20 ms·

IETF Response to “LS on New IP, Shaping Future Network”

124 points by polymorph1sm 7y ago

amacbride 7y ago
This is a piece of art: the most polite and well-researched STFU I have ever seen. A gem: “We also note that any real-time systems requiring sub-millisecond latency inevitably have limited scope because of the constraints of the speed of light.”
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jlgaddis 7y ago
For those wondering that this is all about, refer to "LS on New IP, Shaping Future Network" [0] (and the attachments listed there): --- > The September 23-27, 2019 meeting of the ITU-T Telecommunications Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) considered a tutorial and contribution presentation on “New IP, Shaping Future Network” proposing to “analyse the current challenges and provide a development path for the future network for the next decade”. > It was noted that the activities proposed could be related to the current work of several Study Groups across ITU-T. > Please find attached the referenced contribution and tutorial for your review, and comment back to TSAG for its consideration ahead of WTSA-20. --- The "tutorial" [1] (PPTX) is, well, "interesting"; to pique your interest, it includes such terms as "space-terrestrial network", "multi-level verification filtering system", "holographic communication", "multi-semantic addressing", and, of course, "blockchain"! --- [0]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653/ [1]: https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-09-30-itu-t-tsag-ietf-iab-ls-on-new-ip-shaping-future-network-attachment-3.pptx https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-0...
- jojo2000 7y ago
  Seems like few people really read the stuff. One sentence made me choke : > "The network needs to provide specific QoS and security policies based on user identity, rather than mapping to something instead" Well, no, sorry. It's an orwellian design proposal.
  - jusssi 7y ago
    Still it might be an improvement over "whoever yells the loudest", which is the current situation. And even though it has multiple interpretations, I only mean that at the technical implementation level. Edit: downvotes because you hate QoS? Edit2: Yes, I get the irony.
  - temac 7y ago
    It depends, but I agree that this is a crazy hard problem to address correctly and not create dystopian side effects or even just risk that. Imagine you need some QoS on a few streams for serious and useful purposes (telesurgery comes to mind). Core networks are able to provide that, but this is not usually mapped to user extensible protocols on general purpose/public access points. Now there are indirect advantages in just not providing those, because: - you also reduce the risk of dystopian usage / restriction of usage / etc. - in some cases, you make mass-applications being developed for non-QoS networks instead, so you eventually end-up (maybe a few years behind, but this is a cost I'm willing to pay) with basically the same service on a simpler and less dependent to political context tech. But: - in the context of a benevolent legislation, this could be actually more useful and fair than the current situation, where network neutrality has became half a myth both in theory and in practice (there is no practical neutrality anymore when you can just put your own private datacenters all over the world plus high bandwidth links to supposed neutral providers, then use that to push your proprietary services/applications without emerging/low capital competition able to do the same) - so you actually depend on private parties to be benevolent with the supposedly "best effort" but actually not anymore approach - and then it is a matter of taste, but in some part of the world I'm more inclined to trust elected politics (even if they sometimes do some bullshit) defining regulation than private soulless multinationals with the often stated theory that they must optimize shareholder outcome and nothing else. That being said, given both the current state of the world (and even if it was better, the always persistant risk of it degrading) and the practical difficulty to cleverly and benevolently regulate fast moving technical fields, I'm willing to stick to basically the current situation, which seems less prone to extreme situation. But it would be a mistake to view authenticated QoS as inevitably and purely evil.
eqvinox 7y ago
For the uninitiated, there's a bit of a culture clash going on there in the background - not between the IETF and the ITU but rather between the Western groups that have brought up the internet and Chinese groups that are joining the tables now. The IETF, ITU, IEEE and similar groups have their "social etiquette" and lots of unspoken agreements that people learn when starting to interact there, but the way these things work is not exactly culturally neutral. This isn't as much of an IETF shutdown of the ITU, rather an IETF shutdown of a group of Chinese people and companies. The ITU isn't blind to understanding that the Internet works thanks to the open IETF processes, but the ITU also has its procedures, and that's how you get these proposals. If you want to look at similar occurences inside the IETF, there's for example TTZ: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8099/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8099/ NB: this isn't the Chinese being "stupid" or anything - it's an impedance mismatch in culture. It needs to be fixed by all involved. (The particular "LS on New IP" proposal is obviously stupid, but - such proposals exist at, say, Cisco, too. They just don't make it out of there. That's the cultural difference.)
- willis936 7y ago
  On thing I like about the IEEE (and potentially others, I am unfamiliar) is that the etiquette is not unspoken. It’s written very clearly and spoken out loud as the rules prior to every daily meeting. Everyone must either agree to it or leave. You are not allowed to continuously violate etiquette and be allowed to contribute. Perhaps the rules are not culturally neutral, but they do maximize mutual respect, which promotes the ideology of treating every individual at the meeting equally.
  - eqvinox 7y ago
    It's not that much about the etiquette "inside" these orgs, but rather what happens before and after, i.e. what makes it to the orgs. Cross-copy from my post below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22777361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22777361): Another angle to view this from is to consider this a startup. In US & EU, dumb ideas occasionally turn into startups, then they show up on crowdfunding (or, worst case, find a dumb VC), and then they die in a fire of varying gloriousness. In China, the startup happens inside of Huawei instead. The ideas are equally dumb, but they don't die as easily, and when they make it out of Huawei they suddenly have the Huawei name attached and the Chinese government behind it. And it falls to the ITU, IETF, IEEE, or whomever else to shut it down. > the ideology of treating every individual at the meeting equally. Even this turns into a problem. There's several "cringe" drafts each IETF meeting. Everyone wants to, but noone feels permitted to go up to the respective authors and tell them they're idiots.
chx 7y ago
To understand better what's going on, you need to check https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/USCIB-508.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/USCIB-508.p... and https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-09-30-itu-t-tsag-ietf-iab-ls-on-new-ip-shaping-future-network-attachment-2.docx https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-0... and then you will understand what's this about: China wants to abuse the ITU-T to design a new Internet. > Source: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (China), China Mobile Communications Corporation, China Unicom, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) > Title: “New IP, Shaping Future Network”: Propose to initiate the discussion of strategy transformation for ITU-T The US Council For International Business answers: > In recent years, however, the T-Sector’s workstream has expanded into areas in which we do not believe the ITU has the expertise or mandate > In general, we urge the U.S. Government to [...] advocate against Resolutions that would [...] broaden the scope of the ITU’s consideration of such technologies into domains such as ethics, R&D, and/or human rights.; Reading the spin at https://www.lightwaveonline.com/optical-tech/article/16648964/itu-opens-new-channels-of-communication https://www.lightwaveonline.com/optical-tech/article/1664896... I am not sure how far fetched would it be to say that China is bribing the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group so eventually it can shake off the US yoke on such standards. Because this spiel basically casts the US in bad light and very diligently omits even the mention of China. As https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-14540-8_5 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-14540-8_... mentions "according to many observers, economic globalisation and the liberalisation of telecoms/internet policy have remade the world in the image of the United States" although this paper argues against the hegemonic U.S. control of the internet, there can be little doubt China would love to strip away that control be it hegemonic or not.
- eqvinox 7y ago
  > China wants to abuse the ITU-T to design a new Internet. No. Chinese companies are trying to get recognized and running headfirst into a brick wall. Designing a new internet is counterproductive to Chinese international sales of telco equipment and therefore also to building Chinese influence. And as far as domestic internet is concerned, they have a pretty firm handle on that already, without designing a new one.
misrab 7y ago
Good (paywalled, unfortunately) article on China using this as a way to move the infrastructure to depend on Huawei-owned patents so they can cash in on that work. https://www.ft.com/content/ba94c2bc-6e27-11ea-9bca-bf503995cd6f https://www.ft.com/content/ba94c2bc-6e27-11ea-9bca-bf503995c...
- neonate 7y ago
  http://archive.md/jwQCN http://archive.md/jwQCN
hyperman1 7y ago
Afaik, the ITU already tried to design a network stack, OSI. And we are very lucky the world got TCP/IP instead of that monstrosity.
grandinj 7y ago
The telecoms companies are still upset that they lost control of the protocols when IP became ascendant. The last time they tried to take back control was around 2006 when they came out with the ISO stack, a very awkward clone of TCP/IP. Speaking as someone who had to work with ITU standards like X.25 and X.400, I'd rather chew my own toes off then work with anything they come up with.
- temac 7y ago
  The number of ITU standards is HUGE and some of them are good, and some of them are even still in use. Given the volume, they are necessarily quite heterogeneous and designed by distinct groups of people. Likewise for the IETF RFCs. Both attempt to address lots of layers of the stack, but I'd still consider IETF as more of an high level thing, and ITU more low level. At least where they succeeded, if only for a time. And given the development history, this is logical.
- notacoward 7y ago
  I think you mean the OSI (Open Systems Interconnect) stack, and it "came out" much earlier than 2006. I remember working with it myself in the early 90s. It's also inaccurate to say it was a clone of TCP/IP since many parts of that beyond simple packet formats (e.g. congestion control and routing) were still very much in flux at that time. Innovations were being made on both sides, and often transferred between the two. This was a time when DECnet and NetWare were still in use, and they also had their own heritage separate from TCP/IP. IETF was not the origin of every networking thought ever. But you're right that this is mostly about telecom folks not getting over their loss in the circuit-switched vs. packet-switched war, and that chewing off limbs would be preferable to working with ITU-specific standards again. ;)
jimmySixDOF 7y ago
I don’t see anything out of the ordinary here at all. Standard bodies have, and will always revolve around the friction of interested parties. I watched Cisco and Juniper fight tooth and nail over various MPLS rfc’s for years. Everyone and their mother wants to replace ICANN. How about 110v vs. 220v ??? Nothing is new here and to magnify this story out of proportion and work it into some greater US/China decoupling framework is not useful unless you support that agenda to begin with. IPv6 was agreed in 1998 and it took 20 years with many competing proposals to get anywhere. People have been trying to improve the internet according to their interpretation since there were bits in wires and this story is just another run of the mill standards body workgroup tug of war that happens 100x everyday in ISO/IEEE/IETF/Etc…
nirui 7y ago
Did anybody here actually know the detail about the "New IP" protocol? How it works? I can't read the pay-walled ft.com article, but I been hearing people say "kill-switch" on the topic. If there will be a "kill-switch" builtin in the protocol, does that means the "New network" will be more centralized and thus unstable and bad? I think if the goal is to connect more devices, why not build a completely decentralized P2P network that is cheap, easy to maintain, and user-friendly?
- geoah 7y ago
  Only thing I can find is this http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/6f569c60-7045-11ea-89df-41bea055720b http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/6f569c60-7045-11ea-89df-41...
  - gruez 7y ago
    incompetent redaction strikes again! The redacted text are visible if you highlight over them. The left reads as: >Zhe Chen, Chuang Wang, Guanwen Li, Zhe Lou, Sheng Jiang >Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd >{chenzhe17, wangchuang, liguanwen, zhe.lou, jiangsheng}@huawei.com The right reads as >Alex Galis >University College London >a.galis@ucl.ac.uk
- andrius4669 7y ago
  https://archive.vn/aQzKP https://archive.vn/aQzKP https://dnyuz.com/2020/03/27/china-and-huawei-propose-reinvention-of-the-internet/ https://dnyuz.com/2020/03/27/china-and-huawei-propose-reinve...
est 7y ago
ITU has been china's puppet for years. Fenghuo(Fiberhome) start this Y.2770 crap named "Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks" back in 2012. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57557347-38/u.n-summit-votes-to-support-internet-eavesdropping/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57557347-38/u.n-summit-vot... > Because Y.2770 is confidential, many details remain opaque. But a document (PDF) posted by a Korean standards body describes how network operators will be able to identify "embedded digital watermarks in MP3 data," discover "copyright protected audio content," find "Jabber messages with Spanish text," or "identify uploading BitTorrent users." Jabber is also known as XMPP, an instant messaging protocol.
PaulHoule 7y ago
Great, we'll be running IPv17 by 2055...
kitteh 7y ago
We can't even get IPv6 everywhere after several decades. We'll be dead before this is a thing (and it won't be).
- gruez 7y ago
  IPv6 deployment was slow because there's no real incentive. There's the address exhaustion issue, but presumably the cost of buying IP addresses on the secondary market was lower than the cost of IPv6 deployment. On the other hand, this proposal does have incentive behind it, if reports about what's in it are accurate. Authoritarian governments would love having a kill switch and subscriber identification at the packet level.
TanjB 7y ago
Some of the issues in the original paper are real (except the hologram where they have transformed marketing hype for stereo images into a real expectation of transmitting holograms). Pretty much all of them are capable of being implemented by tunneling through specialized transports, without needing to replace IPv6. After all, that is the "inter" in internets - you are already free to have specialized subnets. Cray implements low latency transport for IP in their supercomputers. You can use a VPN to anonymize your traffic, including transforming the addressing. And so on. If you step through the original presentation, everything is something you are free to implement and make available via IP ports as a subnet.
drummer 7y ago
New IP makes me think of New Speak from Orwell's 1984.

124 points by polymorph1sm 7y ago

This is a piece of art: the most polite and well-researched STFU I have ever seen. A gem: “We also note that any real-time systems requiring sub-millisecond latency inevitably have limited scope because of the constraints of the speed of light.”

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jlgaddis 7y ago

For those wondering that this is all about, refer to "LS on New IP, Shaping Future Network" [0] (and the attachments listed there): --- > The September 23-27, 2019 meeting of the ITU-T Telecommunications Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) considered a tutorial and contribution presentation on “New IP, Shaping Future Network” proposing to “analyse the current challenges and provide a development path for the future network for the next decade”. > It was noted that the activities proposed could be related to the current work of several Study Groups across ITU-T. > Please find attached the referenced contribution and tutorial for your review, and comment back to TSAG for its consideration ahead of WTSA-20. --- The "tutorial" [1] (PPTX) is, well, "interesting"; to pique your interest, it includes such terms as "space-terrestrial network", "multi-level verification filtering system", "holographic communication", "multi-semantic addressing", and, of course, "blockchain"! --- [0]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653/ [1]: https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-09-30-itu-t-tsag-ietf-iab-ls-on-new-ip-shaping-future-network-attachment-3.pptx https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-0...

jojo2000 7y ago
Seems like few people really read the stuff. One sentence made me choke : > "The network needs to provide specific QoS and security policies based on user identity, rather than mapping to something instead" Well, no, sorry. It's an orwellian design proposal.
- jusssi 7y ago
  Still it might be an improvement over "whoever yells the loudest", which is the current situation. And even though it has multiple interpretations, I only mean that at the technical implementation level. Edit: downvotes because you hate QoS? Edit2: Yes, I get the irony.
- temac 7y ago
  It depends, but I agree that this is a crazy hard problem to address correctly and not create dystopian side effects or even just risk that. Imagine you need some QoS on a few streams for serious and useful purposes (telesurgery comes to mind). Core networks are able to provide that, but this is not usually mapped to user extensible protocols on general purpose/public access points. Now there are indirect advantages in just not providing those, because: - you also reduce the risk of dystopian usage / restriction of usage / etc. - in some cases, you make mass-applications being developed for non-QoS networks instead, so you eventually end-up (maybe a few years behind, but this is a cost I'm willing to pay) with basically the same service on a simpler and less dependent to political context tech. But: - in the context of a benevolent legislation, this could be actually more useful and fair than the current situation, where network neutrality has became half a myth both in theory and in practice (there is no practical neutrality anymore when you can just put your own private datacenters all over the world plus high bandwidth links to supposed neutral providers, then use that to push your proprietary services/applications without emerging/low capital competition able to do the same) - so you actually depend on private parties to be benevolent with the supposedly "best effort" but actually not anymore approach - and then it is a matter of taste, but in some part of the world I'm more inclined to trust elected politics (even if they sometimes do some bullshit) defining regulation than private soulless multinationals with the often stated theory that they must optimize shareholder outcome and nothing else. That being said, given both the current state of the world (and even if it was better, the always persistant risk of it degrading) and the practical difficulty to cleverly and benevolently regulate fast moving technical fields, I'm willing to stick to basically the current situation, which seems less prone to extreme situation. But it would be a mistake to view authenticated QoS as inevitably and purely evil.

eqvinox 7y ago

For the uninitiated, there's a bit of a culture clash going on there in the background - not between the IETF and the ITU but rather between the Western groups that have brought up the internet and Chinese groups that are joining the tables now. The IETF, ITU, IEEE and similar groups have their "social etiquette" and lots of unspoken agreements that people learn when starting to interact there, but the way these things work is not exactly culturally neutral. This isn't as much of an IETF shutdown of the ITU, rather an IETF shutdown of a group of Chinese people and companies. The ITU isn't blind to understanding that the Internet works thanks to the open IETF processes, but the ITU also has its procedures, and that's how you get these proposals. If you want to look at similar occurences inside the IETF, there's for example TTZ: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8099/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8099/ NB: this isn't the Chinese being "stupid" or anything - it's an impedance mismatch in culture. It needs to be fixed by all involved. (The particular "LS on New IP" proposal is obviously stupid, but - such proposals exist at, say, Cisco, too. They just don't make it out of there. That's the cultural difference.)

willis936 7y ago
On thing I like about the IEEE (and potentially others, I am unfamiliar) is that the etiquette is not unspoken. It’s written very clearly and spoken out loud as the rules prior to every daily meeting. Everyone must either agree to it or leave. You are not allowed to continuously violate etiquette and be allowed to contribute. Perhaps the rules are not culturally neutral, but they do maximize mutual respect, which promotes the ideology of treating every individual at the meeting equally.
- eqvinox 7y ago
  It's not that much about the etiquette "inside" these orgs, but rather what happens before and after, i.e. what makes it to the orgs. Cross-copy from my post below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22777361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22777361): Another angle to view this from is to consider this a startup. In US & EU, dumb ideas occasionally turn into startups, then they show up on crowdfunding (or, worst case, find a dumb VC), and then they die in a fire of varying gloriousness. In China, the startup happens inside of Huawei instead. The ideas are equally dumb, but they don't die as easily, and when they make it out of Huawei they suddenly have the Huawei name attached and the Chinese government behind it. And it falls to the ITU, IETF, IEEE, or whomever else to shut it down. > the ideology of treating every individual at the meeting equally. Even this turns into a problem. There's several "cringe" drafts each IETF meeting. Everyone wants to, but noone feels permitted to go up to the respective authors and tell them they're idiots.

chx 7y ago

To understand better what's going on, you need to check https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/USCIB-508.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/USCIB-508.p... and https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-09-30-itu-t-tsag-ietf-iab-ls-on-new-ip-shaping-future-network-attachment-2.docx https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-0... and then you will understand what's this about: China wants to abuse the ITU-T to design a new Internet. > Source: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (China), China Mobile Communications Corporation, China Unicom, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) > Title: “New IP, Shaping Future Network”: Propose to initiate the discussion of strategy transformation for ITU-T The US Council For International Business answers: > In recent years, however, the T-Sector’s workstream has expanded into areas in which we do not believe the ITU has the expertise or mandate > In general, we urge the U.S. Government to [...] advocate against Resolutions that would [...] broaden the scope of the ITU’s consideration of such technologies into domains such as ethics, R&D, and/or human rights.; Reading the spin at https://www.lightwaveonline.com/optical-tech/article/16648964/itu-opens-new-channels-of-communication https://www.lightwaveonline.com/optical-tech/article/1664896... I am not sure how far fetched would it be to say that China is bribing the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group so eventually it can shake off the US yoke on such standards. Because this spiel basically casts the US in bad light and very diligently omits even the mention of China. As https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-14540-8_5 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-14540-8_... mentions "according to many observers, economic globalisation and the liberalisation of telecoms/internet policy have remade the world in the image of the United States" although this paper argues against the hegemonic U.S. control of the internet, there can be little doubt China would love to strip away that control be it hegemonic or not.

eqvinox 7y ago
> China wants to abuse the ITU-T to design a new Internet. No. Chinese companies are trying to get recognized and running headfirst into a brick wall. Designing a new internet is counterproductive to Chinese international sales of telco equipment and therefore also to building Chinese influence. And as far as domestic internet is concerned, they have a pretty firm handle on that already, without designing a new one.

misrab 7y ago

Good (paywalled, unfortunately) article on China using this as a way to move the infrastructure to depend on Huawei-owned patents so they can cash in on that work. https://www.ft.com/content/ba94c2bc-6e27-11ea-9bca-bf503995cd6f https://www.ft.com/content/ba94c2bc-6e27-11ea-9bca-bf503995c...

neonate 7y ago
http://archive.md/jwQCN http://archive.md/jwQCN

hyperman1 7y ago

Afaik, the ITU already tried to design a network stack, OSI. And we are very lucky the world got TCP/IP instead of that monstrosity.

grandinj 7y ago

The telecoms companies are still upset that they lost control of the protocols when IP became ascendant. The last time they tried to take back control was around 2006 when they came out with the ISO stack, a very awkward clone of TCP/IP. Speaking as someone who had to work with ITU standards like X.25 and X.400, I'd rather chew my own toes off then work with anything they come up with.

temac 7y ago
The number of ITU standards is HUGE and some of them are good, and some of them are even still in use. Given the volume, they are necessarily quite heterogeneous and designed by distinct groups of people. Likewise for the IETF RFCs. Both attempt to address lots of layers of the stack, but I'd still consider IETF as more of an high level thing, and ITU more low level. At least where they succeeded, if only for a time. And given the development history, this is logical.
notacoward 7y ago
I think you mean the OSI (Open Systems Interconnect) stack, and it "came out" much earlier than 2006. I remember working with it myself in the early 90s. It's also inaccurate to say it was a clone of TCP/IP since many parts of that beyond simple packet formats (e.g. congestion control and routing) were still very much in flux at that time. Innovations were being made on both sides, and often transferred between the two. This was a time when DECnet and NetWare were still in use, and they also had their own heritage separate from TCP/IP. IETF was not the origin of every networking thought ever. But you're right that this is mostly about telecom folks not getting over their loss in the circuit-switched vs. packet-switched war, and that chewing off limbs would be preferable to working with ITU-specific standards again. ;)

jimmySixDOF 7y ago

I don’t see anything out of the ordinary here at all. Standard bodies have, and will always revolve around the friction of interested parties. I watched Cisco and Juniper fight tooth and nail over various MPLS rfc’s for years. Everyone and their mother wants to replace ICANN. How about 110v vs. 220v ??? Nothing is new here and to magnify this story out of proportion and work it into some greater US/China decoupling framework is not useful unless you support that agenda to begin with. IPv6 was agreed in 1998 and it took 20 years with many competing proposals to get anywhere. People have been trying to improve the internet according to their interpretation since there were bits in wires and this story is just another run of the mill standards body workgroup tug of war that happens 100x everyday in ISO/IEEE/IETF/Etc…

nirui 7y ago

Did anybody here actually know the detail about the "New IP" protocol? How it works? I can't read the pay-walled ft.com article, but I been hearing people say "kill-switch" on the topic. If there will be a "kill-switch" builtin in the protocol, does that means the "New network" will be more centralized and thus unstable and bad? I think if the goal is to connect more devices, why not build a completely decentralized P2P network that is cheap, easy to maintain, and user-friendly?

geoah 7y ago
Only thing I can find is this http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/6f569c60-7045-11ea-89df-41bea055720b http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/6f569c60-7045-11ea-89df-41...
- gruez 7y ago
  incompetent redaction strikes again! The redacted text are visible if you highlight over them. The left reads as: >Zhe Chen, Chuang Wang, Guanwen Li, Zhe Lou, Sheng Jiang >Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd >{chenzhe17, wangchuang, liguanwen, zhe.lou, jiangsheng}@huawei.com The right reads as >Alex Galis >University College London >a.galis@ucl.ac.uk
andrius4669 7y ago
https://archive.vn/aQzKP https://archive.vn/aQzKP https://dnyuz.com/2020/03/27/china-and-huawei-propose-reinvention-of-the-internet/ https://dnyuz.com/2020/03/27/china-and-huawei-propose-reinve...

est 7y ago

ITU has been china's puppet for years. Fenghuo(Fiberhome) start this Y.2770 crap named "Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks" back in 2012. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57557347-38/u.n-summit-votes-to-support-internet-eavesdropping/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57557347-38/u.n-summit-vot... > Because Y.2770 is confidential, many details remain opaque. But a document (PDF) posted by a Korean standards body describes how network operators will be able to identify "embedded digital watermarks in MP3 data," discover "copyright protected audio content," find "Jabber messages with Spanish text," or "identify uploading BitTorrent users." Jabber is also known as XMPP, an instant messaging protocol.

PaulHoule 7y ago

Great, we'll be running IPv17 by 2055...

kitteh 7y ago

We can't even get IPv6 everywhere after several decades. We'll be dead before this is a thing (and it won't be).

gruez 7y ago
IPv6 deployment was slow because there's no real incentive. There's the address exhaustion issue, but presumably the cost of buying IP addresses on the secondary market was lower than the cost of IPv6 deployment. On the other hand, this proposal does have incentive behind it, if reports about what's in it are accurate. Authoritarian governments would love having a kill switch and subscriber identification at the packet level.

TanjB 7y ago

Some of the issues in the original paper are real (except the hologram where they have transformed marketing hype for stereo images into a real expectation of transmitting holograms). Pretty much all of them are capable of being implemented by tunneling through specialized transports, without needing to replace IPv6. After all, that is the "inter" in internets - you are already free to have specialized subnets. Cray implements low latency transport for IP in their supercomputers. You can use a VPN to anonymize your traffic, including transforming the addressing. And so on. If you step through the original presentation, everything is something you are free to implement and make available via IP ports as a subnet.

drummer 7y ago

New IP makes me think of New Speak from Orwell's 1984.