plan-9?

Re:Will Linux ever adopt Plan 9 (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about two weeks ago | (#47831143)

BTW, how hard will it be to transform Linux's kernel structure into something that is equivalent to Plan-9?

not very.

http://www.glendix.org/ [glendix.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Will Linux ever adopt Plan 9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831909)

You answered a different question. The first two are essentially ports of the Plan 9 userspace to Linux, and the third is another OS, the successor of Plan 9.
None of them is even an attempt to "transform Linux's kernel structure into something that is equivalent to Plan-9".

Why do so many have a boner for Plan 9? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831403)

Can somebody explain to me why so many people have such hard, raging boners for Plan 9?

I tried it out a while ago. It had some interesting ideas, but nothing that truly made the experience significantly better. In fact, I found it quite inferior to Debian Linux in most ways.

I get that some very important UNIX and Bell Labs people worked on it. I get that it had the potential to be revolutionary. But I don't think it was much better than the status quo.

I don't see why people highly revere something that's quite unremarkable.

Why do so many have a boner for Plan 9? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831719)

Because people are stupid, and don't realize it takes 15 years with millions of people giving feedback to make an OS.

Re:Why do so many have a boner for Plan 9? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831767)

oh, that's an easy one. plan 9 is great because one programmer can have a very good grasp of the entire system. the system is so tight and compact, that it is possible to digest and understand the entire kernel in a week or two. i've never had more fun programming. i don't think i could have learned as much as quickly about operating systems, and computing in general without it.

plan 9 is by programmers for programmers. if you want to do something else, then it might not be the system for you.

Re:Why do so many have a boner for Plan 9? (1)

TWX (665546) | about two weeks ago | (#47832261)

If it's by programmers, for programmers, then why doesn't it have the array of killer apps written for it needed to make it successful in the general user marketplace? Hell, even Linux and BSD variants with their relatively small userbase relative to Microsoft have tens of thousands of decent applets, applications, and suites with lots of choice. I could set up a Linux machine for random users that would give them enough to handle basic professional productivity stuff and web access, even if they'd have trouble wrapping their heads around the nature of the filesystem compared to what they're used to.

Last time I looked into Plan 9, it reminded me of a MacOS 6 fresh install on a Mac Plus, with a puzzle, a clock, and a rudimentary file manager. I didn't see anything that would make the system actually useful to me.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (5, Insightful)

Enry (630) | about two weeks ago | (#47831079)

This. There's likely trillions of dollars invested in IPv4 that is going to be around for decades. Consider the Internet like highways and train track widths - we're stuck with it for a very long time.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about two weeks ago | (#47831339)

Most IPv4 hardware can't handle modern Internet speeds, which are increasing 50% every year. Some newer tech is improving closer 3x per year. You'll get left in the dust sticking with IPv4 only infrastructure hardware for big networks.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (2)

mattack2 (1165421) | about two weeks ago | (#47831691)

Umm, the "Internet of things" doesn't NEED "modern Internet speeds". Does your fridge or your sprinkler system or whatever need high speed? No, it just "needs" (for people who want that functionality), some kind of comparatively dirt slow communication path.

That's not an argument FOR IPv4 directly, just that your "modern Internet speeds" argument directly doesn't necessarily justify throwing away decades' worth of hardware that is providing people functionality.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

santax (1541065) | about two weeks ago | (#47831795)

These 'things' add up. I have no need for a expresso machine that is internet-contected, but I'm sure some marketing boy can sell it to my significant other. And I'm sure it will use most of it's packets to send data back to the marketing boy.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

TWX (665546) | about two weeks ago | (#47832271)

Sounds to me like you need to revise your access lists and either block it outright, or if it needs that connection to run, QoS it down to where it's not a problem.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about two weeks ago | (#47831811)

It may not need a lot of bandwidth, but I wonder what kind of data traffic one might expect of it. For measurements and data collection, for example, you may not want to transfer more that a few bytes from a single node every few seconds, but it means sending a packet every few seconds. Suddenly your data is like 10% of all the stuff you're actually transferring. And all the packets have to be routed and processed, even if they are small.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

ultranova (717540) | about two weeks ago | (#47831857)

Does your fridge or your sprinkler system or whatever need high speed?

Neither my fridge nor my sprinkler system - especially my sprinkler system - needs any kind of connectivity whatsoever except to spy on me and bombard me with ads where ever I go, both of which do require high speed.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about two weeks ago | (#47831881)

That's why I specifically said "for people who want that functionality".

I can see wanting your sprinkler system online -- to change it from your couch.. or heck, even from somewhere else (not everyone has automatic rain sensors).

The common "fridge keeps track of what you have in it" idea would be great if it ALSO coordinated with the local grocery store ads that week..

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about two weeks ago | (#47831933)

citation needed.

I disagree strongly that 'ipv4 hardware' (huh? what IS that, btw? does this imply that ipv6 is not in 'hardware'? how strange to describe things) is not up to modern network speeds. if anything, they can outrun any intermediate link in the chain from you to some random website. wan is still the slow part and always will be; but unless you truly get 1gig speeds to your door, your hardware will be more than enough for anything wan-based.

I truly have no idea where you got this info from, but you are as wrong as could be.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about two weeks ago | (#47832213)

'ipv4 hardware' (huh? what IS that, btw? does this imply that ipv6 is not in 'hardware'? how strange to describe things)

Not sure what he was on about but, yeah, IPv4 is always in ASIC on big gear and part of the slow IPv6 adoption curve is that there is a lot of big expensive gear deployed with IPv4 in ASIC and IPv6 is only done on the anemic CPU.

We're probably 2 of 5 years into the required replacement cycle, but it is significant. One of the wrinkles with the recent Cisco "Internet is too big" bug was that the hardware has ASIC slots for 1 million IPv4 entries, 500,000 IPv6 entries, but we already have 490K IPv4 entries and if there were as much IPv6 adoption, the combined totals would break out of ASIC today and nobody wants to think about going to the CPU and main memory for core routing, ever.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47832081)

which are increasing 50% every year

For the last 10 years my maximum DSL speed has been hovering around 500Kbps down and 100Kbps up. The wiring in my neighborhood (which is in a city, not the country) is probably 20 years old and I have quite a bit of loss to the DSLAM. Sometimes it's during the summer rainy months. AT&T is now responsible for this wiring and I doubt they will ever bother to fix it for a long time.

Maybe you are lucky but the vast majority of Americans are not seeing this increase. Only in newer neighborhoods where there was proper planning for infrastructure to be easily upgraded.

I can even notice the degraded performance with increased IPv6 header size! So I turned off my IPv6 tunnel.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about two weeks ago | (#47831617)

This. There's likely trillions of dollars invested in IPv4 that is going to be around for decades. Consider the Internet like highways and train track widths - we're stuck with it for a very long time.

I'm probably missing the point, but isn't NDN just a way to do content-addressable lookup of data? And if so, why would we need to throw out IPv4 in order to use it? We already have lots of examples of that running over IPv4 (e.g. BitTorrent, or Akamai, or even Google-searches if you squint).

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (3, Insightful)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | about two weeks ago | (#47831729)

Actually, the very reason we are stuck with IPv4 right now is due to a consortium just like this deciding that "pure v6, no NAT" is the way to go, which is effectively what is stifling deployment and adoption.

Carriers are now trying to figure out how to segment what they have for customers (/64 is the smallest routeable subnet), and finding IPAM solutions to manage such large network sizes.

Truth be told, if they would have went with some form of v6 NAT, deployment could have been at least 25% done by now.
You can still restrict the BGP routes to /64, but once it hits inside the carrier network, they can route smaller subnets internally to hit their customers Public v6 address.

Couple that with translation tech like Cisco's AFT, and we would be much further along then we already are.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831735)

I can't see it taking off. NDN as described works great for static content (videos, music, etc.) that needs to be replicated to various content caching nodes so as to be "near" the consumers, maybe with the occasional changes updating their hashes and version numbers, but it's totally fucked for anything resembling dynamic content like real time audio/video streams, personalised web pages, internet banking, web mail, etc.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831089)

Yahoo is not that technologically progressive of a company. It's unlikely that they will adopt it :p

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831849)

Even if they did they would never be able to determine a source address. ((anyone that's ever managed mail servers and had to deal with Yahoo knows exactly what I'm referring too))

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (5, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | about two weeks ago | (#47831239)

You know some kind of ill conceived "content protection" is going be built into this protocol.

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about two weeks ago | (#47831751)

Not being able to get rid of IPv4 might be a very good reason to replace TCP/IP entirely. How much traction do you *really* think IPV6 is going to get? My answer to that is something along the lines of "just enough until a better solution comes around."

Re: Great idea at the concept stage. (1)

nan0 (620897) | about two weeks ago | (#47832059)

NDN can run over TCP/IP as an overlay. It can improve things without *replacing* them. It's well past concept stage and can be used by application developers. Give it a try !

Re:Great idea at the concept stage. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47832183)

Just call it "NDN.js", then the hypsters will push it heavily.

Not a chance (1, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47830789)

Despite a few decades of research, TCP/IP is still the best thing we know for the task at hand. Yes, it is admittedly not really good at it, but all known alternatives are worse. This is more likely some kind of publicity stunt or serves some entirely different purpose.

Re: Not a chance (0)

Jahf (21968) | about two weeks ago | (#47830853)

Right on. Because when we know there is no better solution and the current implementation is lack luster we need to keep status quo.

Re: Not a chance (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about two weeks ago | (#47830933)

TCP/IP has the singular advantage that it is deeply entrenched, runs on a vast number of devices from supercomputers right down to single-chip computers. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but it's a proven technology.

I'm sure in the fullness of time it will be replaced, or at least subsumed into some better protocol, and maybe this initiative will be the one that produces its successor... or not. I think TCP/IP is going to be with us for a very long time.

Re: Not a chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831263)

I agree with your points especially with respect to the IP layer. TCP not so much. Currently SCTP is a viable, supported (except unfortunately on a lot of cheap home routers) and in many situations, superior transport protocol.
Having said that, a quick look at the linked wikipedia article seems to place NDN at a higher layer in the protocol stack then TCP/SCTP.

Re: Not a chance (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about two weeks ago | (#47832181)

I've used SCTP. It's not particularly better than TCP. It has some things that make it nicer if you are doing all your programming by writing directly to the socket.

But no one actually does that. In practice, even people writing low-level code encapsulate their send/receive in a function or a method, at which point SCTP doesn't give any real advantages. The idea of channels is kind of cool, but for it to be really useful, they would need guaranteed bandwidth (or once again, encapsulating your network code in functions will give you the same result with TCP).

Add to that, the kernel driver code for SCTP isn't well tested (because it's not well used), and SCTP is really a solution looking for a problem.

Re: Not a chance (1)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47831355)

I agree. The best thing we can do at this time is careful tweaks in congestion control, buffering and error handling, but that is it. Also, if you have reasonable over-provisioning (i.e. >= 200% of what you use), TCP/IP even works pretty well for real-time applications. That is one of the factors that keeps it alive, over-provisioning is a far easier solution to its problems than changing the network, especially as bandwidth is only getting cheaper while the bandwidth actually needed for most applications is pretty stagnant. The only thing with a hunger for unlimited bandwidth is video-streaming, but from what people are willing to pay for, HTDV seems to be the best that really has a market. And once bandwidth increases, while usage does not, basically most problems of TCP/IP go away.

Re: Not a chance (2)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47831307)

We do not know whether there is a better solution, but currently we do not have one, despite decades of research. What would you do, start breaking things?

Re:Not a chance (3, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about two weeks ago | (#47830969)

Despite decades of research the horse and cart are still the best thing we know for the task at hand. Yes, it's admittedly not really good, but all the known alternatives are worse. This is more likely some kind of publicity stunt or serves some entirely different purpose.

Your statement as shown can be applied to the internal combustion engine, or any other technology. Rejecting any change out of hand without consideration is incredibly sad, if not dangerous to our species future prospects. Yes it's important to take everything with a grain of salt, but everything should be at least considered. It only takes one successful change to have a dramatic impact and improve the lives of many.

This goes for all technology, not just this specific problem.

Re: Not a chance (1)

slack_justyb (862874) | about two weeks ago | (#47831331)

Just like the steam powered car. Those were so totally an awesome idea.

Re: Not a chance (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about two weeks ago | (#47831373)

I never said you had to accept ideas, just consider them.

Re: Not a chance (1)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47831447)

All these ideas have been considered and are continued to be considered. What do you think scientific publishing is? A joke? There is NOTHING THERE at this time. No candidate. New protocols are considered good if they are not too much worse than TCP/IP in general applications. Truth be told, most serious researchers have left that field though, as there is nothing to be gained and everything obvious (after a few years of research) has been discounted.

Really, stop talking trash. You have no clue about the state-of-the-art in that field.

Re: Not a chance (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about two weeks ago | (#47831495)

All these ideas have been considered

Ahh I see now. There's no such thing as a new idea? Even if the old system has problems? Everything that can ever be invented has been invented.

I have to be honest I didn't read past that first sentence. I can only imagine the rest of your post follows this completely retarded preposition.

Re: Not a chance (1)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47831665)

You probably also believe that they will eventually discover the philosopher's stone, as they may just not have considered the right idea so far.

Rally, this is science. There are border conditions for what is possible and there are no fundamental breakthroughs out of the blue. But there is another good word for people like you: "sucker".

Re:Not a chance (1)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47831335)

So you would me following the research in that area for 25 years now call "without consideration"? That is pretty dumb. For the SPECIFIC PROBLEM at hand, there is currently no better solution, despite constant research effort for a few decades. That is why it will not be replaced anytime soon.

I really hate mindless "progress fanatics" like you. No clue at all, insulting attitude and zero to contribute. Moron.

Re:Not a chance (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about two weeks ago | (#47831551)

That depends, did you actually say you follow the research in the area for 25 years? Did you also look at the proposal in detail and make an assessment? Nope? Didn't think so!

Dammit Jim I'm a progress fanatic not a mind reader.

By the way the definition for progress is "development towards an improved or more advanced condition.".
Based on this I personally think that everyone should be a progress fanatic and it will be sad when all the researches turn into middle managers and naysayers and the world will stop "progressing". May as well close the universities down now, no need for them right? We haven't solved problems in the last 25 years so why even bother looking anymore.

In case you don't realise I'm not saying anything for or against what they are proposing. I'm simply directly attacking the negative tone of your original post.

Re:Not a chance (-1, Troll)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47831643)

I'm simply directly attacking the negative tone of your original post.

Which is why I call you a "progress fanatic", "clueless" and a "moron". Thanks for confirming my assessment.

Re:Not a chance (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about two weeks ago | (#47831483)

Your statement as shown can be applied to the internal combustion engine, or any other technology. Rejecting any change out of hand without consideration is incredibly sad

There are only so many hours in a day... ignoring/rejecting silliness out of ignorance is often a practical necessity.

Yes it's important to take everything with a grain of salt, but everything should be at least considered.

"Everything" ...sort of...includes magic unicorns and assorted demon things observed while trip-pin' on mushr00ms...

See also trusted Internets, motor/generator free energy machines and application of ternary logic to prevent IPv4 exhaustion.

It only takes one successful change to have a dramatic impact and improve the lives of many.

Well paying out that $25k to play is sure to improve the life of someone.

Re:Not a chance (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about two weeks ago | (#47831519)

That's the wonderful thing about our world. Not everyone needs to be an expert in everything. But if you proclaim to be then ignoring/rejecting silliness out of ignorance....

Hang on this doesn't compute. If you're ignorant how do you know it's silly again?

I'm not saying everyone needs to check everything about everything. Just that the experts consider the solution.

On the other hand the parent is rejecting new ideas out of hand because it would be changing TCP/IP. That's not examining if a solution is silly or if it violates a law of thermodynamics. That's saying, what we have now works so we shouldn't attempt to try and make it better and I will just ignore anything that anyone says about the topic.

Stop trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831913)

On the other hand the parent is rejecting new ideas out of hand because it would be changing TCP/IP

You just made that up, just like you made up other statements that never happened in your posts (in addition to using completely irrational anecdote and non-applicable metaphor). Go read what the GP wrote again.

Trolling does not make you correct, repeat the lie as often as you prefer and it's still going to be a lie.

Re: Not a chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831605)

There should be a nickname for the horse and buggy argument like there is for Godwin and nazism.

If a new protocol is implemented it will absolutely have content protection built in at some point.

It will likely break everything that cannot run it. As in everything that came before it. So you include code for legacy support? Suddenly it's bloated and buggy.

Re: Not a chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831627)

I won't reject change out of hand. I will be deeply suspicious of anything entrenched commercial interests support to replace something that was not developed with a profit motive though. It is not difficult to imagine a proposal where anonymity is disallowed, tracking is built in, encryption has "approved" back doors, and other person-unfriendly "features". That may not even be the intention, and it could still be the result after law enforcement, the NSA, etc. have their inevitable and unwelcome say in matters. That our current Internet architecture can still drive bad actors like that crazy is reason enough to keep it.

Re: Not a chance (2)

mlts (1038732) | about two weeks ago | (#47832139)

Why should content protection be part of the Internet standard? Why do my devices (routers, computers, etc.) have to have built in DRM which will end up getting cracked, or at least possibly exploited from offshore?

This also is going to be met with a lot of suspicion. Who keeps the keys, gets to keep content locked, owns the license servers, and is able to come in via backdoors mandated as part of the protocol? The UN? Give me a break. China? Sure, we can trust them allright, provided we give them 51% ownership of any venture. It won't be the US because BRIC will sooner create their own network and completely split off.

I don't reject change... but what does this new protocol give me? IPv4 and to a lesser extent IPv6 have been torture tested, are completely open, and one can cobble together adequate defenses against attacks not too expensively (Cisco ASAs on the low end are a couple C-notes, and there are always smaller routers). A protocol based around DRM and content protection, stuff that is made to obfuscate and lock down is not going to be of any benefit to anyone but a few.

To boot, this seems like a complex mess. A network protocol should be brain-dead simple in order to reduce the attack surface, and reduce bugs. Adding DRM at layer 2 is at best will slow things down, at worst, allow the bad guys to hide behind bogus certificates.

Grabbing my tinfoil hat, I'm wondering if this protocol is something that will end up mandated within hours as soon as a "warhol event", or something more known as a "cyber 9/11" happens. I would not be surprised if this is already written and ready to be thrown on the floor as a bill on both houses the second some major security breach happens that causes catastrophic damage.

I'm seeing shades of the Clipper chip again, with the same problems. The bad guys getting access to the backdoors, compromising everyone in a way that cannot be patched, the bad guys closing the backdoors so they can't be investigated by LEOs... and the biggest losers are the good guys.

Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (4, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about two weeks ago | (#47830823)

This is basically designed to bring the old big media, broadcast ways to the internet. Hence, to basically destroy the Internet, allowing for mass reproduction of centrally created Corporate content, where independant voices are locked out. The protocol is designed for that, mass distribution of corporate created, centrally distributed content to an ignorant, consumption only masses which are treated with disdain and objects of manipulation by the elite. This is to bring big media and the stranglehold they had for so many years on information the public has access to back.

With the Ipv6 transition needed its time to focus on that rather than on this plan to destroy the internet and turn it into the digital equivalent of 100 channels of centrally produced, elite controlled, one way cable television programming designed to psychologically manipulate and control a feeble and dim witted public.

No thanks and get your #%#% hands of my internet.

Re:Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (1)

koan (80826) | about two weeks ago | (#47830857)

Yep, that's the gist I get as well.

Now I know why Tsinghua is involved (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about two weeks ago | (#47830885)

I was puzzled with the involvement of Tsinghua University of China with this thing

After reading your comment it starts to make sense

The China Communist Party needs to regain control of the Internet (at least inside China), that explains why they endorse this new scheme so much

Re:Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (3, Insightful)

Melkman (82959) | about two weeks ago | (#47830909)

Luckily I don't see this attempt to turn internet into TV taking off. They really seem to see it as an alternative to IP instead of a service running on top of it like the web. IP6 is a really small change compared to it and look at the snales pace with which that is being rolled out.

Re:Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47830935)

Supposing they succeed, don't you think there will still be enough demand for a free Internet that someone would still provide it?

If so, then we don't have much to worry about. Market forces will take care of it.

If not, then we have already lost this battle, its just a matter of time before we realize it.

Re:Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (1)

Melkman (82959) | about two weeks ago | (#47830971)

Well, I've been wrong about what the majority of people want a lot of times. But being opposed to change seems to be pretty universal. So I got reasonably good hopes for this battle.

Re:Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831687)

Intriguing. Our species has been changing faster than any other species on the planet since the dawn of self-replicating structures. The widespread resistance to change has not prevented technological advancement from creating a world completely alien to the one in which we evolved.

Despite appearances, it seems that humanity loves change, and is throwing resources at change with reckless abandon.

Re:Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47832107)

If so, then we don't have much to worry about. Market forces will take care of it.

Hahaha. Do they also have unicorns and elves in that fantasy land?

Re:Gangster Computer God Communist Plot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47830963)

And I thought Francis E Dec was dead...

Re:Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (4, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about two weeks ago | (#47830989)

I get what you're saying, but I don't get how NDN is supposed to replace TCP/IP. Sure, it replaces many things done with UDP, and it even can do some things better than TCP, but it's not going to be replacing IPvX any time soon, just as TCP and UDP and ICMP etc. can happily co-exist.

What I find interesting is that there's been an implementation of NDN/IP for YEARS -- it's called Freenet [freenetproject.org] . Something tells me that the sponsoring groups wouldn't like to see this particular implementation be the first thing to try out their new network layer however....

Re:Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about two weeks ago | (#47832189)

and it even can do some things better than TCP

Like what? I've been trying to figure that out, I can't see anything.

Re:Mass media takeover and destruction of 'net (4, Interesting)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about two weeks ago | (#47831031)

I don't think we're going to stop the progression you are describing. The method by which it is achieved may not be the one being discussed by UCLA and Cisco, but it's clear now that what slashdotters call "the Internet" is doomed and has been since all of those rebellions in northern africa/mideast a couple years ago. What most end-users call "the Internet" is just getting started, but certainly the application of it is as a control and monitoring system against dissent rather than a catalyst promoting freedom of information. The point where we have some hope of rallying the population to activism is the point where content providers and governments try to do things like completely disallow offline storage media. But not before then, because the population just plain doesn't understand what they have or what is at stake.

Huh (1, Interesting)

koan (80826) | about two weeks ago | (#47830845)

No mention of the NSA or GCHQ, one wonders what their contribution will be to a system that tracks you World wide.

Re:Huh (2)

peragrin (659227) | about two weeks ago | (#47831007)

Don't worry the NSA and GCHQ interests are being covered by China.

Different layers (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47830855)

They are also funding a study to replace roads with run-flat tires. Oh, right, different layers.

Re:Different layers (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about two weeks ago | (#47831323)

Wish I had some mod points.

Oh, giant bugging device... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47830899)

So, storage at the network level. Handy way to intercept traffic and store it, without requiring telcos to host equipment.

I wonder how long before certain retention laws come into play...

Corporate Inertia (3, Insightful)

Penguinshit (591885) | about two weeks ago | (#47830929)

Unfortunately, as we learned from the debacle of cellular communications, corporate inertia will either squash this or slow gestation until it's stillborn. There is a substantial investment in the current technology of TCP/IP and it still works "just good enough". This change in network would require installation of a twin network alongside the current, with slow adoption in the consumer side. That would be very expensive to build and maintain over numerous financial quarters and thus no MBA-centric company would ever do it in current corporate culture. This takes long-term thinking in a quarter-to-quarter environment. Thus it won't happen for a very long time.

Youtube video by Van Jacobson, from 2006 on this (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47830975)

There is a talk on youtube from 2006 by Van Jacobson that describes this idea before it was called named data networking. It is really neat, and I am surprised that it has taken so long for somebody to actually try to implement it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCZMoY3q2uM

Named Data Networking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831853)

Do you suppose that Named Data Networking could well come from a company called Namesys?

If it did, they'd have a real killer app.

That's funny (1)

istartedi (132515) | about two weeks ago | (#47831049)

A bunch of broke folks saddled with student loans are looking to replace UCLA and Cisco; but they didn't bother to announce it.

About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831053)

It's about freaking time. TCP/IP was logical for the initial military/ university systems, there needs to be better implementation/restructuring of the internet layers to accommodate the modern multiple billion machines on the web.

Oh joy, stateful routers... (2)

steffann (151248) | about two weeks ago | (#47831141)

From the architecture page [named-data.net] :

Note that neither Interest nor Data packets carry any host or interface addresses (such as IP addresses); Interest packets are routed towards data producers based on the names carried in the Interest packets, and Data packets are returned based on the state information set up by the Interests at each router hop

Great, NAT-like state in every router...

Re:Oh joy, stateful routers... (1)

thogard (43403) | about two weeks ago | (#47831623)

And who controls the names and how much does it cost to be a data producer?

About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831151)

But of course Cisco will kill it, their bread and butter is complex product running proprietary protocols.

Baby steps (2)

PPH (736903) | about two weeks ago | (#47831163)

First, IPv6. If you can handle simple things like that, then we'll let you play with the important stuff.

Oh yeah. Flying cars too.

Replace All (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831175)

"Named Data Networking " -> "Fusion"
"network" -> "power"
"Internet architecture" -> "energy generation"

The article will still make sense, and be about as close to delivering something useful. Which is to say, no credible timeline can be established, no amount of money can be budgeted, and no personnel needs can be forecast.

Only viable as a replacement for a subset of uses (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831267)

All the internet is NOT "give me data named thus." For example, this "NDN" doesn't seem to support logging in to a particular computer, you know, so that you can administer it. It doesn't seem to support sending a file to a particular printer. Maybe it might make an interesting overlay on IP, replacing existing content distribution techniques, like Akamai, but I'm not seeing it replace IP.
      -- david newall

Re:Only viable as a replacement for a subset of us (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about two weeks ago | (#47832203)

For example, this "NDN" doesn't seem to support logging in to a particular computer, you know, so that you can administer it. It doesn't seem to support sending a file to a particular printer.

How about, giving your printer a particular name, and giving your computer a particular name? I'm pretty sure they've thought about that particular problem.

Just in time! (3, Funny)

DarkDaimon (966409) | about two weeks ago | (#47831275)

I'm glad they are starting this now so hopefully by the time we run out of IPv6 addresses, we'll be ready!

All those organisations pushing their own barrow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831285)

All those organisations pushing their own barrow, with such a broad focus eHealth and climate research? really they'll be able to drum up some standards in no time.

Yeah, that's gonna work (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about two weeks ago | (#47831343)

We can't even get TCP/IP v6 off the ground, and they want to try this?

Come on guys - it's 2014 not 1994 (1)

dbIII (701233) | about two weeks ago | (#47831631)

Pick up a phone that uses LTE, take a look around the net, then let me known if you hit any page where the phone's use of IPv6 crashed you into the ground with a failure to load the page.

So, tell us what we really want to know? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831417)

How is this going to harm the everyday Internet user? I imagine at the very least it will make it more difficult for two random internet users to connect to each other, because all connections will probably have to be approved by Verisign or some other shit like that.

Remember folks, the age of innovation is over. We are now in the age of control and oppression. Everything "new" is invented for one purpose and only one purpose - to control you more effectively.

I don't see this as so horrible (5, Informative)

sirwired (27582) | about two weeks ago | (#47831461)

I could totally see the two networks running simultaneously. It's completely accurate that TCP/IP sucks for mass content delivery; it's gigantic waste of bandwidth. And for point-to-point interaction this protocol would be massively inefficient.

But why can the two protocols not run on top of the same Layer 2 infrastructure?

This is BAD. Very very BAD. (5, Interesting)

EmagGeek (574360) | about two weeks ago | (#47831475)

In a nutshell, this is applying DRM to all of your connection attempts. You will only be able to make connections that are "authorized" by TPTB.

No more free and open networking.

Multicast + caching? (1)

thegameiam (671961) | about two weeks ago | (#47831509)

As I read the descriptions of NDN, I can't quite see what the difference between NDN and ip multicast is.

If the problem is inefficient use of resources due to over replication, didn't multicast solve that? Add caching boxes, and hey! You just invented IPTV!

SMTP (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about two weeks ago | (#47831511)

As long as you're replacing the "DNA" of the Internet, wouldn't replacing SMTP be a better thing to start with? (To prevent spam, or at least untraceable spam?)

Re:SMTP (1)

dbIII (701233) | about two weeks ago | (#47831607)

I think we need that form of why a suggestion to stop spam is not new and is not going to be a silver bullet.

The major flaw is any new bandwagon is going to have the spammers climbing aboard as early adopters. Any barriers to entry are going to be more difficult for the general public to negotiate than the spammers, since the spammers have the means to bot, buy or mule their way around them.
With so much distributed malware around, as well as various other means, the spammers can send from trusted addresses. Another barrier is legislative in that the people that pass the laws want to be able to send out political spam at election times, and the weakness built into systems to allow that to happen can be exploited by spammers with a few dollars, bots or a donation into the right pocket.
While a point to point key exchange system sounds good in theory the spammers are going to be more interested in getting a key than most, so it's not going to keep them out unless you have a very short whitelist and give up on the concept of first contact by email.

Magnet Links (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831539)

Since every single goddamned one of you has used magnet links, you should be comfortable with the idea of requesting objects rather than discussions with particular hosts. Taking this idea and running with it is NDN. It's an excellent network research subject.

It facilitates caching, multipathing... with some more work perhaps network coding to get close to the min-cut bound. Bittorrent is super successful because it's all about the content. Let's give a similar protocol a chance at changing the net.

ipx/spx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831581)

Come on! I want my 25 year old CNE to mean something again.

Re:ipx/spx (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831745)

All my Token Ring, ARCNET and DECnet hardware is itching to get in the game again!

Another False Technology Headline (1)

statemachine (840641) | about two weeks ago | (#47831647)

If Slashdot editors can't even get the technology headlines correct, how is it better than Reddit, Fark, or any other news aggregator site?

Damn you guys have fallen far.

Replace TCP. Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831693)

Replace TCP. Right. I'll give this the time of day right after we finish rolling out IPv6. Say, fifty years from now?

No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831713)

We don't want backdoors.

Cisco, the company that gave us IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47831749)

Go look at some of the IPv6 RFCs (they're easy to find - there must be at least a hundred of them). Cisco co-authored almost every single one of them.

IPv6 is a massively overengineered spec that tried to predict the future, comparable to XML and other industry consortium shelfware standards.

IoT will need a protocol similar (1)

Dharkfiber (555328) | about two weeks ago | (#47831845)

It isn't that TCP/IP won't scale to this but it is extremely tough to make it translate TCP/IP to consumers. A translation protocol is pretty necessary. This can be done with SDN or a made-up protocol. This still sounds like a way that Cisco wants to make itself relevant again. However, I don't see the need to bake in session with layer 3 which is seems like they are doing. It would be better to leave the OSI model as is and create something like a IP-NG implementation that would define application and device fields into the protocol (right now we only have UIDs like MAC).

A Likely Story.... (2)

mcnster (2043720) | about two weeks ago | (#47831929)

After reading the spec, it seems to me that this is a collapse of the HTTP (web) protocol down to the network/transport level. In effect, the internet would become one large heirarchical namespace where clients ("consumers") query the heirarchy of data by uri through Interest Packets and then some server somewhere sends back a Data Packet matching the specified interest. Alot like 20th Century TV, sounds like.

Also there is a provision for packet signature using public-key RSA which makes me think that it would be easy to instruct internet routers to deny passage for all packets not coming from or going to officially sanctioned sources/destinations should the need arise.... makes my paranoid little brain somewhat nervous....

This seems like a fun project to implement over TCP/IP, rather than to replace it. Afterall, there's no shortage of fibre (bandwidth) we could lay, so it makes little sense to abandon the "any peer to any peer" model of the current internet for one that might be better organized just to conserve bandwidth.

The more intelligence we put into the routers and network/transport protocols, the more the internet could start to resemble the old-style telephone company (or cable TV), where the devices on the edges of the network (meaning us) have very little.... creative legroom. This is something that I think we want to avoid.

The reason the government wants this... (3, Informative)

sigmabody (1099541) | about two weeks ago | (#47832053)

For those who don't see why this is bad, consider this:

In order to route/cache by data, the data must be visible to the routing nodes; in essence, you would no longer be able to use end-to-end encryption. You could still have point-to-point (eg: encryption for wireless connections), but everything would be visible to routing nodes, by necessity. This means no more hiding communications from the government (who taps all the backbone routers), no TOR routing, no protection from MTM attacks, by design. You get the promise of more efficiency, at the cost of your privacy/freedom... and guess what, you'll get neither in this case, too.

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>