I'm actually surprised
Surprised that something like this wasn't already being planned by our very own lovable spooks and gubberment
Chinese telecom companies and the Middle Kingdom government contend that the TCP/IP protocol stack is ill-suited for future networking needs and have proposed reworking the internet's technical architecture with new, more secure internet protocols. Huawei, China Mobile, China Unicom, and China Ministry of Industry and …
I haven't really had trouble with IPv6 but yeah there are some potential "gotchas" - that were mentioned a bit in an earlier El Reg article...
When I look back over recent history and think of the number of times I've seen the phrase "The Great Firewall" in El Reg articles, do I _NEED_ to mention anything more regarding 'lack of trust' here?
Here's a nice blast from the past from 2015-ish - a simple search got me a pile o' links.
This post has been deleted by its author
The New IP proposal has been characterized as an attempt to impose authoritarian, top-down control on the unruly internet with features like a "shut-off" mechanism to stop denial of service attacks.No, it's been mischaracterised that why. And it in no sense "dumps" TCP/IP. And most operators would welcome that off switch anyway.
Huawei's presence on the US Commerce Department's Entity List has called into question whether American companies can participate in standards organizations alongside Huawei.Well, US based companies like Futurewei seem to manage. And IETF and ITU-T meetings don't take place in US jurisdiction. And we're all waiting eagerly for President Biden.
But given that many of these discussions are happening behind closed doors...The smart money says that actual technical discussion will end up in the IETF, because it has change control of Internet standards, and it's open to all.
To rebut your points:
- The characterisation of an unreleased spec is difficult to confirm or deny. While most operators would welcome an off switch to shut odd DDoS and other unwanted traffic, the question is who decides the traffic is unwanted. Most operators realise handing that power to governments is riskier than the current, unsatisfactory arrangements.
- I'm not sure your point about Futurewei is relevant. The US government is moving in a direction that reduces Huawei's ability to operate in the US. Not having removed a company yet isn't a sign that there is nothing to worry about.
- IETF's technical discussions are largely around who is allowed to participate in setting new standards. Once the standards are released, the market decides the result and the IETF rubber stamps it a few years later.
Looking at the Chinese Internet and comparing it to the Internet in Western countries (even with kiddie porn and other covert filtering in-place) offers a very different experience. Suggesting Huawei will produce a specification that is not closely aligned with existing Chinese policy seems.....optimistic. And in terms of implementing a new specification outside of China, I would suggest looking at the challenges present with IPv6 in the first 15+ years of its life - the Internet has a lot of legacy crud and making changes is slow even when the technical challenges are conquered.
"The US government is moving in a direction that reduces Huawei's ability to operate in the US"
Really? So you've missed the threats made by the US toward the UK, EU, and pretty much anybody who wants to deal with Huawei? As well as preventing them from getting any technology that has some bits originating from the US?
The US are trying to stop Huawei from operating at all, and not just moving in a vague direction, they're actually using a sledgehammer on them right now.
I'd rather not be aligned with a country who's president is expressing his love for the military killing its own unarmed citizens. Notice how difficult it is to know if I'm talking about the US or China?
Yes, Trump might be replaced later on. But honestly, with the level of popularity he's still getting, it's hard to exclude the US turning full-on authoritarian at some point, and unlike China, they'll already have a lot of global control.
The ITU documents mentioned in the article are freely available on the IETF web site. Visit https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1653 or google for ietf liaison statement 1653.
One of those documents, TSAG-C83, is written by Huawei, China Mobile, China Unicom and CAICT - China Academy of Information and Communications Technology which is a branch of the Chinese government. TSAG-C83 says: "As the WTSA-20 is approaching, it is the right time for ITU-T to consider designing a new information and communications network with new protocol system that satisfies and serves for the future. There are great opportunities for ITU-T to play a leading role in a strategic transformation and pay more attention to the new future network research with New IP protocol system. As the international technology and standard organization, ITU-T is suggested to take a long-term view and shoulder the responsibility of a top-down design for the future network."
That makes it very clear what China's and Huawei's intentions are. There's no mischaracterisation at all. China's actually saying New IP *IS* about top-down control.
What was it you were saying about sticking to the facts?
The protocols that underlie the internet are so important that they must be open. They must have all details of their specs available for public perusal. Until this mechanism is released in that way, which means full access to all specifications, an open body clearly independent of corporate interests which can propose and make changes, clearly free of patents, etc. I will have to oppose it. TCP meets those requirements. UDP meets those requirements. QUIC meets those requirements. Anything else must also meet those requirements.
But just as western governments adopted totalitarian response to controlling caronavirus so they will adopt this because you know, control.
This sort of comment is a good sign. No one who's been anywhere near actual totalitarianism would be saying it, so totalitarianism must be pretty unusual.
Paper money movements. In China some 7-11 style shops (for example) have no staff : the facial recognition system is so good and so extensive that anyone who scarpers without paying goes straight into the miscreant database. You can bet your bottom dollar that China is developing - I reckon already has developed - it’s own digital currency. So much commerce in China is transacted online and pay-by-bonk it is a natural next step to add a few more 1’s and 0’s. The state already controls the banks so there is no need for Bitcoin-like farms on every street : it is an exercise in data-gathering not financial security. It therefore comes as no surprise that they wish to change the plumbing for their own purposes.
Make sense or is one spouting buffalo spoor?
The internet was built out of the US governments DoD DARPA agency.
Every time you use the net you are using something built to satisfy political aims of the US government.
Firewalls happily intentionally block traffic On a micro level, I can’t imagine a firewall was envisaged when the net was being built.
Building a blocking mechanism into the addressing protocol is logical but would be an easy way for governments to stop people they don’t like using it.
The internet as we know it today is vastly different and used differently to how it was intended and envisaged but still compliant and compatible with ipv4, it’s extensibility is what has permitted its success even though ipv6 has been waiting in the wings.
Whatever comes after IPv4 must be able to innovate as effectively, else governments will have full control and business will be less inclined to invest in something any government could turn off on a whim.
The US government and military of the day had probably asked for something,but I bet that NOBODY had an inkling as to what would eventually emerge as the Internet!
An amazing feat of design that needed only a few tweaks to make it not only "usable" but eminently so!
The distributed nature of the design enabled it to scale so far past the original expectations that it is almost miraculous.
As for devices like firewalls one can view them as a choice of the end user, like having a wall around your property or not - not a part of the Internet per se and will probably be required until the last crook has disappeared from the planet!
China could try putting real contact information into their APNIC records. Most countries use such information to request that attacks be shut down.
I may never remove Chinese and Vietnamese government owned networks from my firewall. I put in a nice request to have attacks stopped but they bounced. I've already wasted enough time.
China only uses the internet to spy on the west...............lets just cut the cables and isolate them. Then they can do whatever they like without pinching our secrets.
If their international trade gets damaged as a secondary effect, then tough - that'll teach them not to bootleg our technology
Too much to handle this week! I was told this THIRTY-FIVE years ago! By a "consultant" at my company.
He warned that TCP/IP was obsolete and I had better start learning the "ADA" nonsense. At least I think it was ADA.. It may have been Charles Babbage. Or possibly Commander Hopper and COBOL-IP (shudder)
I paid no attention, and the high-priced consultant soon drifted away, as all those seagulls do, after their squawking, eating your food and shitting on you.
Let's see how far Huawei goes. So far they haven't even rescued the founder's daughter yet...
The Internet (previously ARPANET, previously ...) works well because it is "stupid" and the "clever" bits are the endpoints.
Change the endpoints as much as you like and the network will still (mostly) deliver the packets used to carry the data.
Putting "clever" bits into the network itself will simply produce problems that are avoidable.
See this old paper https://www.hyperorg.com/misc/stupidnet.html
Any proposal by any government to enable control will end in tears!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021