Re: [NNagain] 2015 flashback

[Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4840 bytes --]

It may be a lack of awareness as well as a statement on home networks that are woefully underfunded. Security vulnerability scanning, audits and reporting seem like an obvious need, likely even more than low latency - though both are needed. Our smoke detectors beep incessantly when the sensors expire or the battery is low. There really is no consumer signal to upgrade per vulnerabilities, though that's  all that's needed 80+% of the time.

I recently replaced all my circuit breakers with AFCI to prevent electrical fires. That's a recent innovation to our home electrical networks. We need even more innovation for home comm networks.

Maybe the government helps educate homeowners on their vulnerabilities? Then, market participants sell services to help?

Also, it seems good idea to remove the general purpose CPUs running full-blown multi user systems and replace them with signal processing and L2 forwarding/transit, a la FiWi. But at our current rate of home networking innovation, that may take as long as AFCIs. I hope not as this should help significantly with the pernicious security issues found all throughout networking where no silver bullet that resolves all, rather continuous innovation is required.

Bob

On Oct 30, 2023, 7:20 AM, at 7:20 AM, "Livingood, Jason" <jason_livingood@comcast.com> wrote:
>On home routers / gateways, many ISPs will lease a device to users and
>that covers the cost of ongoing feature & security & performance
>updates and so on. The retail channel is mostly (except at the high
>end) a 1-time purchase with no ongoing revenue for the device maker or
>incentive for shipping reasonably current software. But with the FCC's
>upcoming cybersecurity certification program under consideration, I do
>wonder if that will improve the situation for consumers by pushing
>device makers to improve their software & ongoing support (such as for
>bugs/vulns)?
>
>Jason
>
>On 10/29/23, 15:29, "Nnagain on behalf of rjmcmahon via Nnagain"
><nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net
><mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
>nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>wrote:
>
>
>My thoughts are those that want to innovate in network devices should
>do
>the innovative work and sell their innovations to the market, then find
>
>out if the market wants those innovations by asking for payments. I
>find
>if people are unwilling to pay for something it many times means that
>that something isn't seen as desired. Market signals are a way in a
>capitalistic system to allocate resources including human resources.
>
>
>Asking government to step in and expropriate decades of intellectual
>property development or the outside plants via "type II regulation" is
>typically not effective and likely not even legal. Few want to do the
>work and have their work taken away by the State. Systems that allow
>this will cause investment into these activities to cease, and more
>importantly, it is a form of State coercion parading itself as "doing
>good." Nobody wants to go back to the days of Ma Bell and State
>controlled communications.
>
>
>There are existence proofs of many new Wifi & AP companies since 2015.
>One may look there to see how these groups were able to innovate so
>their products had monetary value and how device mfg became partners.
>
>
>Bob
>> We had many notables have key and prophetic things to say about the
>> internet's problems and future... back in 2015,
>> when we were fighting to keep home routers open enough to fix them.
>>
>>
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HT2NjsHR1bGQM0PeawYuF60B_m3Hisa3_Q1MB2aVNs4/edit?usp=sharing__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BCaF1xaItJ-TpDmrKGG4HLKkne8v8RFk8VPtvJvbGCPzppWvm-WhX1qVDgb5iDYDWv9Sfr7Gc55XSVXOywt-cZ6qpyBapjnz$
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HT2NjsHR1bGQM0PeawYuF60B_m3Hisa3_Q1MB2aVNs4/edit?usp=sharing__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BCaF1xaItJ-TpDmrKGG4HLKkne8v8RFk8VPtvJvbGCPzppWvm-WhX1qVDgb5iDYDWv9Sfr7Gc55XSVXOywt-cZ6qpyBapjnz$>
>
>>
>> I do not think any of the contributors to this document have changed
>> their opinions much since then, and while I think the situation less
>> dire, the overall scope of these problems outlined above, wider.
>_______________________________________________
>Nnagain mailing list
>Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BCaF1xaItJ-TpDmrKGG4HLKkne8v8RFk8VPtvJvbGCPzppWvm-WhX1qVDgb5iDYDWv9Sfr7Gc55XSVXOywt-cZ6qpzc2Z5hA$
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BCaF1xaItJ-TpDmrKGG4HLKkne8v8RFk8VPtvJvbGCPzppWvm-WhX1qVDgb5iDYDWv9Sfr7Gc55XSVXOywt-cZ6qpzc2Z5hA$>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6358 bytes --]