While most of us have been binge-streaming or strapping computers to our bodies or wrapping our heads around the ins and outs of net neutrality, an international team of academics and some of the world's biggest technology companies have been quietly pondering how to rewrite the basic structure of the internet—for our sakes.
Their idea sounds simple: instead of numbers, use names. Focus not on the locations of things, but on the things themselves.
The proposal, called Named Data Networking, shifts the focus from the numbered locations of data—IP addresses like 174.16.254.1—to the very names of data—something like motherboard/stories/NDN/photo1. Under this system, for example, when your computer makes a packet request for a new Netflix release, you could retrieve the video from the nearest computer that has it, rather than wait to get it from Netflix's heavily-trafficked centralized servers.
"As far as the network is concerned," the project's website says, "the name in an NDN packet can be anything: an endpoint, a chunk of movie or book, a command to turn on some lights, etc." An internet not of numbers, but, if you will, of things.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-internet-of-names
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday May 04 2015, @09:03PM
Theoretically this could be done with something like DNS, (prehaps DNS itself could be hacked to do this), rather than a totally new internet. Each person could have an index that holds only the things they are interested in.
The problem is, of course that names like motherboard/stories/NDN/photo1 are not more useful to anyone (other than the owner).
Nor are names unique, and having an index of every inedx.html in the world is not useful either.
Without location you have a heap. And a heap is the least useful filing system around, and the hardest to find anything in.
Nor do you commonly want some random "closest" index.html, you almost always want a specific one.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @04:01PM
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Sadly true... like so many solutions these days