Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Communications

China Deploys IPv9 Network 362

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the jumping-the-gun dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Deploys IPv9 Network

Comments Filter:
  • key word "control" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:32AM (#9599768) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like that would be the most important piece to the Chinese..
  • by MarkPNeyer (729607) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:44AM (#9599820)
    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.
  • by panurge (573432) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:50AM (#9599848)
    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.

  • by t_allardyce (48447) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @10:54AM (#9599883) Journal
    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!
  • sounds like (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mpost4 (115369) * on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:04AM (#9599933) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by hugesmile (587771) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:22AM (#9599999)
    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:28AM (#9600018)
    But...why don't you just have it go to 10 and make 10 be louder?
  • by Czernobog (588687) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:37AM (#9600046) Journal
    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.

  • by xstein (578798) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:37AM (#9600047)
    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.
  • by wan-fu (746576) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:39AM (#9600051)

    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 [slashdot.org].

    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.

  • by Jahf (21968) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @12:08PM (#9600181) Journal
    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.
  • by jackb_guppy (204733) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @12:26PM (#9600265)
    1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution can not be wrong...

    Boy is that a standard.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2004 @12:33PM (#9600306)
    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.

  • Safe? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sinus0idal (546109) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @12:54PM (#9600428)
    How can 'small scale testing' prove anything to be safe?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2004 @12:58PM (#9600439)
    You'll find that most of the arguments you're using against China already apply to the USA: protectionism, market dominance, monopolistic tactics. Your conclusion might seem less appealing in that case, but Dubya seems right on track to piss someone off enough to deliver it to you.
  • by Doppler00 (534739) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @01:35PM (#9600636) Homepage Journal
    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?

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @01:47PM (#9600725)
    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.
  • by agrounds (227704) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @01:51PM (#9600748)
    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.
  • No, but their flawed government can be.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2004 @02:19PM (#9600919)
    So I guess the French coming to the aid of those American rebels back in the late 1700's was a really bad idea.
  • by Mad Marlin (96929) <cgore@cgore.com> on Saturday July 03, 2004 @02:48PM (#9601064) Homepage
    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.

  • by Spy Hunter (317220) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @04:13PM (#9601453) Journal
    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.
  • by bluethundr (562578) * on Saturday July 03, 2004 @04:16PM (#9601479) Homepage Journal
    "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 [blogspot.com]. I know because I am one. I'm a Jerseyite, I live very near Princeton which had beautiful minds [abeautifulmind.com] and where Einstein's Unified Field Theory [lrz-muenchen.de] 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 [barnesandnoble.com] 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 [amazon.com]. 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 [languagere...online.com] and to give Korean [languagere...online.com] a serious go. While wer'e at it, why stop there? I'd also like to get to speaking
  • by pilkul (667659) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @06:19PM (#9602189)
    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.

  • 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.
  • by tehanu (682528) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:11PM (#9603639)
    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.
  • by Fnkmaster (89084) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @11:51PM (#9603786)
    I hereby declare a moratorium on America bashing for the next 24 hours on Slashdot. Seriously. I'm fucking sick of it. Only we (Americans) get to talk about how much our government sucks. Just like only black people can call each other "nigger" without getting beaten to a bloody pulp. 90% of the Slashdot American readership thinks George W. Bush sucks and should be booted out of office. Preaching on about it here is about as masturbatory as you can get. We all agree some Americans are bad people, just like some of every other country's people are bad. And we mostly agree that the current American administration is horrible.


    I won't even bother addressing your inappropriate use of the word Imperialism. Not every right wing government that you or I hate is Imperialist, and not every nation that seeks to exercise political or economic power abroad is Imperialist.

The bogosity meter just pegged.

Working...