China Deploys IPv9 Network

jeber writes "At the New Generation Internet Ten-Digit Network Industrialization & Development Seminar held on June 25th at Zhejiang University, it was announced that China's Internet technology, IPv9, had been formally adapted and popularized into the civil and commercial sectors. Based on a ten-digit computing method, IPv9 has its own address protocol, nameplate protocol, transitional protocol, and digital domain name regulations and standards as stated by Mr. Xie Jianping, founder of the IPv9 protocol and leader of the Ten-Digit Network Technology Standard Team. Along with being compatible with IPv4 and IPv6, IPv9 can also realize logistic separations between them and safely control them. On small-scale trials in Shanghai's Changing and Jinshan Districts, IPv9 technology has proven stable and safe."

Comments

Oh yeah?

[BabyDave]

Well I'm using IPvInfinityPlusOne, so :-P to you!

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use the Open Source version:

IPvFreely

key word "control"

[nurb432]

Sounds like that would be the most important piece to the Chinese..

Re:key word "control"

[MarkPNeyer]

This isn't the only thing for which the chinese are trying to develop their own stadards; they hate the idea of paying royalties for formats that are accepted around the world, they just develop their own standards. I'm sure all of this isn't going to help china's transition into the being a free-market society integrated with the rest of the world.

Re:key word "control"

[Czernobog]

A standard is what the majority of people use. Not what they want to use. Or what they should be using. Or what some foreign institution has taken it up to themselves to declare. Or whatever power abusing government or mega-corporation enforces.
As such China's protocols are the standards, as far as they are concerned.

Re:key word "control"

[ghjm]

It's very interesting, actually. From a US perspective we see China as a supplicant, who has to do things our way to be allowed to participate in the "developed" economic world that we created, and therefore own and control. This means that we get to charge an admission fee (e.g. license our "intellectual property" to them), and they are morally in the wrong if they don't pay it.

China sees us as warlords holding temporary advantage due to the outcome of WWII. Chinese warlords have always extorted horrific tribute/taxation from their subjects, but wrapped it in a framework of celestial-academic (or, more recently, communist-rhetorical) self-justification. This is what they think we're doing to them when we say "you have to pay us billions of dollars because (mumble software patent mumble genome license mumble royalty blah blah)".

China has made numerous moves lately that indicate they no longer consider us to be an unstoppable force. They haven't done anything drastically provocative, but they will. The Taiwan question is intolerable for the Chinese government. Sooner or later, if China stays on its current path, they will arrive at the point where they think they can get away with an invasion. And all I can say is, I sure as hell hope there's a moderate in the White House on that particular day.

-Graham

Re:key word "control"

[Jahf]

This is at least the 2nd time that this argument has been used ...

Please explain to me what body you have to license IPv* from?

Tell me again why I would need a commercial product to support IPv* when it has been in some form in free OEs for -years-?

Explain how IPv* has anything to do with "formats" when those "formats" (I'm assuming you're thinking things like video codecs, etc) are not part of the network layer?

China's IPv9 can only exist for one of 2 reasons:

1) They want more control over their own networks, perhaps by having China on IPv9 they have ways of better filtering IPv4/6 (I don't know) or maybe they suffer from the most common of all new network protocol designer's problems ... "we like ours best" syndrom.

2) Perhaps IPv9 has definite technical advantages over IPv4/6 that will become more obvious as adoption goes on. ... Anyway, beyond replying to your thread a bit ...

It doesn't really matter ... if IPv9 doesn't have major enhancements but is truly compatible with IPv6 then let the Chinese have the headache of maintaining the translations. If IPv9 -does- have major enhancements that the rest of the world desires, maybe you'll see it being adopted and IPv6 skipped in many locales.

It is supply and demand ... yes, 1+ Billion Chinese has a lot of sway over standards adoption, but if the standards suck the 5+ Billion of the rest of us will ignore it. If it doesn't suck and is "Right" then good for them for kickstarting adoption.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

A standard is what the majority of people use. Not what they want to use.Or what they should be using. Or what some foreign institution has taken it up to themselves to declare.

Funny, when I used this same arguement yesterday about Internet Explorer I was called a troll. When I go to a site that dosen't render in Mozilla, I am told "the site is broken, it doesn't follow standards". But if it is fine to 95% of the people who visit, which one is broken, the browser or the site ? I use Mozilla for saftey and sanity. But I keep IE handy for sites that just won't render.

Re:key word "control"

[astar]

I recently received a chatty email from a fellow who just spent some time in China. His wife was working on a Rotary project there and then they played tourist.

Several things stood out to me. This is a dynamic society, with construction everywhere. Yet they also spend money making their freeways signs look good, with a little extra neon. At night, the big cities are a neon wonderland. The freeways themselves have lighted lane markers and such. Lots of use of light.

And to the point on this topic, everyone he talked to seem to consider Taiwan a province of China, even the Taiwanise tourists, of which there are many. Now what I actually think is that neither government tolerate anything but the party line, and so people do not speak candidly on this issue. The real deal is that China considers Chinese populated territory to be properly under common rule. And most of the Taiwanese share that view. The Taiwanese government of course thinks it should be ruling China.

My idea is that everyone should agree that Taiwan is part of China and set a date, say in the next century, to realize it.

Re:key word "control"

[Commander Trollco]

Sorry for continuing the offtopic...

You emphasize the well regulated militia part, and this puts you in agreement with the US Supreme court(don't ask me to look up which opinion). However, viewed with regard to the Declaration of Independence, the 2nd amendment is not for the purposes of a state militia, it is to ensure that the people always have their "armed revolt" option open. It is essentially a threat of violence against the rulers, should they become oppressive (cough DEA cough Carnivore cough Echelon cough).

It would be wise to remember that Britain was not a "foreign invader", it was our own government.

The US was founded by radical, violent militiamen of the sort we marginalize today.

Again, sorry for continuing the offtopic.

Re:key word "control"

[Doppler00]

I sure as hell hope there's a moderate in the White House on that particular day.

I sure hope that ISN'T the case. Do you really believe it is morally correct for a communist government to take over yet another country and start restricting the freedoms and rights of more people?

Look what's happening in Hong Kong this very moment where they are no longer allowed to choose their own leadership.

You are speaking of an invasion into Taiwan, warships, troops, etc. entering that country. How many people would they kill before declaring the invasion a success?

Re:key word "control"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Tell you what, you should wait for a similar chatty email from a fellow spending some time in Taiwan. You might just get a different perspective.

EVERY Taiwanese person that I have ever met thinks that the island should be completely and formally a seperate nation. Oddly enough, every mainland chinese person that I've met disagrees and belives as you have stated. Most of them also believe that Tibet rightfully belongs to China too.

Here's why -- that's what they teach them in the schools. Both sides get a full load of propaganda growing up and it takes a serious amount of critical thinking for any of them to get beyond it.

However, despite my American-propaganda filled youth, I can independently say that it is absolutely true that while Taiwan and the mainland obivously share a strong cultural bond, their current-day societies are different enough that any such integration would be extremely difficult and very destructive to smaller of the two. Far worse than what is happening in HK.

Re:key word "control"

[agrounds]

I think the key here, and the point the parent poster was trying to make is that "it's not our country". Morality is not even a factor in this equation. That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country has the right to intervene. That's why there are these things called 'borders'. Somehow this philosophy has been lost on recent administrations but it's validity exists nonetheless.

Re:key word "control"

[bluethundr]

A standard is what the majority of people use. Not what they want to use. Or what they should be using. Or what some foreign institution has taken it up to themselves to declare. Or whatever power abusing government or mega-corporation enforces. As such China's protocols are the standards, as far as they are concerned.

I remember taking a Chinese history course back in college. It was a requirement, and Eastern Studies had never really gripped my interests. But as we started it I became fascinated with the oceanic depth of their culture and history. I'm sorry I never persued it.

I remember that the *"People of Han" (as they called themselves) who founded the original Chin Dynasty considered themselves the center of the universe. So naturally, they too considered themselves the center of all culture and refinement. I see modern communism as a more contemporary expression of this belief. It seems almost bred into their cultural psychology. A very deep meme that is very difficult to erase.

So, while control may or may not have anything to do with the nature of IPv9, my interpretation of the matter (after taking that class) is that they are a very prideful people. It must irk them on some level that all of the important technologies (cars, computers, networking, flying, you name it) come from the west. Maybe this is their way of reasserting themselves as a force to be reckoned with. Which they are.


*Interestingly enough, they were so sure of their superiority that when they had their first runins with westerners they would make them cow-tow to the emperor. Which REALLY pissed off the European Nobles when they came to visit because cow-towing is literally debasing oneself in front of imperial greatness. Getting down on both knees and bowing repeatedly. The Chinese of that day (I forget what Dynasty it was) considered ALL westerners to be barbarians! I don't necessarily think they were wrong about that, after what I've learned about history.

The name "Han" actually meant in their language "The People" just as it does in almost all languages. It's the same in Navajo (Dine) and Cherokee (Tsalagee). Interestingly enough, when the Cherokee first encountered westerners THEY thought they were the most civilized people. They thought the Europeans were babrarous. Mainly because the English and other European languages have the 'b' and 'r' sound which sounded awful to them. It may seem odd that the Cherokees would have no 'r' sound. The reason for that is that the language of the main body of Cherokee speakers don't have those sounds and call themselves Tsalagee. Europeans totally misheard that sound and started calling them Cherokees.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess the French coming to the aid of those American rebels back in the late 1700's was a really bad idea.

Re:key word "control"

[Mad Marlin]

I think the key here, and the point the parent poster was trying to make is that "it's not our country". Morality is not even a factor in this equation. That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country has the right to intervene. That's why there are these things called 'borders'. Somehow this philosophy has been lost on recent administrations but it's validity exists nonetheless.

When you are talking about countries, you are talking about soveriegn entities which, in spite of however much the United Nations might like it, are by definition completely under there own control. We have the right (a word that isn't appropriate to use in reference to nations) to intervene in anything that is convenient to us. It is in our best interest that Taiwan remains a free and democratic society, and not fall under the control of the mainland communists. It is most definitely in the best interests of the Taiwanese that they remain free.

Re:key word "control"

[mickwd]

"I remember that the *"People of Han" (as they called themselves) who founded the original Chin Dynasty considered themselves the center of the universe. So naturally, they too considered themselves the center of all culture and refinement. I see modern communism as a more contemporary expression of this belief. It seems almost bred into their cultural psychology. A very deep meme that is very difficult to erase."

So.....nothing like the modern-day USA then ?

Re:key word "control"

[Brandybuck]

That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country has the right to intervene.

Except that it is NOT an internal dispute. China had a revolution and got split into two nations, PRC and ROC. They are both legitimate nations. There is a border between them.

Re:key word "control"

[bluethundr]

"I remember that the *"People of Han" (as they called themselves) who founded the original Chin Dynasty considered themselves the center of the universe. So naturally, they too considered themselves the center of all culture and refinement. I see modern communism as a more contemporary expression of this belief. It seems almost bred into their cultural psychology. A very deep meme that is very difficult to erase." So.....nothing like the modern-day USA then ?

No, you're absolutely right. American's do think that they're the center of the universe. I know because I am one. I'm a Jerseyite, I live very near Princeton which had beautiful minds and where Einstein's Unified Field Theory was first concocted. Plains, trains, automobiles, computers, networks all invented her in the good ol' rockin' US of friggin' A!

We are jingoisitic and think we are the center of the universe. But compare our piddling few hundred odd years to China's 7000 years or more!

But if you trace American culture, we basically go back to ye olde England to about the time of Cromwell or slightly before (history is not my forte). Until the late 1800s, most of American Society (around 70% I believe) was English/Irish in descent. After the turn of that century American Society was essentially re-made with an influx of new immigrants from the rest of Europe, including Germany, Poland, and Italy (for example). It was a time when our culture was "unravelling" (according to Strauss and Howe) in a period that was not unlike the what the past 20 years of American Society has been like. Scarily, eerily similar. No, no OJ's getting chased by police in White Ford Broncos down the 405, no Monica Lewinsky, no Punk Rock. But just like today, America was being thought anew to include all of the new cultures that were calling america home. It was also being shaken to it's foundations by spasmodic bursts of new technological developments like Movies, Telephones, the Automobile, and Flight. It was also a time when we first heard the beginnings of a dirty and dissident form of music known as...brace yourself...JAZZ!!!!!! *GASP*. I know hard to imagine, but Jazz was really regarded just that way by prominent members of our society instead of the rich subtle tapestry of powerful creative expression that it is.

So, what's been happening for the past 20 years? Well, computers have been around for a long while, but I really don't think the couch potatoes started buying them until they became of the internet at about the same time. We had dirty dissident punk and instrial, and indie rock and underground cinema. And the immigration is ENORMOUS and will definitely chage the way America thinks of itself. Latin American immigration is simply jaw-dropping. In the town I used to live in, almost everyone there is mono-lingual. And it ain't english! Whether your in a "latin neighborhood" or no, Spanish is on all the ATMs and an option for nearly all phone support calls. I think Spanish should be a high school requirement! Asian immigration is completely boundless as well. Up in Fort Lee NJ (right by the GW bridge) almost all of the street signs and business are in both Korean and English...or in just Korean. Including some street signs!

So a *DEFINITE* on my to-do list is to bone up on Spanish and to give Korean a serious go. While wer'e at it, why stop there? I'd also like to get to speaking

Re:key word "control"

[astar]

I suspect by political system, you are referring to the "Washington Consensus" which is term referring to a set of policy prescriptions such as transparency, free-trade, and democratic institutions. Google it. Together, they are supposed to bring utopia world-wide. Myself, I am *mostly* happy with the Chinese government, primarily because they have a workable system for economic development and sovernignity. Actually, this relates to the original article in that avoiding dependence on foreign intellectual property is in this context just good sense.

Whatever country you from, I would challenge you to assert your political system is currently serving the general welfare as well as the Chinese political system.

Re:key word "control"

[silentbozo]

EVERY Taiwanese person that I have ever met thinks that the island should be completely and formally a seperate nation. Oddly enough, every mainland chinese person that I've met disagrees and belives as you have stated. Most of them also believe that Tibet rightfully belongs to China too.

Here's why -- that's what they teach them in the schools. Both sides get a full load of propaganda growing up and it takes a serious amount of critical thinking for any of them to get beyond it.

Actually, it's even more convoluted than that. Taiwan (aka Formosa, around the WWII era), which was formerly a colonial posession of Japan, who had taken it from China, was essentially invaded by the mainland remnants of Chian-kai-shek's army, who took over the island, imposed their power structure on the local populace, and continually declared that they were the one true government of all of China.

If you will, think of it as General Lee and what was left of the Confederate army, complete with families and other hangers-on, retreating to the island of Cuba, and declaring themselves the one true government of the USA. And, of course, declaring it illegal on the island of Cuba to speak any language than Standard English, and making it the sole goal of every citizen on the island to press for reunification with the mainland - with the Confederacy as the government.

For the longest time, the mention of independence was intolerable not only to the mainland communists, but also the mainland losers who controlled Taiwan - being a "political dissident" or an "intellectual" (ie, potential troublemaker) could literally get you shot. Mandarin was the only legal language you could speak in school, which is one of the reasons why many young Taiwanese speak Mandarin, while their parents speak both Mandarin and one of several other dialects, and their grandparents (as a legacy of the Japanese occupation) speak Japanese and their home dialect, but usually not Mandarin.

The "colonials" have essentially been separated from mainland China for the better part of a century now, and recently became freed of the restrictions of the Chiang-kai-shek era (ie, speaking languages other than Mandarin in school is allowed now, or so I hear.) The Kuomingtang (the mainlander political party in Taiwan) is no longer in control, which makes it permissible to talk about independence, rather than reunification, even if the President of Taiwan must tread a fine line.

However, despite my American-propaganda filled youth, I can independently say that it is absolutely true that while Taiwan and the mainland obivously share a strong cultural bond, their current-day societies are different enough that any such integration would be extremely difficult and very destructive to smaller of the two.

Actually, the cultural bond goes deeper than you might suspect. Chiang, on his way to fleeing the mainland, looted a lot of cultural treasures (sculptures, paintings, scrolls, etc.) A lot of those items are still in Taiwan, as far as I know, and the mainlanders, despite now having a different written language (they simplified their writing system), would dearly like to have all that back...

Re:key word "control"

[pilkul]

I certainly do assert it. Not so much transparency and free trade (though I think they can do good), but the democratic institutions.

You're crediting the Chinese government for economic growth. Indeed, 10% growth is impressive stuff. But how hard is it really to grow at that rate when you're starting from an extremely poor population (per capita GDP 1/10th of the US) and you have a huge wealth of technologies to copy from more advanced countries? Japan did the exact same thing decades ago, and they did it with a democratic government. China's system for economic growth is no better than that of Western liberal democracies. They're growing fast for now, but if and when they become an advanced economy they'll grow in the 2-3% range like everybody else.

And I'm not sure what you mean with your sovereignty comment. Massing armed forces, blustering and pointing missiles is a workable system for sovereignty? If you want to see a really workable system for sovereignty, take a look at Canada and Quebec, where they have well-disciplined referendums and legal procedures for the eventuality of separation. And more generally, Chinese foreign policy is not so well-advised; they are too chummy with North Korea and unreasonably hostile to Japan over 50-year-old grudges.

And there are bigger problems with China. Censorship, shooting dissidents and crushing religions you don't like is not acceptable in my book. Nor are massive ill-advised dam projects displacing millions of peasants (who in general are not at all well off in China today). Nor is being ruled by a dynasty of secretive, totally unaccountable technocrats who may or may not be acting in China's best interest.

Essentially the only thing China is currently doing right is their double-digit growth, and as I explained above it has been done by other countries in their shoes and mainly requires stability, avoiding corruption and being open to free trade --- essentially, just not screwing up. Considering the many obvious problems with the Chinese government, I don't at all understand how you can claim it is superior to Western liberal democracies. There is no evidence for that claim.

Re:key word "control"

[trh]

You should really check out the book "1421: The Year China Discovered the World". It's absolutely fascinating, and is written by a retired British naval officer. Quite a good read.

http://www.1421.tv/

Oh, and they're having a PBS special in the US on July 21st about this book.

Re:key word "control"

[HungWeiLo]

Look what's happening in Hong Kong this very moment where they are no longer allowed to choose their own leadership.

Actually, Hong Kong has never in its history of existence been able to select its own leadership. After being leased to the British from the Qing government, the British appointed its governors just like all its other colonies.

Re:key word "control"

[jmorris42]

> I think the key here, and the point the parent poster was trying to
> make is that "it's not our country".

So? We fight for our vital national interests. We fought Saddam once over the oilfields of Kuwait and once to drain the swamp in the Middle East. We would and should defend Taiwan to keep the semiconductor fabs in friendly hands, to in other words ,ensure the free flow of DRAM at market prices.

Defending Free Societies is also protecting a vital national interest. If China were to invade, Taiwain would ask for our help and we should stand with them on pure moral principle. The Arsonal of Democracy doesn't just exist to defend Great Britain and France from German adventurism.

> That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country
> has the right to intervene.

Bull. Go read your history book again. Here is one example for free; The main reason for Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was to keep the French from extending diplomatic recognition to the CSA, which would of course meant the end to the naval blocade of CSA ports.

> That's why there are these things called 'borders'.

No, borders seperate soverign powers. Relations between soverign powers is, has always been and probably always be governed by the rule of the jungle. Because by definition a soverign power isn't answerable to anyone for their actions except the community of other soverign nations. Right is usually defined by what one has the Might to get away with.

Fortunately the US has been pretty enlightened in it's uses of naked force compared to most of the other soverign states that have found themselves ascendent. Probably because we had good 'parenting' by the British. Despite the unpleasantness with King George and our forefathers, the British weren't half bad defacto rulers of the world in their day.

Re:key word "control"

[tehanu]

Kneeling and the kow-tow is normal in Chinese culture. I have to kow-tow when offering sacrifices to my grandfather's shrine. The Chinese forcing Westerners to kow-tow to the Emperor had nothing whatsoever to do with them thinking Westerners were inferior (they did think it but the kow-towing part is not related to this belief). It is part of standard court procedure like say bowing to the king. Everyone had to do it, no matter how high or low they are or what nationality they were. The highest general, the chancellor and even the crown prince had to do it so why shouldn't the English/US/German abassador? *I* have to do it at my grand-father and my great-grand parents' shrines. To the Chinese, the Westerner's refusal to kow-tow would have been considered extremely rude. It would be like if you introduced the US ambassador to Queen Elizabeth and instead of bowing, he put his arm around her and ruffled her hair.

Re:key word "control"

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Plains, trains, automobiles, computers, networks all invented her in the good ol' rockin' US of friggin' A!

Sorry to burst your patriotic bubble, but:

• Plains - France (Ader flew first powered plane)
• Trains - Britain (Stephenson locomotive)
• Automobiles - Germany (Karl Benz - yea the one and the same Benz of "Mercedes Benz")
• Computers - Britain (the WWII cypher cracking Colossus)
• Networks - Britain (Donald Davies is the dude who put the "P" in the TCP/IP as he invented the term "packet switching network")

Jolly good jingoistic try though. Keep up the good trolling.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of all the additional free-thought-squelching capacity China has now!

Welcome China

[lpret]

We welcome our new Chinese overlords. The beer is in the fridge.

Read this: So far, China is the only country in the world that has consolidated domain names, IP addresses and MAC addresses into ten-digit text files. China and the United States are currently the only two countries that possess root domain name analysis servers, IP address servers, independent domain names, IP addresses and MAC address sources.

Standards?

[kai5263499]

Does anyone have a link to an RFC detailing the IPv9 standard? Or did China just decide that they needed that much more addressing space and create thatir own standard?

Re:Standards?

[Fnkmaster]

Try this one: RFC 1347. IPv9 is another name for the TUBA protocol (see here), which was apparently a competing proposal of IPv6 for big-number addressing with TCP and UDP that has never been put into broad use. Some people seem to think it's superior to IPv6 in some ways, but I was under the impression that it's largely deprecated at this point. Obviously some people are still using it - perhaps they are using it as an interim solution until they can transition to IPv6 (when everyone else does - which will be a cold day in hell).

Re:Standards?

[bruns]

Well, when you keep handing out your only IP blocks to spammers, and then giving them more and more blocks whenever they get blacklisted... Yeah, I could see you needing more IP addresses quickly.

Perhaps if they tossed the spammers off their network, they might free up some /16s and such and be able to give some of it back to the rest of the world, which might actually have a legit use for those IP ranges.

RFC

[Simon (S2)]

here

Re:RFC

[Zarhan]

This is the old April fools joke, yes, but I have to ask if this is some sort of new thing. Doing a Google search for IPv9 returns bunch of IETF mailing list postings talking about that joke, and then loads of chinese pages. Is the article a new and improved version of the joke or something that really exists?

Re:RFC

[bitflip]

My tongue in cheek theory: The Chinese didn't know it was a joke, and rushed to implement it.

Re:RFC

[kasperd]

It wouldn't be the first time somebody implemented an April fools RFC.

IPv9

[Amiga Lover]

IPV9, for when being able to individually address every single particle in the entire universe just isn't enough.

Re:IPv9

[Anonymous Coward]

IPV9, for when being able to individually address every single particle in the entire universe just isn't enough.

At some point in the future we might need to address the particles that are currently swapped out.

Re:IPv9

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they expect to address particles in other universes and/or alternate timelines...

IPV4-IPV6-IPV9-???

[Anonymous Coward]

As everyone knows, a standard IPV4 engine has enough power for a small sedan. IPV6 adds cylinders to add extra power for sportier performance. And now, IPV9 improves incrementally on IPV8 by adding an extra cylinder hanging off the side.

Of course, I'll beat them all when I announce my patented IPV12 (tm).

Welcome to last week

[iamdrscience]

My computer is setup to use both IPv4 and IPv6, that makes IPv10! One bigger than IPv9! Eat that, China!

Re:Welcome to last week

[Zarhan]

My computer is setup to use both IPv4 and IPv6, that makes IPv10! One bigger than IPv9! Eat that, China!

While YOU are making this as a joke, I have a personal anecdote that really made my skin crawl. My (telco) company execs routinely used a term "11.5G", referring to "11.5 generation network", meaning 2G (GSM) + 2,5G (GPRS) + 3G (UMTS/WCDMA) + 4G (WiFi) concurrently.

Luckily, that buzzword was later changed to something about seamless mobility or something, basically just meaning that a terminal can roam between different radio network technologies. But for crying out loud, they really thought that this BIG number shows us being years ahead or something..

Re:Welcome to last week

[roybentley]

Winamp 5 is named such because "who wants a Winamp foreskin?"

Re:Welcome to last week

[jpmkm]

But these go to IPv11. You are over there computing all day at IPv10. Where can you go? Nowhere. When we need that extra network boost, we can go to IPv11.

And what about IPv7 ?

[dougmc]

My first instinct was to check the calender ... nope, not April 1st ...

Which department is this from? The jumping-the-gun dept ... no clues there that this is a joke.

Then I looked at my keyboard. The 9 key is right above the 6 key. One could easily mean to type IPv6 and accidently type IPv9. Could that explain it? Of course, that wouldn't explain why somebody would say this is is compatible with both IPv4 and IPv6 ...

I can't read the article itself, since it seems to have fallen under the /. effect. So I guess I just won't know if 1) this is a joke, 2) a typo, or 3) China doing something different from the rest of the world just because they can. It's usually #3, so that's my guess.

Re:And what about IPv7 ?

[Chess_the_cat]

The 9 key is only above the 6 key if you don't know how to type properly. The numeric keypad is for data entry only sir. Thank you.

A good thing for Spam

[BWindle]

This is a good thing for spam. Just wait until all of China is using IPv9, then figure out a way to drop any packets that have passed thru IPv9 routers; suddenly no more Chinese packets, and no more spam.

April fools joke?

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

The article is full of nonsense words, so apart for the July date I'd suspect an april fool's joke.

Googling for IP V9 reveals an april fool's joke from 1994:

RFC 1606
RFC 1607

Re:April fools joke?

[OverlordQ]

Actually IPv9 is TUBA. Which is described in RFC1347.

Re:April fools joke?

[Fnkmaster]

I thought the same when I first read the summary, it's filled with meaningless goop-words. But "China IPV9" does return other hits in Google that lead me to believe this is at least semi-legitimate. See this company, or this powerpoint presentation. Apparently "IPv9", in addition to being used in those April 1st RFCs actually refers to something called TUBA (TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses), an alternative "big number" addressing protocol to IPv6 that is described in RFC 1347 (see this post for example).

The original RFC is here.

Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[panurge]

In a way this could be a Good Thing for the rest of us. The longer the Chinese Government tries to keep out the round eye foreign devils outside the Wall, and protect its people from harmful influences (like democracy) and from questioning why party officials have Ferraris and peasants are still allowed to pull plows by hand, the longer it will be before the Chinese Empire takes over from the US Empire. If you think the Bush attitude to global warming, pollution and the rights of the citizen is backward, it's probably better for your blood pressure not to ask about China.

Last week there was a large pro-democracy rally in Hong Kong, which was (shamefully) handed over to the Chinese by the British in 1997, in circumstances that were never envisaged in the original treaty. The British built Hong Kong into a capitalist economy, educated the Chinese and taught them all about Western systems of government, and then said "Well, forget all that stuff about the Rights of Man and government by the people, we're handing you over to the 800lb gorilla who thinks Genghis Khan was an enlightened ruler." The people of Hong Kong seem, so some reason, to think this was a retrograde step. I guess the Chinese Government doesn't want that sort of thing happening in Shanghai or Beijing, and turning their back on the rest of the world may look like a good way to maintain the status quo.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I guess the Chinese Government doesn't want that sort of thing happening in Shanghai or Beijing, and turning their back on the rest of the world may look like a good way to maintain the status quo.

Well, they've done it before. Remember that the Portugese sailing east bumped into Chinese traders working their way westward ... then the emperor died and the fleets were burned.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[BWS]

You're right, but there is confusion between "Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong the Island" and that's where you're getting stuck. "Hong Kong the Island" was permantly given to the British and the origional treaty never had any stipulations about return to China. But what you don't mention and is the important thing is "Kwoloon". Kwoloon is a penisula (sp?) which is part of China given to the British after the Boxer Rebellion in 1898 for 99 years.

When people refer to "Hong Kong" now they refer to "Hong Kong Island", "Kwoloon", and a bunch of much smaller island. The vast majority of the population live in "Hong Kong Island" and "Kwoloon", with less then 5% living in the smaller island.

By treaty stipulations, again which China still claims were forced upon them, Kwoloon was to be returned to China in 1997. If the British just return "Kwoloon" as by treaty and kept "Hong Kong Island", it would be totaly redilicious. It would be like diving London into two pieces and saying this half now belong to France and you need a visa to cross between them.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[xstein]

Highly informative post. While hoping not to stray too far off topic, just wanted to add a little bit. While the British lease on "Hong Kong" (like you said, Kowloon, in particular all that was north of the Yau Ma Tei/Prince Edward area) was set to expire, the British wanted to keep the land permanently, but were faced by strong Chinese opposition, who essentially said they would build another Berlin wall dividing their land and Hong Kong Island, which would severely cripple the regions infrastructure, and essentially ruin the lives of all those living in Hong Kong. The British gave China their land to prevent this from happening, for the sake of all those living in Hong Kong, and to allow Hong Kong to remain on its track to prosperity as a port and hub to greater China. They did so, however, under a compromise that would force China to promise Hong Kong Basic Law and Hong Kong's free market economy would remain unharmed for 50 years. July 1st, the anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to the Chinese, draws citywide protests, which the Chinese have cleverly embraced and encouraged residents to do the same, as a celebration of national pride, unity, and patriotism.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[wan-fu]

Let's remove some of that misinformation, shall we?

First of all, things are not as easy as they seem. Maybe you think it is easy to distribute the wealth in China to all its people, but think about the logistics of it. China has a landmass comparable to the US with over 1.3 billion citizens. Getting the wealth from the coast to the inland areas is not easily feasible and it is one of the major economic reforms China is trying right now. In fact, the government attempts more and more to encourage development inland.

Party officials certainly do not "drive Ferraris." Yes, some party officials are better off than the people, but that's case even in the US. The salaries that the politicians make in the US put them into the upper-middle class.

If you think the Bush attitude to global warming, pollution and the rights of the citizen is backward, it's probably better for your blood pressure not to ask about China.
China actually does care about the environment. For example, during all years of schooling, children are required to learn about environmental issues in ways ranging from lectures to taking care of plants. Yes, citizens' rights is a concern, however, refer to a comment I have posted previously, It's 2004 People.

Last week there was a large pro-democracy rally in Hong Kong, which was (shamefully) handed over to the Chinese by the British in 1997, in circumstances that were never envisaged in the original treaty.
It was certainly not "shamefully" handed back to the Chinese. First, HK was rightfully part of China until the British took it by force and trickery. Instead of assuming the eurocentric viewpoint (you seem to imply a preference of Western education and government), let's examine the history: The opium wars... where the British addicted millions of Chinese to opium and then used force to get better trade negotiations and Hong Kong. It's not a shame that HK was returned to its rightful owner. Hong Kong is still a major economic center in Asia today under China's rule.

The British built Hong Kong into a capitalist economy, educated the Chinese and taught them all about Western systems of government
I disagree. Regardless of who ruled Hong Kong, it would have turned into a great economic force. It is one of the most important ports in Asia and it cannot be ignored.

we're handing you over to the 800lb gorilla who thinks Genghis Khan was an enlightened ruler
You want to cite your sources on this one? Genghis Khan ruled China by force, no one liked him, and he was overthrown by the Chinese because they hated him (Yuan dynasty, one of the only non-Han dynasties). That's hardly the kind of action the people would show for "an enlightened ruler."

I'm not criticizing you in particular, there are a lot of posts similar to yours on /. in general. Yours happened to have a bunch of the topics I wanted to address. I'm not saying China is the greatest place to live either, but let's give it some credit.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[1u3hr]

Party officials certainly do not "drive Ferraris."

Of course not, They drive Mercedes.

It's not a shame that HK was returned to its rightful owner.

The China that HK was a part of was Imperial China. This country does not exist any more. It's just as true, and just as irrelevant to say that the Communists stole China from its "rightful" owner, the Emperor.

And we're not talking about real estate, but 6 million people who were delivered to the rule of a government that many had risked their lives to escape from when they came to Hong Kong, of their own free will.

Genghis Khan ruled China by force, no one liked him

One thing I have to agree with, he wasn't even Chinese. However, Mao Zedong was, he did kill upwards of 50 million in the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, when of course people were risking their lives to escape in to Hong Kong.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[gordon_schumway]

Yes, citizens' rights is a concern, however, refer to a comment I have posted previously, It's 2004 People.

I think you underestimate the repressiveness of the Chinese government. Let's not forget that this is the same government that massacred hundreds or thousands of pro-democracy protesters in front of CNN's cameras. And, for the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, they shutdown access to the Square and 'disappeared' activists!

Article shows lack of education of the globe.

[node 3]

It's plain to see that the article submitter, who is undoubtedly an American, didn't take into account that China is on the other side of the planet and that the "9" in the article, when viewed right-side up is actually a "6", and that the correct story is that China has switched over to IPv6.

I chalk this up as a clear and abject failure of our education system.

Re:Article shows lack of education of the globe.

[Epistax]

It's plain to see that the article submitter, who is undoubtedly an American, didn't take into account that China is on the other side of the planet and that the "9" in the article, when viewed right-side up is actually a "6", and that the correct story is that China has switched over to IPv6.

wait.. then it wouldn't be IPv6 for them either, it'd be 9^dI.

we can never have enough

[t_allardyce]

It might seem like overkill but the old adage "if you build it they will come" applies here. The more your addressing system can support, the more people will start using it for more and more pointless things - everything will have its own ip, rfid manufactureres will give their tags ip's because they can, cars will get their own all phones will, packages will - just so you can type the ip to track it (and once its delivered the ip will point to that card-board box forever) we're already talking about toasters with addresses its just going to get more and more complicated and the reasons for giving addresses will be more and more pointless (a toaster could easily survive on a subnet) the best solution is a system that can work with addresses of any length (bangs head on table) but people will still demand that their grains of sand have a 50 byte address, just be grateful for exponentials!

Re:we can never have enough

[xiando]

You can never get enough. I've got a tiny /48 IPv6 prefix, that's 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 IPs, and I WANT MORE.

IPv9 and Linux

[veg]

Why has it taken the world so long to take IPv9 seriously ?
It's the only protocol that has in-built, native support for RFC2549 and, more importantly RFC527.

Linus Torvalds has already announced that 2.7 will have kernel-level support for RFC2549, but maybe now the kernel developers will go the whole hog and adopt IPv9 ?

Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

China's New Generation Of Ipv9 Network Technology Ready
July 2, 2004

At the New Generation Internet Ten-Digit Network Industrialization & Development Seminar held on June 25th at Zhejiang University, it was announced that China's Internet technology, IPv9, had been formally adapted and popularized into the civil and commercial sectors.

After ten years of research and development, IPv9 will be used on projects with the National Safety Defense System, National Digital TV Network, IPv9 network experimental programs and many other organizations.

Based on a ten-digit computing method, IPv9 has its own address protocol, nameplate protocol, transitional protocol, and digital domain name regulations and standards as stated by Mr. Xie Jianping, founder of the IPv9 protocol and leader of the Ten-Digit Network Technology Standard Team. Along with being compatible with IPv4 and IPv6, IPv9 can also realize logistic separations between them and safely control them. On small-scale trials in Shanghai's Changing and Jinshan Districts, IPv9 technology has proven stable and safe.

IPv9 consists of three sets of root domain name servers and two sets of hard-connect servers. The two sets of domain name parsing servers each have a parsing capacity of three million users and fifty percent simultaneously. Digital domain name parsing servers, English domain name parsing servers, Chinese domain name parsing servers, IP address primal allotment server, DHCP server, IPv4/IPv9 duel-used 1000M routers, 1000M channel router, IPv4/IPv9 address switching server, crystal circuit transmitter and crystal circuit light routers have been applied to IPv9 protocol demonstrative projects.

So far, China is the only country in the world that has consolidated domain names, IP addresses and MAC addresses into ten-digit text files. China and the United States are currently the only two countries that possess root domain name analysis servers, IP address servers, independent domain names, IP addresses and MAC address sources. Shanghai Jiuyao Digital Network Co., Ltd has been established to popularize the IPv9 technology. The company will work with telecom operators such as China Telecom, China Unicom, China Mobile and China Netcom to better publicize the IPv9 technology.

Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[xiando]

There is a total of 2^128, or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 unique IPv6 adresses.

Isn't this enough?

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[hugesmile]

The concern isn't the quantity of available unique addresses - the issue is that the address space must rapidly get divided up for assignment.

If the addresses were going to be assigned serially (ok, who wants IP address # 000000001?, ok 0000000002...) then you never run out.

But if you slice the 128 bits in half immediately, as a way to divide them up among companies, and then the companies subnet them, and the 128 bits keep getting whittled down, then you start crowding the address space. Yes, 2^128 is PLENTY, but the problem will be the 2^100- sized gaps between various assigned numbers.

To answer your question, "isn't this enough?", it's plenty for the short term, if managed properly. Hard to say about the long term, and hard to say about the "proper management". YOu have to weigh the costs of having a bigger address space, and ask "is the benefit worth the cost" (The benefits being the ability to poorly manage the number assignments, and the potential longevity of the protocol).

Just my opinion.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Shinglor]

From Wikipedia, "This is the equivalent of 4.3 × 1020 (430,000,000,000,000,000,000) unique addresses per square inch of the Earth's surface."

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a common fallacy when working with powers of numbers to think that 2^100 compared to 2^128 is any sort of big deal. Realize that it's 2^28 smaller, which is a pretty big huge number, and already approaches the size of the 2^32 IPv4 address space (which is also full of holes). They're not actually talking about dividing at that sort of level, though, and not everyone who has an IPv4 address would need a /100 subnet, so this whole argument is pretty specious. The divisions (which you can find in the appropriate RFCs and policy documents) aren't spaced out equally; some areas have huge blocks set aside for experimental use and future allocations, while others will satisfy the need for addresses for the foreseeable future. Also, just because of the way routers work, it's more efficient to allocate from smaller, more densely packed subnets, as you can encode more routing information for the backbone network into the address that way, without huge routing tables.

The 128-bit address is waaaay too big to be exhausted; there's something like 1 for every electron in the universe, or something like that. Even the original 48-bit and 64-bit address spaces were pretty big, but just to be on the safe side, the standard committee kept cranking it up (rather than adopting a performance-sucking variable length address). As a practical matter, the human race probably won't exist by then, and we'll probably never need to move off of IPv6 (except maybe to adapt to a paradigm shift that renders the IP-derived protocols irrelevant anyway).

sounds like

[mpost4]

sounds like china want to just have this so they can have better control over what they can filter out of the net to keep thier population from seeing.

China needs to control technology

[Cycnus]

China is currently doing all it can to "re-invent" everything that carries information.
There are reasons for this:
- Chinese are very nationalisitc by definition (in chinese, China (Zhong Guo) mean the "Kindgom of the middle", they really thought -and still do to a certain extent- that China is the center of the world) and they are proud to "re-invent" or "re-conquer" to make it their own.
- they do not want to license foreign Intellectual Property, so they develop their own video format for instance, for both pride and economic reasons as well.
- The Chinese government think it needs to control information.
I believe that the latest is probably behind the move to IPv9.
By encouraging non-standard protocols, they ensure that the equipment has more chance to be manufactured in China, and they have more ways to control the information passing through it.
China recognizes the importance of the Internet and know it is essential to its progress, yet they also realize that it is the most dangerous way to propagate those "subversive" ideas like democracy and freedom of speech. So the best thing to do is probably to "embrace and extend"...
Now, where have I heard that before...?

Re:China needs to control technology

[Dun Malg]

China (Zhong Guo) mean the "Kindgom of the middle"

Like Mediterranean?

No, "mediterranean" means "in the middle of the land". It's meant to describe the Mediterranean Sea, which (apart from a small gap a Gibraltar) is surrounded on all sides by land; contrast with the Atlantic Ocean which (as far as people at the time knew) was essentially unbounded.

be serious.

He is being serious. It does translate to "kingdom of the middle", which in chinese essentially means "that around which all else revolves".

Re:China needs to control technology

[aled]

mediterranean

\Med`i*ter*ra"ne*an\, a. [L. mediterraneus; medius middle + terra land. See Mid, and Terrace.] 1. Inclosed, or nearly inclosed, with land; as, the Mediterranean Sea, between Europe and Africa.

Middle Land is close to me. Every people believes they are the center of the universe and/or the choosen people and the others are strange barbarians.

Re:Ten Digit Computing

[hugesmile]

I have two Ten Digit computers--the first one I call a "digital" computer

Imagine my disappointment when I found out that my "Digital Prostate Exam" didn't mean that it was computerized.

What a pain in the a$$.

Damn it!

[per11]

I just finished upgrading my network to IPv5.

The dragon rises ...

[quarkscat]

I, for one, do not welcome our new Chinese
overlords.

It has become apparent, between PRC's
proprietary WiFi security standards, their
adoption of proprietary multimedia formats,
their proprietary Cellphone standards, and
now their proprietary TCP/IP standards, that
they either believe that:

(1) their emerging market share gives them
the power to dictate standards to the
rest of the world, OR

(2) that this is their attempt to circumvent
WTO trade agreements to restrict foreign
products from their markets, OR

(3) have adopted Micro$oft monopolistic
tactics in their quest for world
domination.

As there was a recent report out about the
rate of foreign investment in the PRC
exceeding that of any other country in the
world (including the USA), one might draw
the conclusion that it is actually

(4) ALL OF THE ABOVE.

If the PRC mades goods for al lof the rest
of the world, and forces their products down
our throats (via WTO governance), AND ALSO
prevents foreign goods to enter the PRC
without compliance with their proprietary
standards (under strict licensing), what
do you think will happen with every other
country's balance of trade with PRC? They
would eventually have total control of these
countries economies, through BoT leverage.

I say, "Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only
way to be sure (they are destroyed)."

Re:The dragon rises ...

[martingunnarsson]

Do you have a REALLY small monitor?? You should upgrade, man! You could easily get like four times wider text!

:-)

1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[jackb_guppy]

1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution can not be wrong...

Boy is that a standard.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[bofkentucky]

No, but their flawed government can be.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[anicholo]

Yes, that's true.
But it is true for ALL goverments to some degree (yes, your's too (your's specially, if you are american)).

The fact that the chinese comunism stinks so bad doesn't mean America's Imperialism smells like flowers. It doesn't.

Safe?

[Sinus0idal]

How can 'small scale testing' prove anything to be safe?

Wikipedia; How to find articles on IPv9

[ArtLung]

I originally read this at IP list -- I did some googling and when ?I saw that there was no entry at Wikipedia I started one -- IPv9. There are other articles google-able out there, but many are the April Fool's RFC -- to remove those you should use IPv9 -historical - of course most of those are in Chinese (gah!!), and few of them play well with Babelfish.

Where's my real time translation so I can read some of those articles?

this isn't much different

[Rinisari]

We don't like having to pay for Windows, so we developed our own: Linux.

We aren't that much different; we're just a lot more global and less self-centered.

Re:this isn't much different

[Spy Hunter]

You don't have to pay for IPv6. It's a free open standard developed by an international community process that anyone can join. If China wanted their concerns addressed in IPv6, they should have joined the IPv6 mailing list and made the changes themselves. Having a huge segment of the Internet using a different protocol than everyone else, even if it's "compatible" (yeah, right), is bad for the future of the Internet.

Look at History

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6K should be enough for anybody

Bill Gates 2004

Series of Experiments

[Ray Radlein]

Let's all hope this works out better than those unfortunate IPv7 experiments based around the Schumann Resonance. Restoring reality from an offsite backup can be a real bitch.