Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The Internet Is Broken -- Part 2

Continued from page 1

By David Talbot

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

The patchwork approach draws complaints even from the founder of a business that is essentially an elaborate and ingenious patch for some of the Internet's shortcomings. Tom Leighton is cofounder and chief scientist of Akamai, a company that ensures that its clients' Web pages and applications are always available, even if huge numbers of customers try to log on to them or a key fiber-optic cable is severed. Akamai closely monitors network problems, strategically stores copies of a client's website at servers around the world, and accesses those servers as needed. But while his company makes its money from patching the Net, Leighton says the whole system needs fundamental architectural change. "We are in the mode of trying to plug holes in the dike," says Leighton, an MIT mathematician who is also a member of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee and chair of its Cyber Security Subcommittee. "There are more and more holes, and more resources are going to plugging the holes, and there are less resources being devoted to fundamentally changing the game, to changing the Internet."

When Leighton says "resources," he's talking about billions of dollars. Take Microsoft, for example. Its software mediates between the Internet and the PC. These days, of the $6 billion that Microsoft spends annually on research and development, approximately one-third, or $2 billion, is directly spent on security efforts. "The evolution of the Internet, the development of threats from the Internet that could attempt to intrude on systems -- whether Web servers, Web browsers, or e-mail-based threats -- really changed the equation," says Steve Lipner, Microsoft's director of security strategy and engineering strategy. "Ten years ago, I think people here in the industry were designing software for new features, new performance, ease of use, what have you. Today, we train everybody for security." Not only does this focus on security siphon resources from other research, but it can even hamper research that does get funded. Some innovations have been kept in the lab, Lipner says, because Microsoft couldn't be sure they met security standards.

Of course, some would argue that Microsoft is now scrambling to make up for years of selling insecure products. But the Microsoft example has parallels elsewhere. Eric Brewer, director of Intel's Berkeley, CA, research lab, notes that expenditures on security are like a "tax" and are "costing the nation billions and billions of dollars." This tax shows up as increased product prices, as companies' expenditures on security services and damage repair, as the portion of processor speed and storage devoted to running defensive programs, as the network capacity consumed by spam, and as the costs to the average person trying to dodge the online minefield of buying the latest firewalls. "We absolutely can leave things alone. But it has this continuous 30 percent tax, and the tax might go up," Brewer says. "The penalty for not [fixing] it isn't immediately fatal. But things will slowly get worse and might get so bad that people won't use the Internet as much as they might like."

The existing Internet architecture also stands in the way of new technologies. Networks of intelligent sensors that collectively monitor and interpret things like factory conditions, the weather, or video images could change computing as much as cheap PCs did 20 years ago. But they have entirely different communication requirements. "Future networks aren't going to be PCs docking to mainframes. It's going to be about some car contacting the car next to it. All of this is happening in an embedded context. Everything is machine to machine rather than people to people," says Dipankar Raychaudhuri, director of the Wireless Information Network Laboratory (Winlab) at Rutgers University. With today's architecture, making such a vision reality would require more and more patches.

Comments

  • Bottom line for users?
    Guest (Ted Vollers) on 12/20/2005 at 4:45 AM
    Posts:
    1
    While these articles are very interesting, what happens when the &quotnew Internet&quot arrives?  Buy all new software?  How do we migrate to the new Internet?  Does the world stop while everyone loads a new system?  We all know that between spam, phishing and scams that the Internet has become a dangerous and time wasting place.  These articles, while very interesing are not really clear about what your new world means to the common user.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Security at what cost?
    Guest (Adrian Lopez) on 12/20/2005 at 5:17 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Fixed IP addresses, authentication through central servers which -- considering the kinds of transactions it is entrusted with -- must be able to know and guarantee that I am who I claim to be, identifying criminals but somehow not being able to identify innocent users?

    Something really bothers me about this proposed future for the Internet.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Tax Code
      Guest (Kerry Bowser) on 12/20/2005 at 8:42 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I find that the issues with the Internet and patches quite similar to the IRS tax code.  Rather than do an overhaul of the system, lets just fix the little things that we can and worry about the big stuff later so as to not inconvenience anyone at the moment. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Tax Code
      Guest (Kerry Bowser) on 12/20/2005 at 8:42 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I find that the issues with the Internet and patches quite similar to the IRS tax code.  Rather than do an overhaul of the system, lets just fix the little things that we can and worry about the big stuff later so as to not inconvenience anyone at the moment. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • It cant happen too soon
    Guest (Jim Hayes) on 12/20/2005 at 12:51 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Good synopsis of the problem and gives some home for the future - but how long do we have to wait?
    Spam can be cured on the current Internet by charging per email - I think a penny a msg while Bill Gates promotes a tenth as much, but either will kill off the economics of Spam.
    The problem is the suppliers of equipment for the Internet are probably scared Spam will go away, because it will open up massive amounts of bandwidth and squash sales of new equipment needed to expand Internet capacity. Thus they have little incentive to stop Spam. However, killing Spam will more than double the capacity of the Internet and allow new options like IPTV to take over.
    Maybe thats the solution - create a secure Internet2 for communications and leave the current infrastructure for IPTC broadcasting, with hardware designed to only accept and display video. Would that make everybody happy?
    But to make it truly successful, it should be internatioal in scope.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • my two cents
      Guest (webfrog) on 01/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      After reading the post, I have a few comments.
      1. Charging for e-mail - talk about an administrative and technological nightmare. With international boundaries blurred or invisible it would be impossible to implement under the current structure of the internet. Anyway the spammers already use off shore systems to send it to try to avoid the U.S. legislation on spam.
      2. Keep patching and worry about it later. Sorry but the longer we do that the more disruptive the re-build becomes and I guarantee you it will be disruptive no matter what.
      3. The internet is already run by big companies, they provide the very backbone of the internet and are the reason we even have it, without them there would not be an internet.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Another point
        Guest (wsebfrog) on 01/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Everything has a life cycle, even computer systems. As they evolve they reach a point at which they become difficult to manage and maintain. The Internet maybe reaching that point. It should be noted that what ever form it takes next it won't be bereft of spam and or viruses. as long as people interact with it, there will be those of us who will try to use it in ways it was not intended, it will should take longer to break the next version but it will happen, it is inveitible.
        One road to improving the internet would be the adoption of IPV6, that would provide over 281 trillion addresses, more than enought for every device that wants to access the internet it's own IP address.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Breaking the Internet
    Guest (Bill Priff) on 12/21/2005 at 1:41 PM
    Posts:
    1
    This concepts discussed in this article, if implemented, would completely break the internet.  The network is supposed to be dumb.  Just because the users are dumb it does not mean that the network has to make up for that defect. 

    There is a choice to be made.  There will either be a dumb network, and open network protocols - which will spur innovation and some chaos and uncertainty, or there will be a network run by big companies that cant shake the bellhead mindset - which will lead to less freedom and innovation.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • New Internet Architecture - unobtrusive for users
      Guest (C R Muthukrishnan) on 12/22/2005 at 12:30 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The motivation to rearchitet the internet in a fundamental way is persuasive. However, this needs to be accomplished with no major change(s) for users. A large number of users are non tech savvy and the value of the internet to Society coes from these users. Any changes to user experience must be simple, small and value enhancing.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • fsadf
        Guest (muthu) on 03/27/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        asdf
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • New Internet Architecture - unobtrusive for users
      Guest (C R Muthukrishnan) on 12/22/2005 at 12:30 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The motivation to rearchitet the internet in a fundamental way is persuasive. However, this needs to be accomplished with no major change(s) for users. A large number of users are non tech savvy and the value of the internet to Society coes from these users. Any changes to user experience must be simple, small and value enhancing.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Usage Shouldnt Be Free
    Guest (Bill Rosenfeld) on 12/22/2005 at 10:59 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Id suggest another goal - the ability to charge for usage.  If email cost one hundredth of a cent per message, spam would go away and users wouldnt be adversely impacted.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Bottom line for users?
    Guest (Ted Vollers) on 12/20/2005 at 4:45 AM
    Posts:
    1
    While these articles are very interesting, what happens when the &quotnew Internet&quot arrives?  Buy all new software?  How do we migrate to the new Internet?  Does the world stop while everyone loads a new system?  We all know that between spam, phishing and scams that the Internet has become a dangerous and time wasting place.  These articles, while very interesing are not really clear about what your new world means to the common user.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Security at what cost?
    Guest (Adrian Lopez) on 12/20/2005 at 5:17 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Fixed IP addresses, authentication through central servers which -- considering the kinds of transactions it is entrusted with -- must be able to know and guarantee that I am who I claim to be, identifying criminals but somehow not being able to identify innocent users?

    Something really bothers me about this proposed future for the Internet.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • It cant happen too soon
    Guest (Jim Hayes) on 12/20/2005 at 12:51 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Good synopsis of the problem and gives some home for the future - but how long do we have to wait?
    Spam can be cured on the current Internet by charging per email - I think a penny a msg while Bill Gates promotes a tenth as much, but either will kill off the economics of Spam.
    The problem is the suppliers of equipment for the Internet are probably scared Spam will go away, because it will open up massive amounts of bandwidth and squash sales of new equipment needed to expand Internet capacity. Thus they have little incentive to stop Spam. However, killing Spam will more than double the capacity of the Internet and allow new options like IPTV to take over.
    Maybe thats the solution - create a secure Internet2 for communications and leave the current infrastructure for IPTC broadcasting, with hardware designed to only accept and display video. Would that make everybody happy?
    But to make it truly successful, it should be internatioal in scope.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Breaking the Internet
    Guest (Bill Priff) on 12/21/2005 at 1:41 PM
    Posts:
    1
    This concepts discussed in this article, if implemented, would completely break the internet.  The network is supposed to be dumb.  Just because the users are dumb it does not mean that the network has to make up for that defect. 

    There is a choice to be made.  There will either be a dumb network, and open network protocols - which will spur innovation and some chaos and uncertainty, or there will be a network run by big companies that cant shake the bellhead mindset - which will lead to less freedom and innovation.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Usage Shouldnt Be Free
    Guest (Bill Rosenfeld) on 12/22/2005 at 10:59 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Id suggest another goal - the ability to charge for usage.  If email cost one hundredth of a cent per message, spam would go away and users wouldnt be adversely impacted.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Privacy
    Guest (Adam) on 02/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Authentication and fixed IP address have great apeal to them but a what cost to the user. With such a system all activity on the internet of an individual would be avaliable.  At this moment google is being asked to hand over users search history. We need to keep in mind privacy in any change.  
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • The Internet may be broken but don't believe any of these people
    Guest (Kevin) on 03/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The real world is dominated by functioning complex systems that evolve over time in response to their situation. It makes sense that human beings and Internet have a comparable percentage of resources devoted to fighting off threats.

    The people and companies cited in this article have a lot to gain by a massive change to the Internet.  Akami, Microsoft, Internet2, etc. would get to charge everyone for new products.  Computer scientists are always dieing to scrap the status-quo in order to design and put their name on the next new thing.  Scrutinize every word they say.
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review January/February 2009
Lifeline for Renewable Power
Without a radically expanded and smarter electrical grid, wind and solar will remain niche power sources.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology