A remarkably confused story considering its source -- the owner of internet protocol Class A address 3.x.x.x. The lede talks about making "the internet" safer, more transparent, more reliable. The next graf recounts a visceral reaction against using "the internet" for air-traffic control, but it doesn't state the issues. It then goes on to cover spoofing, wireless allocation, and bandwidth allocation. But it doesn't remind users that "the internet" is a network OF NETWORKS, but rather treats it like the proverbial single "cloud." Nasty oversimplifications! Bad journalism.

The title for the article is misleading. I expected a discussion of the advantages of a clean-slate approach for internet architecture evolution compared to incremental approach that has prevailed for the last 30 years. I would have expected a discussion of internet 2, of the initiatives under GENI... I found none of that. Instead, I found a presentation of the work of one research team and an argument for the justification for their work. Little discussion or analysis here. I have to say that there is a reference to an earlier paper "The internet is broken" which did a much better job at this (eventhough over a year old).

Internet was created hodge podge. Patchwork. Quilting with no plan. Like Urban-Suburban sprawl with no over arching developmental plan to insure smooth population transitions, schools and roads. No plan equates to traffic jams and overcrowded schools. stressed city services. Unlike Urban Sprawl, the Internet can be remade in ways to accomodate the realities of the evolution of services. We can now look 15 years back and 15 years forward with credibility.

Need to know who sponsors this research and what it will mean to corporate and individual users. How will legal limits possibly impact a revision?