Lockheed Snags $31 Million To Reinvent the Internet, Microsoft To Help 326
DARPA has awarded a $31 million contract to megacorp Lockheed Martin which will, with some assistance from Microsoft, attempt to reinvent the Internet and make it more military-friendly. "The main thrust of the effort will be to develop a new Military Network Protocol, which will differ from old hat such as TCP/IP in that it will offer 'improved security, dynamic bandwidth allocation, and policy-based prioritization levels at the individual and unit level.' Lockheed will be partnered with Anagran, Juniper Networks, LGS Innovations, Stanford University and — of course — Microsoft in developing the MNP. Apart from that, Lockheed's own Information Systems & Global Services-Defense tentacle will work on amazing new hardware."
Skynet (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Skynet (Score:5, Funny)
I would have welcomed our new corporate overlords, but hell, they've been here for some time now. How about, I rejoice in the continued glorified presence of our existing, and most wondrous corporate Uberlords and their subservient cronies.
(I think I'll go wash my mind out with a good Vodka at this point)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
um, don't you mean military overlords...
Of course, the corporate uberlords control the military overlords, but that's a separate meme.
and at best temporary
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
(I think I'll go wash my mind out with a good Vodka at this point)
Pot works better.
T-Fal or Calphalon?
Re:Skynet (Score:4, Funny)
The Slashdot cliché trifecta is now complete.
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
The Slashdot cliché trifecta is now complete.
With a Fark meme to wrap it up?
Re:Skynet (Score:5, Funny)
We don't have to worry about Skynet, or Overlords...Face it, a Military Intranet based upon Microsoft technology means that you will have to reboot it every few days, viruses will infect it daily, and every once in a while, it will all just crash for no observable reason at all.
Essentialy, it is China and Russia's wet dreams come true!
Re:Skynet (Score:5, Funny)
What you don't know... (Score:2)
...is that this is something the US was planning to smuggle INTO China and Russia...
Wow, sounds like ipv6 (Score:4, Insightful)
LMCO and Microsoft: here's your protocol (hands them a copy of the ipv6 std doc).
US: thanks, that's great work! Here's your check.
How did they calculate exactly $31 million? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How did they calculate exactly $31 million? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just surprised, no astounded, that a large military contractor (and microsoft) will do it for such a teeny tiny amount considering how much they usually charge.
Perhaps it is just for the IPv6 spec with the 6 crossed out and 7 in its place after all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like they did for Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a defense contractor (not LM) - the profit margins are not the bonanza that everyone makes them out to be.
This job is mostly labor - probably not much in the way of parts.
Bottom line (Score:5, Funny)
How does this affect pr0n?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bottom line (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bottom line (Score:5, Interesting)
How does this affect pr0n?
If I were implementing it in HTB, I'd do it like this:
prio,rate(%),burst(S,M,L): desc
Everything is guaranteed the percentage (relative to peers) given; IE, the queue with SMTP will get 1% (5% * 20%) of bandwidth as a guarnateed minimum (enough to keep connections alive when other things are bursting hard, and eventually deliver email even if higher priorities never relent).
Extra bandwidth is given exclusively to higher priority bands (ie, lower prio numbers): If there are whole bunch of videoconferences going on between officers in bases about non-immediate military needs (prio 1.0), and suddenly 20 drone pilots need realtime video feeds to interactively fly a coordinated airstrike, the pilots get all the bandwidth they need, leaving the videoconferences only 6% (smart codecs will degrade gracefully; fixed bandwidth ones will just have to call back after the airstrike). Similarly, if they need to VoIP about building a bigger mess, your counterstrike game will lag. FTP gets best effort in between your porn page loads (which burst quickly with the medium-size burst; FTP gets a small burst so it's always ready to yield).
The level of detail you get into for the queues depends on how much bandwidth you have, and how much contention there is for it. If there's high contention, more detail helps more. There are also smarter queueing disciplines than HTB, but it's the simplest to describe like this.
Statically reserved bandwidth guarantees per-connection is better for many realtime needs. With RSVP, each drone pilot can reserve a guaranteed 5% slot for their flow, to prevent problems where there was lots of extra bandwidth, and then a lower priority suddenly needs its minimum guarantee, thus screwing up traffic that was flowing before. IE, it's better to tell the pilot from the start that there's not enough bandwidth that can be guaranteed to them, than to have them start flying and then get jitters when a bunch of troops hit push-to-talk, right as their drone was on final approach.
So in short, porn is pretty low on the list, but not the bottom of the stack. :)
Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its part of the stimulus. Just make people work and pay them for it... doesn't matter if it does any good, they have jobs. Oh shit, dare I mention how this could help the average Slashdot member have a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously I was trying to point out the hypocritical behavior of most Slashdot thinking (i.e. EVERYONE is out to steal your money). They hate on corporations and the free market then they hate on this sort of thing. I thought it was apparent that I was trolling Obama and that I wish we had a more free market and less government control.
If you were just pointing that out to everyone else, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true. The DoD has been planning on implementing IPv6 "in two years" for the past decade.
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you feel at all hypocritical posting that on the existing Internet, which came from earlier DARPA projects of the same nature?
Re:Who wants to bet... (Score:5, Funny)
They'll have to leave the major version number the same so it doesn't break the Internet. They'll call it IPv7, but it will be version 6.1 to keep this compatibility.
xml! (Score:5, Insightful)
if only! I sense XML based packets.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Actually, Microsoft discovered the X.25 specs during an archaeological dig and are thinking the full X.400 and X.500 specifications are really neat ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
If implemented in military hospitals... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you not know that many hospitals already run windows equipment?
Re:If implemented in military hospitals... (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is why a company I used to work for making Medical Office Management software replaced all of thier 5000+ installed desktops with a version of Linux I created for them, and dramaticaly cut their support costs. 3 Customer service types, one System Architect (Me), and two developers were easily able to support 5000+ desktops, and around 200 servers, remotely.
Try that with Windows...and you will need many, many more people!
ttyl
Farrell
Re: (Score:2)
So that's why the death rate in hospitals per capita is twice that of the UK! I was wondering.
Re: (Score:2)
... and used to interconnect medical devices, it'd give a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death"
Why stop at the Hospitals? Use it to connect the Nukes and you'll get the last either BSOD you (or the enite planet) will ever see.
Is this FUCKING JOKE? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft, from all people? ignore all the jokes about his consumer OS. His server software is horrible bad!!. Maybe Visual Studio is a nice tool, his compiler is average, but good. Other than that, why o why? I sould not be tecnical merits, has to be something else.
Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE? (Score:5, Funny)
Why are you talking about Microsoft like it's alive?
Is there something I should know?
Hello, windows.
Yes (Score:2)
Microsoft is a fungus, and therefore is technically alive.
Re: (Score:2)
It ain't no joke (Score:2)
Microsoft, from all people?
Microsoft and Lockheed Martin been partners on high-profile military projects for at least the last ten years:
The alliance builds on existing relationships between Lockheed Martin and Microsoft on projects including the U.S. Air Force Integrated Space Command and Control (ISC2) program, a comprehensive upgrade of the North American Air Defense (NORAD) Cheyenne Mountain Complex; the integrated warfare system for the U.S. Navy's next nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, CVN 77; the Gl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jeesh, EVERYONE knows that it is Microsoft that made the first internet possible and accessible to everyone starting back with their first copy of Windows 95, right? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be a good them for them and us (Score:5, Interesting)
This makes a lot of sense, the military has unique requirements of all sorts, from security to e.g. their inability to hook up an aircraft carrier to fiber (except while at dock) to their need to carry both operational and personal traffic (the latter to keep their people in touch with home) over necessarily constrained links.
I like the bit about "self configuration capabilities to ... reduce the need for trained network personnel and lower overall life cycle costs for network management". While the current state of the art keeps us well employed, things could be easier. Heck, the more the systems I maintain for my parent self-configure, the happier I am.
Re: (Score:2)
The more I deal with IT insanity, the more I realize it comes in infinite supply. No matter how much you make monkey work they'll just try doing 10x as advanced and/or stupid things with IT...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've used some classified DoD networks before, and they are certainly managed differently, almost more like a circuit-switched network than packet-switched. You have to apply way in advance to get bandwidth allocated on them, declaring in advance your endpoints, and then if approved you are guaranteed that bandwidth. They have to be very underutilized as a result of this, so introducing some reasonable QoS that would allow folks to use up the spare bandwidth sounds like like a much needed improvement.
I'm no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pah. its easy. You just need a very long cable.
Come to think of it, if they equipped carriers with the stuff those transatlantic cable laying/repairing ships have, then many 3rd world countries would welcome American invasion. Foreign policy through winning over Hearts, Minds, and Youtube. What could go wrong :)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, no, I was just thinking, a supercarrier is often compared to a small city, it's got the population and a lot of technical expertise. You could imagine one having a couple of Google/Sun type shipping containers stuffed full of computers tucked away in different corners (not likely a problem with powering them!) ... except for that minor detail that they're going to have a seriously constrained
Surprised this one wasn't first (Score:5, Funny)
And Al Gore could not be reached for comment.
Reinvent the wheel (Score:2)
The next step from DARPA is asking Lada to reinvent the wheel to make it more military friendly, adding automatic braking and better resilience against bullets.
Re: (Score:2)
The next step from DARPA is asking Lada to reinvent the wheel to make it more military friendly, adding automatic braking and better resilience against bullets.
Ok, here [scientificamerican.com].
China (Score:4, Insightful)
How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?
Re:China (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?
Do you have any idea of how the US military works at all? The military itself makes very few products. Just about everything from the bullets fired, the guns that fire them, the planes that carry the guns, the engines that power the planes, the radar that guides aims the guns, etc., etc., etc., was all designed and built by a "corporation", which simply met a spec that the military asked for. The military basically says, I need a plane that can go at least mach 2, can carry X number of pounds of air to ground or air to air weapons, has X% stealth capability, has a range of X miles, can land on a aircraft carrier, etc., etc... and costs about X dollars. Multiple designs are submitted by different companies that think they can meet or exceed spec, and the military then selects one or two to build a prototype and then selects one of those prototypes and then it has another contract bid to actually manufacturer the winning design.
ALL those things are being designed and built by a corporation that handles the military security. Even services for network design, and standard security policy and practices are usually designed and maintained by a corporation! Get a clue man.
Re:China (Score:5, Funny)
The military basically says, I need a plane that can go at least mach 2, can carry X number of pounds of air to ground or air to air weapons, has X% stealth capability, has a range of X miles, can land on a aircraft carrier, etc., etc... and costs about X dollars.
Wow, I'd like to see the value of X that can fit all of those parameters!
Re:China (Score:5, Funny)
I think zero works!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?
Just about every American Legislature, Commander-in-Chief, Personnel Investigator, and military officer in the history of our nation?
I mean seriously, where do you think our military equipment is built and researched? There's not a factory somewhere with a bunch of army privates putting m-16's together. The vast majority of our military technology and equipment is produced and researched by private corporations. That's because the brightest minds get drawn in by the highest paycheck, and that's not us
Yikes. I work for Lockheed... (Score:5, Interesting)
... and I can tell you that this sounds like a disaster in the making. LM is so top-heavy with bureaucracy and process-bloat that the company might as well be a mini-Pentagon itself (not so mini, either, now that I think about it). Nothing happens quickly at Lock-Mart, and the things that do happen cost a bloody blue fortune.
If nothing else, they'd better hire in some outside IT guys. If this work gets anywhere near the corporate IT bozos, the military can look forward to a future of XP Pro with daily forced updates, and new hardware every five years or so (which again, is not terribly far away from the way the armed forces IT already works)...
Re: (Score:2)
And all the tech support will be handled by someone in Bangalore who has never seen the system and who just scraped 5.0 on IELTS.
Re: (Score:2)
Their job process really blows though. Unless you know someone or are part of some contract changeover (from SAIC to Lockheed-Martin for example), I don't see how you could get a job.
I've had my resume in their HR database for 10 years now, making updates as I change duties and jobs. I've worked in IT at Johns Hopkins APL, NASA, IBM, and now at a smaller but very interesting telecom type company and never had a single query from Lockheed-Martin.
[John]
Tap tap tap ... (Score:4, Funny)
You an also improve the throughput of your attached USB device by plugging it into a USB2 port, which is what you would have done if this computer actually had USB2 ports on it, but it doesn't, and I'm not going to tell you how to shut these annoying messages off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
USB device? The DoD hasn't been allowed to use those things in almost a year! [cnet.com]
Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
From reading the actual BAA [fbo.gov], it sounds like this is not an effort to replace IP networks but to supplement them with additional protocols. In fact, the requirements explicitly state that MNP must carry legacy IPv4 and IPv6 traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
How about.. The MSN Network ! (Score:4, Funny)
Hey.. MS has a good track record when it comes to implementing a new ubiquitous network right ?
Remember MSN (the thing that was suppose to kill the internet.. So much better than TCP/IP that Win 95 didn't have a TCP/IP stack to start with) ?
I'm wondering (ok.. not *really* wondering) why they went to those guys to do that..
--Ivan
Is it just me... (Score:2)
Or does $31 million sound like petty cash for Lockheed Martin and Microsoft to invent a superior, military grade communications protocol?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They bid for $31 million. When the project money is almost exhausted, they'll come back asking for more to finish.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
sure, in comparison to the piles of money previously given to large contractors to flail around pretending to solve the unique mission critical requirements of the military, its nothing!
Of course! (Score:2, Insightful)
> Lockheed will be partnered with [snip]
> and - of course - Microsoft
> in developing the MNP
What's "of course" about this?
Really, this is no different from managers, company directors etc. who achieve nothing, or even drive companies bankrupt, yet still manage to obtain the next job to fuck up.
What the hell is up with these people?
Oh btw, any story on slashdot that somehow mentions Microsoft should automatically be assigned a non-removable tag: f*ckmicrosoft.
And finally: What's with the (extremely
Yeah Right (Score:4, Funny)
Asking Microsoft to help with security is like asking Jessica Simpson for advice on staying out of the spotlight.
don't worry (Score:3, Insightful)
The taxpayer will pay for it, it will look great on paper but be overly complicated ($31m buys a lot of unnecessary engineering), Microsoft and Lockheed will patent it, they'll market the hell out of it, and they'll create a slow and buggy Windows implementation with Microsoft-proprietary "enhancements" that make it non-interoperable.
Then industry is going to settle on something different because the standard is patent-encumbered, too complicated, and doesn't work right anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The Patented Internet (Score:2)
You can bet they can't resist the urge to patent everything they touch -- both Microsoft and Lockheed. And while they may or may not be allowable at the moment, there's nothing to say they couldn't renegotiate to enable charging patent rights in lieu of direct payment. You know, sort of how George Lucas did with Star Wars and marketing rights?
IP *does* this already. (Score:3, Interesting)
'improved security,'
Like IPSec? Don't fix the network layer, that's pointless. Fix the application layer - run it through TLS or similar if you must.
'dynamic bandwidth allocation,'
Like RSVP on an MPLS circuit? Or like DiffServ?
'policy-based prioritization levels at the individual and unit level.'"
Like CoS?
Seriously, all this has been thought of before - and we ended up with CLNA, IS-IS and networks so complicated it never took off - instead, IP took off because it was easy to use and easy to route.
If we're going to change IPv4 for anything, it should be IPv6 - it's easy to understand, easy to read, easy to process and best of all - ready to use *now*. Many ISPs already have it, and there's a crapload of Usenet traffic/BitTorrent that already goes via v6.
Solution is already there? (Score:2)
"...which will differ from old hat such as TCP/IP in that it will offer 'improved security, dynamic bandwidth allocation, and policy-based prioritization levels at the individual and unit level."
So, in other words, someone will spend over $30 million to finally implement IPv6?
Bravo, gentlemen, bravo.
I for one.... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:2)
...the Military has determined in it's infinite wisdom that the dedicated and encrypted NIPRnet and SIPRnet networks already in place have been instantly deemed "mil-crap"(tech jargon), and since the taxpayers are paying for it, justification came down swiftly and thus summarized(layman's terms) as "what the hell, why not, it's only money, right?"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
hehe did someone mention microsoft and security in the same sentence?
"And now for tonight's top story, another 31 Microsoft security flaws fixed in an emergency off-cycle patch"...
Re:So...IPv6 then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the f*** would anybody go to Microsoft? It took them over a decade to implement TCP/IP properly. Whatever you think of their software development, they're not exactly overwhelming developers of protocols.
Re:So...IPv6 then? (Score:4, Funny)
It's not like you could trust a bunch of hippy academics to design a viable internetworking protocol....
Re:So...IPv6 then? (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Sir or Madam,
The responsible Anti-Microsoft Troll that should have replied to this post by now is on sick leave and was unable to prepare a custom flaming reply to this particular post. In lieu of that, attached is our generic template which we use to write all our flaming responses.
1. Make a general anti-Microsoft jab
2. Blame Microsoft for it's stance against Free Software (and also for lack of network neutrality, the current state of patent laws, the Iraq war, and the extinction of the dinosaurs)
3. Accuse the poster who wrote something positive about Microsoft of being either a fanboy or a Microsoft employee. If the poster in question made a comment about Microsoft's actual support of Free Software in a particular instance, accuse the poster of being an oblivious idiot unable to see through their Embrace-Extend-Extinguish approach
4. State that the Linux revolution is inevitable
5. Finish off with another outpour of flames
We hope you will be able to infer the potential content of the post that should have been done by the respective Troll. Please accept our apologies.
Sincerely,
Assistant Secretary,
Anti-Microsoft Trolling Association, Ltd.
Re:So...IPv6 then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>It's not like you could trust a bunch of hippy academics to design a viable internetworking protocol....
Yeah, like that one MS "borrowed" from BSD to implement TCP/IP when they finally gave up trying to force everyone to use their proprietary network junk. Hmm
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"It took them over a decade to implement TCP/IP properly." What??? MS has made continually less and less useful implmentations of the IP stack with each build!
Re:So...IPv6 then? (Score:5, Informative)
Wow.
I am guessing you are going for a funny mod. I just don't see the humor however.
You don't by chance believe what you just typed do you?
The DHCP RFC was written and published in 1997, by a guy at bucknell university (bucknell.edu ?) in Pennsylvania. Windows JUST got a built in IP stack in 1995, and even then it was only a copy of the BSD IP stack. They didn't rewrite their own for a couple years later, long after DHCP was rolled out. Microsoft had nothing to do with it, other than again copying the BSD dhcp code and adding it to their IP stack.
Microsoft also never wrote samba. They attempted to sue samba to make them stop releasing software, but thankfully they didn't get away with it. Now if you mean the file sharing protocol itself of SMB, then yes Microsoft made that. However Microsoft never wanted anyone else to use it. So even if they 'did it right', you still can't thank them for that if you use it on a non-windows system today. Samba was created in response to Microsoft not sharing their protocol, which is how it ended up on unix systems to replace NFS.
It is also worth pointing out that the samba project was started long before SMB or even windows 95 existed, back in 1992, and provided the same type of service for DEC file sharing, that it provides for SMB windows sharing today and LAN Manager support previously. And before you ask, Microsoft had nothing to do with DEC (aside from possibly aiding their going out of business)
Basically you are giving credit to Microsoft for inventing something they didn't, and for giving something to unix that they fought tooth and nail to keep from being on unix.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah
Samba was created in response to Microsoft not sharing their protocol, which is how it ended up on unix systems to replace NFS.
I meant to say, _that feature_ of samba was created in response to microsoft not sharing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The second thing Microsoft did right was samba.
Microsoft did not create Samba, since Samba is an implementation of the SMB protocol for *nix systems. And SMB was not created by Microsoft either, but by IBM. But Microsoft did use the SMB protocol for the Windows File Sharing services. Other people had to reverse-engineer the protocol to be able to create Samba, which was expressly created to allow Unix systems to interoperate with Windows systems, which hardly was in Microsoft's interest.
it has became such a standard that even on UNIX boxes, it has edged out NFS.
It has? That's news to me. But still, if I understand correctly, th
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts too. What has Microsoft ever done "right", other than seperating suckers from their money? Oh - wait - this means Microsoft is in charge of marketing?
Re:So...IPv6 then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft didn't implement TCP/IP. They took the BSD stack and tried to stick into Windows. When it didn't fit right, they tried again. And again. And again.
They were bound to get it right sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2)
because of the Business Re-appropriation Initiative Benefit Exchanges
Re:So...IPv6 then? (Score:5, Insightful)
The military may be looking for a smaller packet size then IPv6 can offer. Think IPv4 with all of the cruft taken out. They might be able to get away with an even smaller address size then IPv4 since they have a finite number of things they want to connect. Ports seem to be a waste of bits, since you only ever use a few of those at a time. Shaving 10 bits off of the address and 10 bits off of the port would allow them to add security, prioritization, etc.
Some of these military data streams will be unreliable and every bit helps.
Re:So...IPv6 then? (Score:5, Informative)
The military may be looking for a smaller packet size then IPv6 can offer. Think IPv4 with all of the cruft taken out. They might be able to get away with an even smaller address size then IPv4 since they have a finite number of things they want to connect. Ports seem to be a waste of bits, since you only ever use a few of those at a time. Shaving 10 bits off of the address and 10 bits off of the port would allow them to add security, prioritization, etc.
Some of these military data streams will be unreliable and every bit helps.
I believe the actual article indicates that it still has to be able to carry traditional IPv4 and IPv6 data... So I doubt if they're going to completely re-invent the wheel.
Sounds more like they want a new protocol to sit on top of IP... Maybe something to replace TCP and/or UDP? Maybe just bolting on some QoS and IPSEC in some documented, standardized way? Maybe a new multipurpose communication protocol to roll SMTP/HTTP/FTP/VOIP/whatever into one?
Re: (Score:2)
The simplest thing they could do is use IPv6 extended headers to carry a security label, and/or a short digital signature or other indicator that would permit packets to be more tamper-resistant, and/or a Kerberos token, and/or enough additional markings that IPSec could operate per-connection.
In fact, if you had one extended header for each of those, you could mix-and-match security extensions according to needs. And because IPv6 only defines a handful of extended headers at present, there's virtually no r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They'll stuff it up (Score:5, Interesting)
no they wouldn't as you say, 'stuff it up'.
They'd patent the sh1t out of it so it is 'stuffed up' for the rest of us.
Remember that the US Military are exempt from patents awarded for work funded by them.
Then all Microsoft need to do is make 'The Internet V2' standard in Windows 8 and watch pretty well every company fall over backwards to implement it.
They would control who the licensed 'Internet V2' to thus kille FOSS, ORacle and probably Apple in one stroke of the pen from the US Patent Office.
Embrace - Done
Extend - Take IPv6, add a few bells & Whistles, patent it
Extinguish - Message from Steve B to Bill G, 'Looks Good'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most tactical systems use UDP so you could argue TCP has already been replaced ;)
The trouble with policy based management at unit / sub-unit level is not with traffic within the unit's AOR but with traffic which crosses multiple unit's networks. Not only that but you have two conflicting isssues: ;)
Traffic prioritisation based on the traffic type (E.g voip - low jitter requirement) and priotiy based on user needs (E.g Flash, Priority, Immediate, Routine etc... Or to get really stupid flash override override