10 ms·

Huawei proposes to replace TCP/IP at ITU

115 points by zoobab 6y ago

oneplane 6y ago
Isn't this about the earlier Huawei proposal that got shot down somewhat harshly?
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  Yep. The "New IP, Shaping Future Network" presentation was made to the ITU. The shutdown you're thinking of was from the IETF [0], who of were publicly responding to the presentation publicly forwarded to them by the ITU [1]. Of course IETF are incentivized to think the process of protocol evolution they coordinate is the right place and way to set standards (but that doesn't mean they're wrong). Now ITU stakeholders are chiming in, and we can expect to see more over the coming months. [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1677/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1677/ [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653/
junon 6y ago
Can someone explain? From what I understand, they don't plan to replace TCP/IP. The body of text merely states it has been a staple of internet protocols, somehow saying it's been even further proven during covid-19.
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  The EU is responding to an ITU proposal that is both a combination of light on technical details about new network protocol(s), and more importantly would substantially upend the process for internet protocol development process. The mention of TCP/IP is because the "New IP, Shaping Future Network" presentation make sketchy statements about incapabilities of current Internet design. There are also concerns about the level of top-down control of the network the new protocol is set to enable. In other words, this ITU participant is telling Huawei if they think their tech is such hot shit then go write an RFC and get bottom-up adoption of their idea like everyone else.
jeroenhd 6y ago
The document in question is only accessible for ITU members, but I found an accessible source discussing Huawei's proposal: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussio... Personally, I would not trust anything Huawei produces because of their history of design flaws and bad software practices, as well as their ties to the Chinese government. However, I do see value in reworking some systems, such as BGP and DNS, which have been patched with optional additions to compensate for the trusting nature of its designers back when ARPAnet was small and contained little reason to execute hijacks of resources. Protections for existing protocols are available though, so instead of reworking protocols and creating telecom-only protocols, perhaps enforcing certain features (BGP security, DNSSEC, etc.) for a provider to be able to name their service "5G" (or "6G" or whatever the next standard is) to make companies give a damn about security. The same tactic can also enforce proper filtering to prevent spoofed phone calls on the backbone that American wireless carriers seem to be so awful at.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  Not sure why the ITU isn't it another body the ratifies RFC's Might well use lobbying of smaller ITU member nations to try and get this through. Oh all that debt for that port we built as part of the belt and road. And the optics of China putting pressure on the WHO in the early stages of the pandemic not looking good.
- xster 6y ago
  > their history of design flaws and bad software practices Do you have references to what you're referring to?
  - noisem4ker 6y ago
    From my browsing history: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversight_board_savaging_annual_report/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversi... You can also search this site for "huawei". Almost none of the submissions paint them in a good light.
altendo 6y ago
Since this doesn't really mention what the issue is, I would refer readers to Engadget for an explanation[1]. It seems that Huawei is proposing a new protocol that would allow for greater control of network traffic, among other things. As to be expected, this likely is a privacy nightmare waiting to happen should it actually be implemented. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2020-03-30-china-huawei-new-ip-proposal.html https://www.engadget.com/2020-03-30-china-huawei-new-ip-prop...
AndyMcConachie 6y ago
I would like to make a proposal that everyone wear fluffy pink hats every third Wednesday of the month. And I would like to use this standards organization to promote this by writing a fancy document.
- guug 6y ago
  The way I read their proposal is them saying: "we're doing this new thing in our network gear. we can either standardize on it or you're going to have to deal with integrating with our proprietary systems yourself." So to me, the real question is whether huawei has large enough presence to force everyone to "wear fluffy pink hats every third Wednesday of the month". Their strong presence in developing countries seems to suggest so.
  - C1sc0cat 6y ago
    X.400 tried that didn't work so well I know some of the howlers we found doing interconnect work cough cough Sprint and ICL
cryptonector 6y ago
If I could waive a magic wand I'd rework TCP/IP as follows: - reduce routing table sizes by using explicit AS routing - have src and dst AS numbers in IP packet headers and route based on explicit AS numbers - that would require a decent network prefix to AS number lookup service - maybe reduce IPv6 address sizes to 64 bits - complete deployment of rpsec - make TCP a bit more dynamic (e.g., change window scaling after handshake) - fix IPsec -- specifically get RFC5660 implemented everywhere, add channel binding support
- gruez 6y ago
  >reduce routing table sizes by using explicit AS routing >that would require a decent network prefix to AS number lookup service I don't see the advantage of this. All you're doing is offloading the routing table to every client device rather than at core routers only. Also, the "AS number lookup service" would be like a DNS request, which adds latency to every connection. > - maybe reduce IPv6 address sizes to 64 bits why? The only advantage I can think of is that it's easier to remember/enter for humans, which isn't really a good reason because there's DNS anyways.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    >why? The only advantage I can think of is that it's easier to remember/enter for humans, which isn't really a good reason because there's DNS anyways. It'd reduce the size of the IPv6 header, allowing more data per 1500 mtu packet. There's a lot of situations that are bound by packet rate limits, not bandwidth concerns. BTW, if we're going to radically reimagine the internet, we should really push for a 9000+ MTU.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      I think the point of 128 bit addresses in IPv6 is that it is effectively unlimited and thus won't cause problems and can make address allocation simpler. It's a bit like the maxima in ZFS. Current technology allows to pick maxima so large that we can just forget about them, so why not do it?
bediger4000 6y ago
I'm deeply suspicious of this, not only because Huawei seems to have a lot of Chinese government influence, but because it's from a corporate entity. Corporate entities appear to not be able to refrain from making things centralized for the purposes of obtaining monopoly rents. Informed by this fact of wanting to be a rent seeker, one can guess that Huawei would want big dollar for a copy of the standard, and maybe a small license fee for every client. I'd also bet money that there'd be a large license fee to run a server, and that there's a protocol-level division between "server" and "client", something that just doesn't exist in TCP or IP. It's possible to centralize control by means of "Intellectual Property" law and standards organization, just as it's possible to centralize control with built-in kill switches. Oh, yeah: I used to think (in 1990-2000 timeframe) that maybe Microsoft would be the corporate entity to try to pull this sort of thing off. I often speculated about "MSTCP" being the thing to put the Internet's genie back in the bottle. I was wrong about that.
- Animats 6y ago
  It may be a reaction to Google trying to replace TCP with their own protocols for their HTTP services. The performance advantage is under 10%, but it puts Google in control.
scroot 6y ago
X.25 is finally getting its day
- dfox 6y ago
  In fact, the proposal really is strikingly similar to X.25. On the other hand for the breath of problems that they try to solve it makes sense. On the other hand there really is no reason to create one unified protocol to solve all that at once. IETF's “all that can be done on IP and this is how” is kind of bold statement, as there are applications where only reason to involve IP is marketing, eg. there is little reason to involve IP in various hard-realtime-ish short range IoT-ish things (that one popular hard-realtime safety critical industrial automation protocol involves not only IP but DCOM on top of slightly non-standard ethernet to solve problem that is perfectly solved by RS-485 based bus is another thing)
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    "Just always do IP" is because of the existing ecosystem of tools, techniques and so on, which all assume IP because IP is very popular. Almost every application can benefit from this† For every single problem there will be a hypothetical ideal solution that's custom in every way like a bespoke suit, but you (or your customers) probably can't afford that solution and so that's the wrong solution. If IP isn't good enough, I would strongly urge you to go help it be better rather than sit on the sidelines saying people shouldn't bother using IP. Mostly for self-preservation reasons, if it can be done somebody is going to do it, and that might as well be you - if it can't be done you'll end up the expert on why not. † Really often these applications says they use IP to benefit from this ecosystem but they aren't on the Internet, and when you look closer - oops, nobody told the people implementing them about not being on the Internet, so they actually are on the Internet, peeking out from unexpected places.
    - dfox 6y ago
      That is essentially my point with the exception that there are things that are inherently L2 and thus you don't want to bother with IP or for that mater any other L3 protocol.
xxpor 6y ago
I have to wonder why this would be brought up at the ITU and not the IETF. The ITU in general regulates spectrum usage and the modulation on top of that, which are more or less restricted to L1 in modern networks. Unless there's something I'm missing?
- flyinghamster 6y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if it would go over like a lead balloon at the IETF, and they're trying to do an end-run around them. Not to mention, in my opinion, the ITU is far less transparent and more prone to backroom dealing.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    I figured it had to be something like that. Fortunately the last time something this silly came up at the ITU, it also went over like a lead balloon: https://www.save2m.org/2019/08/france-defeated-thales-and-their-drones-will-stay-off-the-2m-band/ https://www.save2m.org/2019/08/france-defeated-thales-and-th...
  - C1sc0cat 6y ago
    Lot of smaller countries open to back room pressure
- samgranieri 6y ago
  I think you'd have to take a look at the composition of the ITU's membership vs the IETF's membership, and therein is the answer
  - nwah1 6y ago
    Current head of the ITU is a Chinese national.
betaby 6y ago
LISP routing again, poor re-implementation.
jlgaddis 6y ago
I'm pretty sure this is the "New IP, Shaping Future Network" proposal that was unceremoniously squashed by the IETF a few months ago; that was discussed here at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776749
jmknoll 6y ago
I recently read a TechCrunch article about the CCP's plan to restructure global standards over the next decade. Is this proposal a product of that plan? https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/11/chinas-next-plan-to-dominate-international-tech-standards/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/11/chinas-next-plan-to-domina...
dfox 6y ago
My purely technology oriented take on that is that telecom manufacturers had really embraced the idea “everything is IP over Ethernet” during the development of LTE and then during first deployments found out, that such approach does not realy work on real networks with mixed generations of both infrastructure and user terminals (this is the reason for existence of VoLTE). And on other hand everybody found out that “computer networking” hardware is commodity thing that is cheap. So, Huawei knows that they need something which is not IP and tries to make hardware that supports it commodity product instead of niche telco weirdness by trying to push their thing as end-all solution to everything networking. In fact, from this PoV this is somewhat reminiscent of late 90's and ATM.
0-_-0 6y ago
A bit offtopic but I was thinking that it might actually be possible for some companies to replace TCP/IP. Let's say Apple. They probably have enough money to do the SpaceX thing and have a network of satellites in orbit that could replace the mobile network all iPhones connect to worldwide. Since they control all the devices that connect to this network, they would have full control over the internet protocol it uses and could invent their own, from scratch. Actually, SpaceX could probably do the same if they run SpaceXnet in parallel with TCP/IP and sell their own hardware (or do a TCP/IP over SpaceXnet protocol that they use between ground stations)
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  Latency your forgetting Latency
  - maemilius 6y ago
    A StarLink style satellite array actually has good latency even when compared to traditional fiber networks[1]. I recall some calculations that showed a decrease in latency over long distances because light travels slightly faster in a vacuum, there are fewer intermediate nodes over that distance, and a more direct path can be used than in our existing wired networks. The biggest issue with current satellite connections is that the satellites are in geostationary orbits which imposes a minimum theoretical latency of something like half a second. It's physically impossible to send signals any faster[2]. 1: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/musk-says-starlink-isnt-for-big-cities-wont-be-huge-threat-to-telcos/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/musk-... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Signal_latency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Sign...
- bjourne 6y ago
  Google did just that. They added the protocols SPDY and QUIC to Chrome and tried to get server owners to adopt them. Given that they control YouTube which is the world's largest site both by unique users and bandwidth usage they could easily force their own protocol through.
reaperducer 6y ago
All Huawei has to do is get it adopted as a standard in China. Then suddenly Samsung, Apple, Sony, and all the other non-Chinese companies have to add it to their devices to keep a billion customers. Then it gets used outside of China because it is ubiquitous. This is a classic embrace, extend, extinguish play.
- nix23 6y ago
  No..not really, standard's in a single nation (especially china) will NOT swap over to other nations, Apple etc will probably make a dual-stack, but to give up IP-Support just to run after china is really not a option for most of the country's.
  - cma 6y ago
    Apple made "sign in with apple" mandatory for all apps with third-party sign in options, which also ends up spreading beyond their app ecosystem into the web since user's who start with the app wouldn't be able to log in elsewhere otherwise. https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/03/sign-in-with-apple-mandatory-for-all-apps-with-third-party-sign-in-options https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/03/sign-in-with-appl... This would be a step beyond that, but what if China mandated phones can't be sold there unless manufacturer's phones in other regions support their standard.
    - nix23 6y ago
      Then apple would probably say goodbye to the Chinese-market (witch is already a good idea for a 'privacy' respecting company) And that sign-in is just for china, not outside of it.
- OptionX 6y ago
  That's why we're all watching EVDs right now.
- yumraj 6y ago
  Or it could end up like the Chinese GPS, as in phones in China can use it but outside no one cares. Phones and devices can support that, but if outside China, it has no one to talk to. Though, even in that case it can lead to backdoors.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TurkishPoptart 6y ago
Why the European Commission even acknowledges anything Huawei says or does is astounding.
chaz6 6y ago
This is like how some people wanted to remove some protections afforded by TLS 1.3 with PFS, so they went to ETSI who ratified eTLS. The ITU has nothing to do with the internet so this is just another publicity stunt. The internet works because everybody agrees on a common set of RFC's. It is nigh on impossible for a single entity to force a change.
takecarefnd 6y ago
who cares
hardsoftnfloppy 6y ago
Lol ohhhh you China

115 points by zoobab 6y ago

oneplane 6y ago

Isn't this about the earlier Huawei proposal that got shot down somewhat harshly?

finnthehuman 6y ago
Yep. The "New IP, Shaping Future Network" presentation was made to the ITU. The shutdown you're thinking of was from the IETF [0], who of were publicly responding to the presentation publicly forwarded to them by the ITU [1]. Of course IETF are incentivized to think the process of protocol evolution they coordinate is the right place and way to set standards (but that doesn't mean they're wrong). Now ITU stakeholders are chiming in, and we can expect to see more over the coming months. [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1677/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1677/ [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653/

junon 6y ago

Can someone explain? From what I understand, they don't plan to replace TCP/IP. The body of text merely states it has been a staple of internet protocols, somehow saying it's been even further proven during covid-19.

finnthehuman 6y ago
The EU is responding to an ITU proposal that is both a combination of light on technical details about new network protocol(s), and more importantly would substantially upend the process for internet protocol development process. The mention of TCP/IP is because the "New IP, Shaping Future Network" presentation make sketchy statements about incapabilities of current Internet design. There are also concerns about the level of top-down control of the network the new protocol is set to enable. In other words, this ITU participant is telling Huawei if they think their tech is such hot shit then go write an RFC and get bottom-up adoption of their idea like everyone else.

jeroenhd 6y ago

The document in question is only accessible for ITU members, but I found an accessible source discussing Huawei's proposal: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussio... Personally, I would not trust anything Huawei produces because of their history of design flaws and bad software practices, as well as their ties to the Chinese government. However, I do see value in reworking some systems, such as BGP and DNS, which have been patched with optional additions to compensate for the trusting nature of its designers back when ARPAnet was small and contained little reason to execute hijacks of resources. Protections for existing protocols are available though, so instead of reworking protocols and creating telecom-only protocols, perhaps enforcing certain features (BGP security, DNSSEC, etc.) for a provider to be able to name their service "5G" (or "6G" or whatever the next standard is) to make companies give a damn about security. The same tactic can also enforce proper filtering to prevent spoofed phone calls on the backbone that American wireless carriers seem to be so awful at.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
C1sc0cat 6y ago
Not sure why the ITU isn't it another body the ratifies RFC's Might well use lobbying of smaller ITU member nations to try and get this through. Oh all that debt for that port we built as part of the belt and road. And the optics of China putting pressure on the WHO in the early stages of the pandemic not looking good.
xster 6y ago
> their history of design flaws and bad software practices Do you have references to what you're referring to?
- noisem4ker 6y ago
  From my browsing history: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversight_board_savaging_annual_report/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversi... You can also search this site for "huawei". Almost none of the submissions paint them in a good light.

altendo 6y ago

Since this doesn't really mention what the issue is, I would refer readers to Engadget for an explanation[1]. It seems that Huawei is proposing a new protocol that would allow for greater control of network traffic, among other things. As to be expected, this likely is a privacy nightmare waiting to happen should it actually be implemented. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2020-03-30-china-huawei-new-ip-proposal.html https://www.engadget.com/2020-03-30-china-huawei-new-ip-prop...

AndyMcConachie 6y ago

I would like to make a proposal that everyone wear fluffy pink hats every third Wednesday of the month. And I would like to use this standards organization to promote this by writing a fancy document.

guug 6y ago
The way I read their proposal is them saying: "we're doing this new thing in our network gear. we can either standardize on it or you're going to have to deal with integrating with our proprietary systems yourself." So to me, the real question is whether huawei has large enough presence to force everyone to "wear fluffy pink hats every third Wednesday of the month". Their strong presence in developing countries seems to suggest so.
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  X.400 tried that didn't work so well I know some of the howlers we found doing interconnect work cough cough Sprint and ICL

cryptonector 6y ago

If I could waive a magic wand I'd rework TCP/IP as follows: - reduce routing table sizes by using explicit AS routing - have src and dst AS numbers in IP packet headers and route based on explicit AS numbers - that would require a decent network prefix to AS number lookup service - maybe reduce IPv6 address sizes to 64 bits - complete deployment of rpsec - make TCP a bit more dynamic (e.g., change window scaling after handshake) - fix IPsec -- specifically get RFC5660 implemented everywhere, add channel binding support

gruez 6y ago
>reduce routing table sizes by using explicit AS routing >that would require a decent network prefix to AS number lookup service I don't see the advantage of this. All you're doing is offloading the routing table to every client device rather than at core routers only. Also, the "AS number lookup service" would be like a DNS request, which adds latency to every connection. > - maybe reduce IPv6 address sizes to 64 bits why? The only advantage I can think of is that it's easier to remember/enter for humans, which isn't really a good reason because there's DNS anyways.
- xxpor 6y ago
  >why? The only advantage I can think of is that it's easier to remember/enter for humans, which isn't really a good reason because there's DNS anyways. It'd reduce the size of the IPv6 header, allowing more data per 1500 mtu packet. There's a lot of situations that are bound by packet rate limits, not bandwidth concerns. BTW, if we're going to radically reimagine the internet, we should really push for a 9000+ MTU.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    I think the point of 128 bit addresses in IPv6 is that it is effectively unlimited and thus won't cause problems and can make address allocation simpler. It's a bit like the maxima in ZFS. Current technology allows to pick maxima so large that we can just forget about them, so why not do it?

bediger4000 6y ago

I'm deeply suspicious of this, not only because Huawei seems to have a lot of Chinese government influence, but because it's from a corporate entity. Corporate entities appear to not be able to refrain from making things centralized for the purposes of obtaining monopoly rents. Informed by this fact of wanting to be a rent seeker, one can guess that Huawei would want big dollar for a copy of the standard, and maybe a small license fee for every client. I'd also bet money that there'd be a large license fee to run a server, and that there's a protocol-level division between "server" and "client", something that just doesn't exist in TCP or IP. It's possible to centralize control by means of "Intellectual Property" law and standards organization, just as it's possible to centralize control with built-in kill switches. Oh, yeah: I used to think (in 1990-2000 timeframe) that maybe Microsoft would be the corporate entity to try to pull this sort of thing off. I often speculated about "MSTCP" being the thing to put the Internet's genie back in the bottle. I was wrong about that.

Animats 6y ago
It may be a reaction to Google trying to replace TCP with their own protocols for their HTTP services. The performance advantage is under 10%, but it puts Google in control.

scroot 6y ago

X.25 is finally getting its day

dfox 6y ago
In fact, the proposal really is strikingly similar to X.25. On the other hand for the breath of problems that they try to solve it makes sense. On the other hand there really is no reason to create one unified protocol to solve all that at once. IETF's “all that can be done on IP and this is how” is kind of bold statement, as there are applications where only reason to involve IP is marketing, eg. there is little reason to involve IP in various hard-realtime-ish short range IoT-ish things (that one popular hard-realtime safety critical industrial automation protocol involves not only IP but DCOM on top of slightly non-standard ethernet to solve problem that is perfectly solved by RS-485 based bus is another thing)
- tialaramex 6y ago
  "Just always do IP" is because of the existing ecosystem of tools, techniques and so on, which all assume IP because IP is very popular. Almost every application can benefit from this† For every single problem there will be a hypothetical ideal solution that's custom in every way like a bespoke suit, but you (or your customers) probably can't afford that solution and so that's the wrong solution. If IP isn't good enough, I would strongly urge you to go help it be better rather than sit on the sidelines saying people shouldn't bother using IP. Mostly for self-preservation reasons, if it can be done somebody is going to do it, and that might as well be you - if it can't be done you'll end up the expert on why not. † Really often these applications says they use IP to benefit from this ecosystem but they aren't on the Internet, and when you look closer - oops, nobody told the people implementing them about not being on the Internet, so they actually are on the Internet, peeking out from unexpected places.
  - dfox 6y ago
    That is essentially my point with the exception that there are things that are inherently L2 and thus you don't want to bother with IP or for that mater any other L3 protocol.

xxpor 6y ago

I have to wonder why this would be brought up at the ITU and not the IETF. The ITU in general regulates spectrum usage and the modulation on top of that, which are more or less restricted to L1 in modern networks. Unless there's something I'm missing?

flyinghamster 6y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if it would go over like a lead balloon at the IETF, and they're trying to do an end-run around them. Not to mention, in my opinion, the ITU is far less transparent and more prone to backroom dealing.
- xxpor 6y ago
  I figured it had to be something like that. Fortunately the last time something this silly came up at the ITU, it also went over like a lead balloon: https://www.save2m.org/2019/08/france-defeated-thales-and-their-drones-will-stay-off-the-2m-band/ https://www.save2m.org/2019/08/france-defeated-thales-and-th...
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  Lot of smaller countries open to back room pressure
samgranieri 6y ago
I think you'd have to take a look at the composition of the ITU's membership vs the IETF's membership, and therein is the answer
- nwah1 6y ago
  Current head of the ITU is a Chinese national.

betaby 6y ago

LISP routing again, poor re-implementation.

jlgaddis 6y ago

I'm pretty sure this is the "New IP, Shaping Future Network" proposal that was unceremoniously squashed by the IETF a few months ago; that was discussed here at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776749

jmknoll 6y ago

I recently read a TechCrunch article about the CCP's plan to restructure global standards over the next decade. Is this proposal a product of that plan? https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/11/chinas-next-plan-to-dominate-international-tech-standards/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/11/chinas-next-plan-to-domina...

dfox 6y ago

My purely technology oriented take on that is that telecom manufacturers had really embraced the idea “everything is IP over Ethernet” during the development of LTE and then during first deployments found out, that such approach does not realy work on real networks with mixed generations of both infrastructure and user terminals (this is the reason for existence of VoLTE). And on other hand everybody found out that “computer networking” hardware is commodity thing that is cheap. So, Huawei knows that they need something which is not IP and tries to make hardware that supports it commodity product instead of niche telco weirdness by trying to push their thing as end-all solution to everything networking. In fact, from this PoV this is somewhat reminiscent of late 90's and ATM.

0-_-0 6y ago

A bit offtopic but I was thinking that it might actually be possible for some companies to replace TCP/IP. Let's say Apple. They probably have enough money to do the SpaceX thing and have a network of satellites in orbit that could replace the mobile network all iPhones connect to worldwide. Since they control all the devices that connect to this network, they would have full control over the internet protocol it uses and could invent their own, from scratch. Actually, SpaceX could probably do the same if they run SpaceXnet in parallel with TCP/IP and sell their own hardware (or do a TCP/IP over SpaceXnet protocol that they use between ground stations)

C1sc0cat 6y ago
Latency your forgetting Latency
- maemilius 6y ago
  A StarLink style satellite array actually has good latency even when compared to traditional fiber networks[1]. I recall some calculations that showed a decrease in latency over long distances because light travels slightly faster in a vacuum, there are fewer intermediate nodes over that distance, and a more direct path can be used than in our existing wired networks. The biggest issue with current satellite connections is that the satellites are in geostationary orbits which imposes a minimum theoretical latency of something like half a second. It's physically impossible to send signals any faster[2]. 1: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/musk-says-starlink-isnt-for-big-cities-wont-be-huge-threat-to-telcos/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/musk-... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Signal_latency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Sign...
bjourne 6y ago
Google did just that. They added the protocols SPDY and QUIC to Chrome and tried to get server owners to adopt them. Given that they control YouTube which is the world's largest site both by unique users and bandwidth usage they could easily force their own protocol through.

reaperducer 6y ago

All Huawei has to do is get it adopted as a standard in China. Then suddenly Samsung, Apple, Sony, and all the other non-Chinese companies have to add it to their devices to keep a billion customers. Then it gets used outside of China because it is ubiquitous. This is a classic embrace, extend, extinguish play.

nix23 6y ago
No..not really, standard's in a single nation (especially china) will NOT swap over to other nations, Apple etc will probably make a dual-stack, but to give up IP-Support just to run after china is really not a option for most of the country's.
- cma 6y ago
  Apple made "sign in with apple" mandatory for all apps with third-party sign in options, which also ends up spreading beyond their app ecosystem into the web since user's who start with the app wouldn't be able to log in elsewhere otherwise. https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/03/sign-in-with-apple-mandatory-for-all-apps-with-third-party-sign-in-options https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/03/sign-in-with-appl... This would be a step beyond that, but what if China mandated phones can't be sold there unless manufacturer's phones in other regions support their standard.
  - nix23 6y ago
    Then apple would probably say goodbye to the Chinese-market (witch is already a good idea for a 'privacy' respecting company) And that sign-in is just for china, not outside of it.
OptionX 6y ago
That's why we're all watching EVDs right now.
yumraj 6y ago
Or it could end up like the Chinese GPS, as in phones in China can use it but outside no one cares. Phones and devices can support that, but if outside China, it has no one to talk to. Though, even in that case it can lead to backdoors.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TurkishPoptart 6y ago

Why the European Commission even acknowledges anything Huawei says or does is astounding.

chaz6 6y ago

This is like how some people wanted to remove some protections afforded by TLS 1.3 with PFS, so they went to ETSI who ratified eTLS. The ITU has nothing to do with the internet so this is just another publicity stunt. The internet works because everybody agrees on a common set of RFC's. It is nigh on impossible for a single entity to force a change.

takecarefnd 6y ago

who cares

hardsoftnfloppy 6y ago

Lol ohhhh you China