back to article China plots new Great Leap Forward: to IPv6

China has claimed it invented IPv6, according to state-controlled newswire Xinhua. The outlet on Sunday reported the Middle Kingdom's plan to ramp up IPv6 adoption. That plan has probably been implemented because, with more than 700 million Internet users at the end of 2016, China has likely struggled to find sufficient IPv4 …

Page:

  1. JakeMS
    Mushroom

    To be fair..

    This is a communist party we're talking about.

    Remember, in China you do not question the government. You believe what they say and so far as you want to stay out of prison you do as you're told.

    If you're in China and the government says they invented IPv6 then the government invented IPv6.

    Whether it's true or not is irrelevant when you're slammed in prison for questioning it.

    Although, after reading my own post this is now not too far off from my own government in the UK... oh man this world is doomed.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: To be fair..

      We have the best internet. You're not gonna believe how good our internet is. I invented the internet, it's true. Life magazine wanted to put me in their cover but they wanted an interview. No way. Not gonna happen.

      1. yoganmahew

        Re: To be fair..

        I like your joke, it's a good joke, not the best, I do the best. The bestest joke ever. Thanks anyway!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: To be fair..

        Our internets are so good, we had to firewall it to keep the riff-raff countries out!

    2. Steve Knox

      Re: To be fair..

      This is a communist party we're talking about.

      Ain't no party like a communist party, 'cause a communist party ... doesn't allow other parties.

    3. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: To be fair..

      I think the Chinese government will find that it was Kim Jong Un who invented IPv6.

      And no one will be surprised to learn that iPv10 has already been invented by Apple

      1. Elfo74
        Headmaster

        Re: To be fair..

        "And no one will be surprised to learn that iPv10 has already been invented by Apple"

        I think you mean IPvX

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Or, it could be a simple case of a non-native speaker overextending himself, and missing the difference between

    The IPv6 network, first developed in the 1990s in China, ...

    The IPv6 network, first implemented in China in the 1990s, ...

    I have to work with non-native speakers a lot, and this is one of the standard slip-ups.

    1. Reginald Marshall

      The developed/implemented confusion is the most likely explanation, indeed. Furthermore, shame on El Reg for not checking the history more thoroughly: RFC 2460 is not the first specification of IPv6, RFC 1883 is. That specification is from 1995, making a working implementation "in the 1990s" a more realistic proposition.

      1. Yes Me Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        IPv6 is a full Internet Standard.

        RFC 2460, by the way, has been obsoleted by RFC 8200. You can't stop progress.

    2. Wensleydale Cheese

      "The IPv6 network, first developed in the 1990s in China, ...

      The IPv6 network, first implemented in China in the 1990s, ...

      I have to work with non-native speakers a lot, and this is one of the standard slip-ups."

      Precise meanings can always be tricky for non-native speakers of any language.*

      It might also be fair to say that the IPv6 network infrastructure has been in development since the early 1990s in China.

      * Tidbit: I was reliably informed that on the joint French/English Concorde aircraft project, there was a rule that in technical discussions, everyone must speak their native language. This addressed the problem of non-native speakers inadvertently introducing technical problems due to mis-translations.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Presumably after they borrowed some source code from Cisco Systems...complete with spelling mistakes...

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        "there was a rule that in technical discussions, everyone must speak their native language. This addressed the problem of non-native speakers inadvertently introducing technical problems due to mis-translations."

        Yup.

        English is an extremely difficult language to write precise technical definitions in(*). French and germans find it _extremely_ frustrating to deal with.

        (*) Even for native english speakers! Add in at least 6 major dialects and 20 different idioms and you have a recipe for major cockups. American tech manuals are frequently the worst ones to deal with(**) and as everyone should know, almost all the early RFCs were written by US-english speakers.

        (**) I nearly destroyed a rather expensive 20kW Harris shortwave transmitter thanks to an appallingly badly written manual which gave step by step instructions - except the last step had to be done before doing anything else - not good when you're in a hurry, and another step used an american term which is interpreted differently by commonwealth english speakers. My final task for that job was to rewrite the service manual so that people _didn't_ make output triode bleed resistors explode inside the cabinet (apparently I wasn't the first to have done it)

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Yes Me Silver badge

        Re: and a third translation

        CERNET, the Chinese academic network, was a very early *deployer* of IPv6 and they have contributed significantly to ongoing work on the standards. So has Huawei.

        "CERNET", the name, was recycled from CERN, whos first in-house network was called CERNET in about 1975. http://cds.cern.ch/record/879330

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Agreed re developed/implemented.

      Also it says "The IPv6 network..." not "The IPv6 protocol..." which is what the RFC specifies.

    5. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "I have to work with non-native speakers a lot, and this is one of the standard slip-ups."

      It's a lot worse when dealing with french/italian/germans as they frequently _insist_ that their fractured english is correct.

      Then there's the ongoing problem of asshats insisting that "SHOULD" in RFC-speak means "optional", or failing to realise that most of the older ones are both written in an informal language style and assume that the reader already knows the stuff that's written about. There have been come very "creative" interpretations of what are supposed to be documents for interoperability, resulting in the opposite occurring with the miscreants responsible _screaming_ at RFC authors that their interpretation of the RFCs is the One True Way and the RFC authors are WRONG.

  3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

    I think the Russians has the right word for this claim about IPv6

    Pravada

    No Russian outside other than the members of the Communist Party believed a word that was printed in it.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

      No Russian outside other than the members of the Communist Party believed a word that was printed in it.

      I do believe from what I've read and heard that most of those "members" didn't believe a word either, they just never admitted it to anyone.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

      No Russian outside other than the members of the Communist Party

      Who told you that the members believed it? As the great Russian comedian Zadornov(*) used to say in one of his stand up routines (apologies for the not particularly great translation):

      We had slogans everywhere. With all kinds of drivel. It pissed people off. Actually, it pissed off only stupid people. The smart ones knew how to read then. Here, take a slogan: "The Party -- the consciousness and soul of our people". How does a stupid person read it: "The Party DASH the consciousness and soul of our people". How does a smart person read it: "The Party MINUS conscioussness and soul of our people".

      (*)Unfortunately no longer with us as of the beginning of this month

      1. Lysenko

        Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

        Or the old favourite:

        "There is no pravda in Izvestia and no izvestia in Pravda."

        (There is no truth in the News and no news in the Truth.)

        1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

          Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

          Well Said. Those were the words I was searching for.

        2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

          "There is no pravda in Izvestia and no izvestia in Pravda."

          Oldies, but goldies.

          For the ones who have not seen the mess which was USSR from up close:

          Izvestia (Известия) which can be translated as news (actually "notices" is a better translation) was (if memory serves me right) the official newspaper of the government.

          Pravda (Правда) which translates as Truth was the official newspaper of the party. Or to be more exact, it became after Stalin went there with his goons in October 2017 to ensure that it tows the party lines and is printed on time. Prior to that it oscillated between different social-democrat fractions and during a short period in 1917 was actually dominated by anarchist wing of the party. It is quite entertaining how history was rewritten after that - several issues from that period in the Russian archives have spelling and grammar which did not become the norm until the late 1930-es (Orwell was working with actual sources when he wrote 1984 by the way).

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

            Pravda (Правда) which translates as Truth was the official newspaper of the party. Or to be more exact, it became after Stalin went there with his goons in October 2017 to ensure that it tows the party lines and is printed on time

            Not quite true. Pravda has become the official newspaper of the bolshevik party in 1912, after the sixth party congress - well before the October 1917 revolution. Which, as any foole kno happened in November.

            Incidentally, the English Wikipedia article on Pravda is quite well written, concise, and as far as I can tell factually correct.

            1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

              Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

              Not quite true. Pravda has become the official newspaper of the bolshevik party in 1912, after the sixth party congress - well before the October 1917 revolution. Which, as any foole kno happened in November.

              Half true. 1912 is correct.

              The rest is a bit more complicated. Pravda became a subject to tug of war between warring fractions in 1917 with the anarcho-socialists more or less having control from August onwards. That is why Stalin and his goons were sent there to put thing in order a few weeks before the November revolt. In October. As a result Stalin missed the revolt altogether.

              In the 30es Bubnov extensively rewrote and falsified the record as if Stalin was a RK member. That did not save him. His wife and daughter got the notice of him executed as an enemy of the state in 1939. When he in fact was still alive. Stalin had him shot a year later.

              The Wikipedia article is part based on doctored evidence. All you need is to read some of it - it uses 1930-es Russian, not what was spoken and written in 1917

              1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

                Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

                Half true. 1912 is correct.

                There is a good sport in that across the ex-Soviet block by the way. A very good friend of mine was the reason why "Окръжно Номер 6" aka Order No 6 was removed in the 70-es from public display in the National History museum in Bulgaria. That document supposedly documents the decision of a congress of the Bulgarian Communist party to ramp up the "armed struggle" and attempt to take power in 1944.

                The problem with it is same as with some of the Pravda issues from July/August 1917 as well as some of the decisions of the Central committee from that period - language and spelling. It could not have been written before the 1950-es.

                So at some point in the 70-es a few people (mostly from outside Bulgaria) including the aforementioned friend of mine asked the rather obvious question: "Why does this document use spelling and language which was not around until 20 years later". Thankfully, they were in Bulgaria, not USSR. In USSR asking the corresponding question about 1917 Pravda issues or CK orders from that period would have worked them a nice excursion east into the forest. In Bulgaria, the document just disappeared from the public display and only its content was circulated in books, etc. With "updated spelling" and a footnote that "all documents have their spelling updated to the modern standard".

                There is one thing which the 1984 history rewriting practitioners fail in again and again and again - linguistics. It takes 10 minutes for someone with knowledge of how the language changed over the years to catch them in their tracks and see through their subterfuge.

          2. Tom 38
            Coat

            Pravda (Правда) which translates as Truth was the official newspaper of the party. Or to be more exact, it became after Stalin went there with his goons in October 2017 to ensure that it tows the party lines and is printed on time.

            All must flee from zombie-Stalin!

          3. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

            "ensure that it tows the party lines"

            An early form of aerial banner advertising? :-D

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: There is 'Truth', 'Lies', and ROFL

        I think "DASH"ing the people's conciousness and soul was about right (not to mention their hopes)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Pravada

      I think the Russians has the right word for this claim about IPv6

      Pravada

      Are you quite sure? I speak passable Russian, and lived there for a few years during the late Soviet times. I've never seen or heard this word - so it could not have been more than a part of a sub-culture slang.

      The only "правада" duckduckgo or yandex.ru know about is an indie rock group from St. Petersburg. It sounds pretty derivative to me, both in term of the music and in their lyrics.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Pravada

        Are you quite sure?

        He probably is but he'd still be wrong: Pravda is the usual transliteration and was the name of the official newspaper of the Communist Party.

  4. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Is there a list?

    Hopefully China posts a list of these new address ranges so I can immediately firewall their botnet infested networks. No working abuse contact, no service.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Is there a list?

      You can fetch them out of APNIC. There are a few lists with that info doing the rounds.

      The other alternatives are to go to a looking glass at one of the Internet exchanges and dump all prefixes which have the China Unicom (and several other usual suspects) AS in the path.

    2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

      Re: Is there a list?

      By that criteria, you'll want to block the USA too!

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pull the other one, next they'll be claiming corners on rectangular objects (which were invented on a TV screen).

  6. streaky

    RFC 2460..

    Technically speaking IPv6 is RFC 1883 - it was named IPv6 and used 128 bit address space so this is arguably true - and was written in 1995. Of course they're not exactly the same spec but it's important to note how disgusting it is that a protocol that was designed so long ago that it is arguably obsolete (wall time) is hardly deployed by anybody, everybody looks like an idiot in this scenario.

    IPv6 deployment is *easy* and we should stop pretending it's difficult and just get it done.

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: RFC 2460..

      If the Chinese push IPv6 they will make a huge advance in relation to where we are today. We almost pretend as though it's Ok and we have time, we don't...

      I get the impression that we will soon be trailing behind the Chinese in many areas... If we trail behind then in relation to the internet then will soon become relegated to second rate states.

      As was stated many years ago "he who controls the information, controls the world"...

      1. Teiwaz

        Re: RFC 2460..

        I get the impression that we will soon be trailing behind the Chinese in many areas... If we trail behind then in relation to the internet then will soon become relegated to second rate states.

        Well, seeing the direction things are going, we'll be trailing in the space of everyday items connected and spying on us for gov anc corp or merely just spaffing our personal details to in full view.

        In those, I don't mind trailing...*

      2. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: RFC 2460..

        "If we trail behind then in relation to the internet"

        Who is this 'we', white man?

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: RFC 2460..

        "If the Chinese push IPv6 they will make a huge advance in relation to where we are today."

        The chinese have had a major IPv6 internal academic network running for a long time.

        But then again, so has the USA.

        Bear in mind that ~2015 years ago there was more IPv6 traffic than the _entire_ volume of the Internet in 2000

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: RFC 2460..

      IPv6 started easy. Became impossibly complex, and has since been fixed.

      It is my go to example of over-enthusiastic engineering and justification for evolution over revolution. IMO an IPv6 address should have been 128-32=96 bits optionally tacked onto an IPv4 address. Technically ugly, but would have been good enough to fix the actual address space depletion problem.

      1. Len
        Holmes

        Re: RFC 2460..

        The problem is that any minor change you make to the IPv4 protocol means that all IPv4 devices need to be replaced or updated to be able to work with it as they were never developed for it. As that disruption would be similar to introducing a new protocol you might as well develop a new protocol from the ground up solving many more problems than just the address depletion issue. A proper broadcast and low level encryption features for instance.

      2. Gerhard Mack

        Re: RFC 2460..

        "It is my go to example of over-enthusiastic engineering and justification for evolution over revolution. IMO an IPv6 address should have been 128-32=96 bits optionally tacked onto an IPv4 address. Technically ugly, but would have been good enough to fix the actual address space depletion problem."

        How exactly do you tack on an additional 96 bits to a fixed 32 bit portion of the header with other defined items on both sides without completely breaking the protocol?

        1. anothercynic Silver badge

          Re: RFC 2460..

          How exactly do you tack on an additional 96 bits to a fixed 32 bit portion of the header with other defined items on both sides without completely breaking the protocol?

          Shhhhhh... don't point out the obvious...

    3. FIA Silver badge

      Re: RFC 2460..

      that a protocol that was designed so long ago that it is arguably obsolete (wall time)

      <rant>

      Dear IT.

      Something is obsolete when the purpose it serves is better served by something more modern. Not just because it's old.

      Regards,

      The Fork, spoon and wheel Society

      </rant>

      1. streaky

        Re: RFC 2460..

        Something is obsolete when the purpose it serves is better served by something more modern. Not just because it's old.

        Yeah alright I may have not considered that people might assume that I meant it's old is the only reason. It's still usable but now we have new information there's technical reasons why it would be obsoleted given half a chance.

        Anyway, IPv6, just do it.

    4. Adam 52 Silver badge

      Re: RFC 2460..

      "IPv6 deployment is *easy* "

      Oh no it isn't.

      As just one example, 128 bit addresses don't fit in any standard data type. And then there's the multitude of different textual encoding schemes. And the privacy and security issues. And incompatible MTU sizes. And the inability to coexist with IPv4 in any half-way sensible manner. Oh, and then there's IPsec and the huge great config mess that comes with it. Except that now IPsec is optional, so you've got a mixed network to sort out.

      IPv6 is a mess, which is why adoption has been poor for so many years.

      1. streaky

        Re: RFC 2460..

        128 bit addresses don't fit in any standard data type

        Define standard. Use a math lib. GUIDs are 128 bit ints too and they're everywhere. "hard" and "i can't be bothered" aren't the same thing.

        Also IPv4 and IPv6 coexist happily if people stop listening to consultants who sell them stupid ways to migrate their networks. You're doing it wrong, coexistence was solved many many years ago, there's a solution for every problem and your problem might not really be a problem.

    5. Yes Me Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: RFC 2460..

      > IPv6 deployment is *easy*

      True. But, to echo Mr Fawlty, now for the hard part: coexistence with IPv4-only services (such as El Reg itself). That's always been the hard part, ever since the first IPv6 interop demo and the first commercial product (in 1997). However, the fact today is that (for example) 21% of Google users are on IPv6: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

      It's a done deal except for the laggards.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anyone involved in networking in the 90's would know IPv6 was around in various forms long before it was ratified into a "standard" by an RFC, long before 1998.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like