To your question "could TPTB use this to have the ultimate control on what you're doing on the Net? "

The answer is no and then maybe. First it helps to understand what it does. My home router has different options I can set. These are just stupid things like if I want to open and close ports to the outside. However, I can set a password so nobody else can change them.

I can start the web browser and type a special address that will take me to the configuration program. If you type the same address you'll get your setup program instead of mine. If we have different brands of routers we'll get two different configuration programs.

Big commercial routers that power the net are sort of the same way. Some of them are dumb and you can't really configure anything. Some are, but every single brand has a different way to do the configuration. And for the most part they're dumb enough you can't really teach them to do new tricks if needed. In other words they do their job really fast, but not really smart.

That means if you have a whole bunch of them from different brands and you want to manage them or update them from a central location you have to write a program that can talk to all of them or simply buy new hardware cause you can't teach it new tricks.

OpenFlow is basically just a specification for a standard set of features that all routers would support and a standard of way of talking to them so you could use one central management program to configure them and update them with software instead of having to chuck the whole box for a new one.

They're still your routers though and you can set the passwords on them so no one can configure them but you. The only problem would be is if OpenFlow had a back door like a master password or a special command that the government could use on all of them, but if they had that the hackers will probably find it pretty quickly.



[edit on 4-4-2009 by tinfoilman]

I was under the understanding that modern routers and switches already logged traffic information, and could be manipulated accordingly to streamline data flow via point of presence by a network technician.

... so why the need for firmware that remotely does what the network technicians already do?


Installing a universal control throughout the network would just be implementing a mode of control that can be used against its will.

IE... if they allow universal remote control over the networks, the black hat hackers would have a field day with it.


Won't matter anyways.
I can almost guarantee the first few days of real-world field trials will be met with the full destructive curiosity of hackers worldwide. Enough so that network techs will likely never allow the firmware to be installed on their equipment again.

It's a mistake waiting to happen.
Luckily, the hackers will likely have their way with it and make a mockery of it before it gets implemented on too many systems.