Sorry, but I don't see this as solving "industrial Ethernet" problems. Perhaps "industrial networks." Many of the interoperability and security questions are either solved, or more accurately "continuously being addressed," by the IP layers.
One additional feature that could potentially be folded into an "industrial Ethernet" would be to introduce a synchronous or isochronous mode, at layer 2. But this attempt is what was the downfall of a lot of other layer 2 protocols that have been left in the dust. So instead, we have solutions like RTP/RTCP, which address that problem at layer 3.
I think there's a persistent underlying misconception of what Ethernet actually is. In a "big picture" kind of way.
Okay, so that one aspect could really be an "industrial Ethernet" new direction. Parenthetically, I've seen attempts at this literally for decades. Almost from the time Ethernet was first standardized. Even if these efforts were not IEEE. They were a staple for academic theses, back in the '80s and '90s. It was also attepted in FDDI, where synchronous mode was never mush used or understood.
But glomming on a lot of non-Ethernet topics into this "industrial Ethernet" forum is very confusing to me. Let's take something most people know intrinsically. The plumbing and HVAC systems in their homes. So, this new forum sounds to me like it's going to address industrial HVAC installations for the future, including topics on the design of bathroom faucets, toilets, and pressure regulators.
Of the five goals listed, security jumps out as Numero Uno. We just can't have people hacking into corporations, banks, water systems, electric grids, and more. Adding more layers of security simply isn't working. The problem is that the Internet, because of its current structure, can only play defense. What is needed -- and I have no idea if this group would address is -- is an offensive capability that can track down intruders. I often read that's impossible, but anyone who's lived through the last half century knows that nothing is impossible.
Broader question: I get the need for an industrial internet. But why is it only an "industrial" Internet? Why not improve all those things on THE Internet?
@Tom: As I am coming to underdstand it the thing we looosely call Interneyt of Things is more broadly known in the research community as the field of Cyber Physical Systems. In this field CPS needs are seen as distinct from those of the consmer Internet. Sunder suggested CPS is a superset of the commercial sector GE refers to as the Industrial Internet, which is itself quite broad spanning automotive, mil systems, the smart grid and etc--but not the IT field you are headed to at InfoWeek ;-)
Industrial Internet could revolutionise the industry only if there is real good analytical software to analyse the data and really help the machines to perform efficiently and also help the actual users.
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
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.
Blog Doing Math in FPGAs Tom Burke 12 comments For a recent project, I explored doing "real" (that is, non-integer) math on a Spartan 3 FPGA. FPGAs, by their nature, do integer math. That is, there's no floating-point ...