Design Con 2015
Breaking News
News & Analysis

US Consortium Forming on Industrial Internet

8/7/2013 04:00 PM EDT
18 comments
NO RATINGS
1 saves
< Previous Page 2 / 2
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
PaDesigner
User Rank
Rookie
May be Market Regulation and Standard?
PaDesigner   8/23/2013 9:31:27 AM
NO RATINGS
I can hardly disagree with you. What's the difference between Internet of Things and Industrial Internet? What the consortium should address are in my opinion (1) Security of internet of internet of things (2) software reliability in aspect of real-time in this era of cyberphysical systems of mobile devices, home devices, vehicles and industrial systems whilst inter-connecting/inter-operating. Although, if for the creation of new and distinct standards for industrial, i think a worthy one. Nevetheless, security should top framework agenda.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Reset your clocks
rick merritt   8/9/2013 5:46:26 PM
NO RATINGS
Hey folks, you are not getting it.

The Internet is fine. It's the Internet of Things that needs fixing.

IoT lacks what the Internet has-- a unified set of standards like IP, HTTP, HTML and etc so lots of people can do lots of great stuff. IoT is a Babel of protocols and proprietary implementations. It's a mishmash in which no one node knows how to talk to another one.

You can view this Web page on your iPhone, Android, Windows PC, Mac or Linux box because the Internet is GREAT. It has a common set of standards. It does NOT need fixing.

The Internet of Things, however...it needs major work.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: Security
Bert22306   8/9/2013 4:33:55 PM
NO RATINGS
"Why not improve the current Internet itself to make it industrial grade?"

This is happening all the time, though. The RFCs published by the IETF seem to be exponentially increasing, and these include security topics. That's part of my questioning what this new initiative is all about. What would be different for an "industrial Internet," having to do with Internet Protocols, that isn't already being done in the numerous IETF working groups?

Not much that I've seen listed as goals, at any rate.

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
Re: Security
prabhakar_deosthali   8/9/2013 3:17:59 AM
NO RATINGS
I fully agree with Tom.

Why not improve the current Internet itself to make it industrial grade?

Why create another animal to contend with ?

 

 

LarryM99
User Rank
CEO
Questionable goals and direction
LarryM99   8/8/2013 6:43:11 PM
NO RATINGS
I have been involved in industry organizations in the past that did not have clear direction and they rarely went anywhere. One big flashing red light for me is the desire to "...gain a competitive advantage" through this initiative. Isn't this the kind of thing that we have seen China trying (and generally failing at) in telecom and other domains?

There are problems to be addressed. Security is an issue, as Tom and others have pointed out, but that is not just an industrial issue. It might be viscerally tempting to implement counterattack as he suggests, for example, but given the nature of many attacks that would be a bad idea. If actor A attacks site B through site C, then the counterattack would hit C rather than A. Attribution is a real problem in this space.

The real trick is to implement and of this without breaking compatibility. A secure industrial internet that does not coexist with The Internet would have real limitations in terms of capability. You can do pretty much the same thing with an appropriate air gap.

Tom Murphy
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Security
Tom Murphy   8/8/2013 4:39:06 PM
NO RATINGS
Great explanation, Rick. Thanks!  Only problem is: now my head hurts.  Are we moving to an era of tiered Internet service in which some will be faster and more secure than the Internet most people use every day?  I'm not sure what that means -- and maybe the consortium doesn't yet, either.  EG: Does that involve verifiable log-ons that are not available to you and me?

I can recall a news conference at Intel back in, oh, '95? '96?  It was in the start of the Information Superhighway hype, and tales were spun about how a consortium of corporations and the government was going to make the Internet "super."  Al Gore was piped in by video.  Very impressive.  And Gore was later inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame for his efforts.  So I bring a bit of baggage to this latest announcement.

Did the earlier effort really make a difference?  Did the Internet change business or education or healthcare because of that? Or just because it would have done that anyway?  Will the new consortium really make a difference? Or is the Internet of industry and the Internet of things going to happen anyway?   

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: lost here
krisi   8/8/2013 4:34:36 PM
NO RATINGS
Industrial Ethernet would imply some changes in the protocol stack or Ethernet extensions...very hard to do while being compatible with existing Ethernet gear...see MPLS story

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: lost here
Bert22306   8/8/2013 3:56:01 PM
NO RATINGS
Me too! Did the title change? Did I misread it as "Industrial Ethernet" before?

Industrial Internet makes almost no sense. It's certainly possible to create isolated industrial venue enterprise nets, using Internet Protocols.

chanj0
User Rank
CEO
Re: lost here
chanj0   8/8/2013 2:58:52 PM
NO RATINGS
You're not alone. When I read the title, I thought they are trying to recreate a private Internet for the industrial market. What does industrial market mean anyway? As I read the article, I'm lost more. I thought all those problems are being addressed. To dig deeper, I went to the GE white paper. The white paper seems to serve a marketing campaign to me. I guess I definitely need some elaborations and insights.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
lost here
krisi   8/8/2013 1:46:36 PM
NO RATINGS
I am lost here...what is this Industrial Internet about? ...is this a separate physical Internet infrastructure with higher level of security? or a sub-set of exisiting Internet network available to some users? Kris

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week