Link.

Starting Monday, the Defense Department will block access to MySpace, YouTube and a host of other sites on official department computers worldwide, in an effort to boost its network efficiency.

 

Troops and families living on U.S. bases will still be able to view the sites through private Internet networks, but the move leaves servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan who use the popular picture- and video-sharing sites with little or no access to them.

 

Defense officials said the move is solely a reaction to the heavy drain the streaming video and audio can put on the defense computer network.

 

“We’re not passing any judgment on these sites, we’re just saying you shouldn’t be accessing them at work,” said Julie Ziegenhorn, spokeswoman for U.S. Strategic Command. “This is a bandwidth and network management issue. We’ve got to have the networks open to do our mission. They have to be reliable, timely and secure.”

 

In a message to troops from U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. B.B. Bell on Friday, he acknowledged many of the sites being blocked are used by troops to keep in touch with family and friends.

 

“This recreational traffic impacts our official DOD network and bandwidth availability, while posting a significant operational security challenge,” he wrote.

 

Ironically, the Defense Department this year had just begun expanding its own use of YouTube to reach a younger, broader audience and show clips of U.S. troops in action.

I wouldn't think it would be all that difficult to save on bandwith by simply restricting the rate at which certain pages can transfer. Indiana U did that all the way back in 2000 when Napster first started taking up its bandwith.

Gee, it couldn't be that soldier in the field are using those avenues to portray less than Hollywood versions of event in Iraq?

 

Why the hell wasn't Soxtalk blocked? Damn, we have to recruit more soldiers, This is the kind of spontaneous publicity we need! Our name in print! That really makes somebody! Things are going to start happening for us now.

Link.

I wouldn't think it would be all that difficult to save on bandwith by simply restricting the rate at which certain pages can transfer. Indiana U did that all the way back in 2000 when Napster first started taking up its bandwith.

 

The quick answer is that it doesnt work the same way. Your school is a lot closer(not as much delay), has a faster connection to the dedicated backbone, has a lot more peers to communicate with. So adding quality of service and restricting traffic has a small price on the overall health of the network.

 

The longer answer is this.

 

Delay is the real killer here, more than pure bandwidth. The further away you are, the longer the traffic takes. So as you saturate the link more, your tcp communications will start to drop here and there, and you will retransmit more and more. This slows down your connection, and also saturates the link with more traffic.

 

 

To give you an example we have an office in australia. Its 267 ms to that office, no matter if you have a 2 meg link, or the new 10 meg link we installed at that office that had no effect on their performance. We had to buy expensive wan optimizers to help us function with our traffic over it. At that point we decided to restrict traffic so only business traffic would traverse over it, to get the best bang for our buck and help lessen the saturation and delay.

 

The military is just doing the same thing. And is probably using expensive WAN optimizers just like we are to help their traffic move across the network faster. Remember the primary use of these links is for Military communications. They allow some web surfing, however if any of that traffic impedes on the primary use of the network you shut it off. I dont allow any of those sites here at my work, nor things like Skype, IM or anything fun. From the security standpont these sites are a killer as people can post up intellectual property or military secrets. Video is a pig from a bandwidth standpoint, no matter how you optimize it.

Edited May 15, 200718 yr by southsideirish71

The quick answer is that it doesnt work the same way. Your school is a lot closer(not as much delay), has a faster connection to the dedicated backbone, has a lot more peers to communicate with. So adding quality of service and restricting traffic has a small price on the overall health of the network.

 

The longer answer is this.

 

Delay is the real killer here, more than pure bandwidth. The further away you are, the longer the traffic takes. So as you saturate the link more, your tcp communications will start to drop here and there, and you will retransmit more and more. This slows down your connection, and also saturates the link with more traffic.

To give you an example we have an office in australia. Its 267 ms to that office, no matter if you have a 2 meg link, or the new 10 meg link we installed at that office that had no effect on their performance. We had to buy expensive wan optimizers to help us function with our traffic over it. At that point we decided to restrict traffic so only business traffic would traverse over it, to get the best bang for our buck and help lessen the saturation and delay.

 

The military is just doing the same thing. And is probably using expensive WAN optimizers just like we are to help their traffic move across the network faster. Remember the primary use of these links is for Military communications. They allow some web surfing, however if any of that traffic impedes on the primary use of the network you shut it off. I dont allow any of those sites here at my work, nor things like Skype, IM or anything fun. From the security standpont these sites are a killer as people can post up intellectual property or military secrets. Video is a pig from a bandwidth standpoint, no matter how you optimize it.

 

Military communications run over their own networks and is secure and encrypted. The stuff they let us use for personal use is contracted out to the locals and it runs over it's own satellite hookup.

IOL, You've Got Mail! So easy to use . . .

 

The guys that replaced your unit, is that a training issue, unclear orders, learning curve???

 

I'm struggling for the right way to ask this, but are these guys more likely to wind up dead or cause other people (friendly) to die?

 

Finally, from your descriptions and accounts of the game, I could see the average Iraqi wanting the US out and their neighborhoods returned to a prewar state. There can not be much semblance of life as usual for them.

IOL, You've Got Mail! So easy to use . . .

 

The guys that replaced your unit, is that a training issue, unclear orders, learning curve???

 

I'm struggling for the right way to ask this, but are these guys more likely to wind up dead or cause other people (friendly) to die?

 

Finally, from your descriptions and accounts of the game, I could see the average Iraqi wanting the US out and their neighborhoods returned to a prewar state. There can not be much semblance of life as usual for them.

 

 

I don't know what their issue is. In talking to a few of em they've been together for longer than my unit has and still they make basic mistakes. Additionally, listening to some of what they were thinking about doing in sector made me ask "are you serious?!". I think they'll be alright but it's going to be a great deal more difficult for them than it was for us. Fortunately for them, we're leaving them a sector that, in spite of all the action I talk about here, is relatively calm. If they don't piss everybody off they'll only have a problem with one small portion of it ( that's where all the crazy stuff I write about happens ).

 

Believe it or not, the average Iraqi, in spite of all these polls to the contrary, still wants us around. They view the Iraqi security services as corrupt, incompetent, and motivated by sectarian issues. That's a sentiment a lot of us share.

Hang in there, Nuke.

 

3 of my buddies just joined the army and are 3 weeks into boot camp.

Hang in there, Nuke.

 

3 of my buddies just joined the army and are 3 weeks into boot camp.

 

 

Give them my best. We could always use some more help.

 

Reading your diary has me losing the last bit of support I had for this war. Perhaps I am too sensitive to the loss of human life, but it is seemingly more and more stupid to be there, knowing nothing will stay changed.

Reading your diary has me losing the last bit of support I had for this war. Perhaps I am too sensitive to the loss of human life, but it is seemingly more and more stupid to be there, knowing nothing will stay changed.

 

 

The war is defenitely worth supporting. I think the problem is that we're not aggressive enough. Time and again we come up with ideas down at our level that could really make a difference and really put the hurt on those who are fighting us and they get shot down as being "too risky". Problem is that the government is soooooo worried about casualties that they're starting to become risk averse. I have no problem with people concerned for our safety but if they'd take the freekin muzzle off the dog I think the overall risk level would drop and we might see progress. I would be happy to provide examples of my reasoning but I can't because that would be too much info for this forum.

But after we leave, it crumbles like a house of cards.

Nuke, just something I was wondering about...how much interaction do you have with the private security types that are over there? Like the guys from Blackwater, etc.? How do the army regulars feel about guys like those?

Nuke, just something I was wondering about...how much interaction do you have with the private security types that are over there? Like the guys from Blackwater, etc.? How do the army regulars feel about guys like those?

 

 

Unless we make a trip up to the Green Zone we never see them. There really aren't any down where we are at. As for how we view them, they are generally regarded as badasses and they are also envied for the salaries they pull in for doing much the same work we're doing.

Nuke, just something I was wondering about...how much interaction do you have with the private security types that are over there? Like the guys from Blackwater, etc.? How do the army regulars feel about guys like those?

I am most of the way through Blackwater now, and I have to say, its pretty staggering.

I am most of the way through Blackwater now, and I have to say, its pretty staggering.

 

 

I TOTALLY want to read that one. Probably get it for the flight back to Iraq next week.

I TOTALLY want to read that one. Probably get it for the flight back to Iraq next week.

Fair warning... its a great book in terms of the information provided, its well researched and cited. But you WILL have to sift through a couple over-the-top criticisms of the administration on each page. I'm as big a critic of BushCo as anyone, but for this type of book, I would have liked a somewhat more neutral appraisal (I suppose I'm spoiled by Woodward's writing).

 

That said, still definitely worth the read.

Nuke, in your latest entry, did I read that correctly? Is there someone in your unit that potentially a traitor? Giving out info as to what you look for and don't look for That just doesn't sound right. If true, he needs to be in a world of hurt, with everything legally able to do.

Nuke, in your latest entry, did I read that correctly? Is there someone in your unit that potentially a traitor? Giving out info as to what you look for and don't look for That just doesn't sound right. If true, he needs to be in a world of hurt, with everything legally able to do.

 

 

There's a grey line between being an OPSEC ( operational security ) violator and a traitor. Basically it all boils down to malicious intent. If a guy is knowingly giving away information then he's a traitor but if he is doing so, as this guy was, by just not watching what he was saying, then no. The whole concept of "Loose Lips Sink Ships" applies here. You may be having just a normal conversation with a person but if you're really not careful about what you say, then you can give away small bits of information that can be pieced together to form a larger picture.

There's a grey line between being an OPSEC ( operational security ) violator and a traitor. Basically it all boils down to malicious intent. If a guy is knowingly giving away information then he's a traitor but if he is doing so, as this guy was, by just not watching what he was saying, then no. The whole concept of "Loose Lips Sink Ships" applies here. You may be having just a normal conversation with a person but if you're really not careful about what you say, then you can give away small bits of information that can be pieced together to form a larger picture.

Sounds like a touchy situation. He still needs to be slapped down for that, regardless of intent, I guess it is just a matter of 'how hard'.

Sounds like a touchy situation. He still needs to be slapped down for that, regardless of intent, I guess it is just a matter of 'how hard'.

 

 

Looks like he's going to get busted all the way down to nothing and rightfully so.

Hey Nuke any thoughts on the story in TNR about your fellow soldiers? It turns out the soldier was lying about the events portrayed in TNR.

Well. If he's telling fairy tales to the press that's a bad deal and he should be punished. I haven't read his stories at all, but the way I see it, the press doesn't need anymore help undermining the war effort.

Your last post was interesting... do you think that is a lot of why we are having so much trouble over there (the group that took your place aren't really in it to calm things down like your unit...).

Also regarding your last last post...

 

Frederick the Great said "He who defends everything defends nothing". Someone ought to clue those guys in on the fates of the Maginot and Siegfried Lines, don't you think?

So what does it do for the troops when George W Bush shows up in Iraq, or when a lesser politician shows up? Does it annoy you? Does it insprire you? Do you guys even care, or notice that they are there?