Re: [GTER] China cria protocolo próprio de web, o IPv9

[Fabricio Tamusiunas]

Saiu agora a tarde esta matéria no site The Register...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/06/ipv9_hype_dismissed/


China disowns IPv9 hype
By John Leyden
Published Tuesday 6th July 2004 10:37 GMT
Evidence is growing that IPv9, hyped up the widely-adopted foundation of a 
next generation Internet infrastructure in China, is really a marginal 
project backed by few even in China.

Reports from China this week about widespread adoption of the previously 
unheard of Internet protocol have created bewilderment and something 
approaching a diplomatic incident in the sysadmin community.

Vint Cerf, SVP of technology strategy at MCI, and one of chief architects 
of the modern Internet, was bewildered by the reports. In an email sent to 
senior figures in the Chinese Internet community, he asked: "What could 
this possibly be about? As far as I know, IANA [Internet Assigned Numbers 
Authority] has not allocated the IPv9 designation to anyone. IPv9 is not an 
Internet standard. Could you please explain what is intended here? I am 
disturbed by the reference to root servers, 'control'. What is the 'ten 
digit text file' all about? Who is behind the Shanghai Jiuyao Digital 
Network Company?"

Professor Hualin Qian of the Computer Network Information Center of the 
Chinese Academy of Sciences described IPv9 as a research project that 
turned out to have serious practical shortcomings and little support.

"CNIC explains IPv9 is proposed by the director, Mr. Xie Jian-Ping, of the 
Institute of Chemical Engineering located in Shanghai. Two years ago, 
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) invited them to introduce their idea 
about IPv9. According to my understanding, their proposal includes two main 
aspects: the first one is IPv9, the second one is Digital Domain Names.

"For IPv9, they think that the address space of IPv6 (128bits long) is not 
enough for future use, they expanded the IP address to 256 bits. I don't 
think the protocols for IPv9 have major difference from IPv6 except the 
longer IP address. Almost all the people working on networks in CAS do not 
agree with their opinion, because there is not any evidence showing that 
the IPv6 address is not enough and using 256 bits source and destination IP 
address will increase the overhead of an IP packet. And when communicating 
with IPv4/IPv6, equipment such as NAT-PT [Network Address Translation] must 
be installed. This will be the bottle neck for future high capacity 
interconnection with IPv4 and IPv6 global Internet."

Hualin added that IPv9 is unfamiliar to network experts from Fudan 
University in Shanghai who "do not know any deployment of IPv9 in Shanghai" 
contrary to initial reports by China's official news agency, Xinhua.

Tim Chown of Southampton University, and technology adviser to the IPv6 
Task Force in the UK, told El Reg: "The consensus now seems to be it is one 
researcher or group trying to promote a 256-bit adaptation of IPv6, but it 
doesn't yet seem to have much traction. It is hard to tell how serious it 
is, or whether it is a complete non-starter in the same way as Jim 
Fleming's ludicrous IPv8 is. There may well be some sensible ideas behind 
IPv9, but IPv6 is the system that is standardised and now (very) widely 
implemented." ®



At 04:10 PM 7/6/2004, you wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Humberto wrote:
>
> > Olá
> >
> >     Mais uma "grande" revista publicou a notícia !!
> >     http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/072004/06072004-1.shl
>                   ^^^^^ isto talvez explique alguma coisa...
>
>
>--
>GTER list    https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter