Engineers Propose 'Network Cookies' As Net Neutrality Fix

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Sep 15, 2016.

  1. HardOCP News

    HardOCP News [H] News

    Messages:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    What do you guys think about this? The concept seems simple enough and cookies have been around forever. Mmmm, cookies. ;)

    Engineers at Stanford claim they've concocted a novel solution for the ongoing problem of net neutrality: "network cookies" that let broadband consumers choose for themselves which packets get priority as they stumble about the larger internet. Detailed in a new research paper (pdf), the engineers propose a small piece of data users can attach to their packets, which are detected by the network to determine the "state associated with this cookie" and apply the desired quality of service.
     
  2. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    I think it's stupid.
     
  3. Alia Nexis

    Alia Nexis [H]Lite

    Messages:
    92
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Consumers will be ignorant to it, developers will decide for them that some (competing) apps need less priority, and ISPs will strip the data from packets.
     
    Talyrius, Flatline and Gweenz like this.
  4. DrLobotomy

    DrLobotomy [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,499
    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    So it is something we already had, and somehow we have to get it back.

    <eyeroll>
     
  5. raywin

    raywin n00b

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    the devil is in the details
     
  6. Dead Parrot

    Dead Parrot 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,586
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    This 'solution' to enforce net neutrality relies on the cooperation of the same ISPs that want to violate net neutrality. It would be easier to enforce basic net neutrality via legislation then pass legislation to enforce the proper use of these packets.
     
  7. Sovereign

    Sovereign 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,080
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    The more complicated a system gets, the easier it is to exploit.

    Lawyers would love this one.
     
    KazeoHin and Gweenz like this.
  8. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,859
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    You can propose tagging extra information to packets all you want, but it will be useless unless there is legal backing and enforcement behind it such that all networks obey those tags.
     
  9. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,859
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    It would probably fall on router manufacturers to come up with some scheme to identify and apply reasonable priority to different packets, with options for the knowledgeable to tweak it as they see fit. I agree, your average consumer would be clueless.
     
  10. Axiomatic

    Axiomatic Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    451
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    I don't like it because it would be rather simple to listen somewhere in the middle and adjust the cookie without the end user knowing. This is pretty much why QoS only works well at egress of a network. Now that I think about it, all this cookie really does is give you ingress QoS. Yeah, I don't like it.
     
  11. CaptNumbNutz

    CaptNumbNutz Bulls[H]it Master

    Messages:
    20,385
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Have you never heard of Quality of Service (QoS)? It does exactly that and has been around since 1994. You can find QoS on any consumer router that isn't sub $50 piece of shit.
     
  12. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,859
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    True. Usually doesn't work very well at high bandwidth though, and is mostly a fail on downstream bandwidth.

    Slightly better if you use a newer Codel based queue, but still.
     
  13. flashoverride

    flashoverride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Let's just get it over with and go to metered throughput and every can pay their fair share. Jesus this is ridiculous.
     
  14. MNKyDeth

    MNKyDeth Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    163
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Why use more bandwidth for nothing? Adding packets for something doesn't fix anything. It just uses more bandwidth for those that are already bandwidth constrained.
    On top of that you end up making things more complicated for anyone that actually has to deal with the packets.

    What ever happened to the "KISS" philosophy with computing?

    We already have the layout of how the internet is. Leave it free, unhampered by anything. ISP's shouldn't be using QoS of any sort imo and the only ones that should are the people at there homes or business's. An ISP should just be your connection and nothing else. They shouldn't police, they shouldn't manage anything on the network except keeping it running.
    The only thing I agree with is that everything should be encrypted except for packets for gaming to keep the latency as low as possible. :D

    Who knows I might be retarded.....
     
    CreatedTheMultiverse likes this.
  15. blkt

    blkt Gawd

    Messages:
    666
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
  16. /dev/null

    /dev/null [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,292
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2001
    We already have a QoS/prioritization solution and it is ROUTINELY ignored. It's even part of several RFCs.

    Google DSCP tagging.

    Imagine if anyone/everyone can mark their packets to be highest priority. Also Imagine that ANYONE on the path between the end user & the requested content can ignore these "cookies".

    What could possibly go wrong?

    QoS being ignored on the public internet is pretty much why point to point connections and/or MPLS exists.
     
    blkt likes this.
  17. SvenBent

    SvenBent 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,149
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    its like email. always send yours with the top priority flag cause you are a special little snowflag :D.
     
  18. Quix

    Quix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,707
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    No, this is just as stupid as the "do not track" flag. It's not a real solution, I.E. one that prevents the problem, it just ASKS the people screwing you over not to. It doesn't DO anything.
     
  19. xX_Jack_Carver_Xx

    xX_Jack_Carver_Xx 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,542
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    How about .... Bite Me Mr ISP.

    You get paid WAY too much as it is for Data over my internet connection. What the FUCK does the Content have to do with anything, WHY are you even involved in the content or where it came from? Seriously, it's like the Post Office opening/reading your mail to decide how much to charge for the Stamp ... Da Fuq. I pay $$ for XGB @ YGB/s transfer rate. The rest is none of you business, just DO IT. If it is costing you too much RAISE RATES .... and Free Market Competition* will take care of the rest.

    *Oh yeah, that would require free market competition, not a handful of defacto monopolies feeding us a line of BULLSHIT.
     
  20. MV75

    MV75 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,025
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Just what we need, more useless data to eat our caps and congest the systems.

    Just what advertisers want, yet another vector to push the shit that no one wants to see.
     
  21. Shadohh

    Shadohh Gawd

    Messages:
    820
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    bad idea, send that engineer back to school.