Internet Governance Body RIPE Opposes China's Internet Protocols Upgrade Plan (zdnet.com) 90
EU-based Internet governance body RIPE is opposing a proposal to remodel core internet protocols, a proposal backed by the Chinese government, Chinese telecoms, and Chinese networking equipment vendor Huawei. From a report: Named "New IP," this proposal consists of a revamped version of the TCP/IP standards to accommodate new technologies, a "shutoff protocol" to cut off misbehaving parts of the internet, and a new "top-to-bottom" governance model that decentralizes the internet and puts it into the hands of a few crucial node operators. The New IP proposal was submitted last year to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and brought to the public's attention following a Financial Times report last month. The proposal received immediate criticism from the general public and privacy advocates due to its obvious attempt to hide internet censorship features behind a technical redesign of the TCP/IP protocol stack.
The New IP proposal was described as the Chinese government's attempt to export and impose its autocratic views onto the rest of the internet and its infrastructure. Millions of eyebrows were raised when authoritarian countries like Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia expressed support for the proposal. In a blog post this week, RIPE NCC, the regional Internet registry for Europe, West Asia, and the former USSR, formally expressed a public opinion against China New IP proposal. "Do we need New IP? I don't think we do," said Marco Hogewoning, the current acting Manager Public Policy and Internet Governance at the RIPE NCC. "Although certain technical challenges exist with the current Internet model, I do not believe that we need a whole new architecture to address them."
The New IP proposal was described as the Chinese government's attempt to export and impose its autocratic views onto the rest of the internet and its infrastructure. Millions of eyebrows were raised when authoritarian countries like Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia expressed support for the proposal. In a blog post this week, RIPE NCC, the regional Internet registry for Europe, West Asia, and the former USSR, formally expressed a public opinion against China New IP proposal. "Do we need New IP? I don't think we do," said Marco Hogewoning, the current acting Manager Public Policy and Internet Governance at the RIPE NCC. "Although certain technical challenges exist with the current Internet model, I do not believe that we need a whole new architecture to address them."
Re: (Score:1)
Taking advice from the government run by the Communist Party of China seems like a bad idea.
Especially lately.
Turning off slashdot editors (Score:5, Informative)
See, this is what I mean by wildly inappropriate editing. The original says,
Named "New IP," this proposal[1, 2, 3] consists of a revamped version of the TCP/IP standards to accommodate new technologies, a "shutoff protocol" to cut off misbehaving parts of the internet, and a new "top-to-bottom" governance model that centralizes the internet and puts it into the hands of a few crucial node operators.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Any given country can already shut off branches of the internet from coming into their country. They can pass a law requiring ISPs (and more importantly, backbone providers) to null-route them on demand.
Which clearly shows that we don't need a new IP to achieve China's goals, even if we wanted to.
Hell, we haven't even adopted the old IP yet for the most part, we're mostly still using the very old IP.
Re: (Score:2)
"Prove me wrong." There are invisible pink unicorns...prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
therefore, if the unicorns are invisible, they are not also pink.
Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim, your need to prove, not ours to disprove.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How hard is it for a slashdot editor to copy an article?
Maybe they should outsource to the Chinese, I hear they're good at copying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse. Why is there a fucking powerpoint presentation packaged as a PDF instead of an RFC? What's this about, testing the waters, where's the meat? How does one ratify smoke and mirrors?
Re: (Score:2)
You're implying that the editors edit. We have ample evidence that they don't. I wouldn't be surprised to find that this was part of the original submission.
Now if msmash self submitted the piece then ... well there goes that argument.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The whole article is innuendo and made up stuff. The original FT article (https://www.ft.com/content/ba94c2bc-6e27-11ea-9bca-bf503995cd6f?shareType=nongift) is only a little better but at least makes it clear that this isn't even a proposal for a standard, it's a statement of the issues and a call for a working group to be set up.
The top-down control part is probably not government control. The applications they are discussing are things that require extremely high bandwidth a low latency. They mention holo
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they do have some specific recommendations.
Oddly enough, they propose a variable length address, but that does nothing to do better than IPv6 as it still wouldn't be compatible with IPv4 software, and apart from compatibility with IPv4, there's not any justification for supporting smaller than 128-bit address. Unless their suggestion about going beyond 128 bit is what it is really about, but that is totally unnecessary, except potentially in support of other items in their presentation that gives legi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you absolutely positive that these technical proposals aren't just stalking horses for what could end up evolving into exactly the kind of adverse scenario you depict as having emanating from the "fears of random people"?
China's "New IP" proposal to replace TCP/IP has a built in "shut up command" for censorship [privateint...access.com] — 3 April 2020
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently. "The original [article] says ..." is correct English when providing a quote that hasn't been altered. "The original [article] said ..." is used to indicate it has been altered. 'Says' indicates state, not the verbiage.
Re: (Score:1)
deCentralize? (Score:2, Redundant)
Doesn't this proposal centralize vs de-centralize the Internet?
I give this a resounding 'hell no'. Operators everywhere should refuse to route this traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, unless they're going to use IPV4 and IPV6 addressing, the traffic won't be routed.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought they were going to bring back DECNet-Plus.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't this proposal centralize vs de-centralize the Internet?
Whoever wrote the summary had an agenda. TFA said "centralize" not "de-centralize".
Wall China off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Wall China off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe IBM could make some money, here.
Sell their token-ring or even SNA technology IP to the CCP for a chinese-only internet. No-one else is using it.
Can you imagine a china-wide token-ring network? That little token flying around mainland cn? There'll be some interesting waits on XMIT.....
Here comes the split.... (Score:3)
I think the Chinese will push ahead with this regardless and you'll see a split in the internet. .
Re:Here comes the split.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that they are pretty much cut off from the rest of the world already, I think this won't be as big of an issue as one might imagine. Perhaps less spam and hackery. If only Russia followed suit.
Re:Here comes the split.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Chinese will push ahead with this regardless and you'll see a split in the internet. .
They've already done this. It's nicknamed "the great firewall of china". This "New IP" is designed to expand it beyond their borders.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A "shut off" protocol? (Score:3)
How ironic. I've shut off ALL of China from my servers years ago due to non stop network abuse and spam, and a complete lack of "give a fuck" from Chinese networks.
I wonder how much more the CCP has to do (Score:5, Insightful)
before the rest of the world, especially the West, realizes they're a huge megalomaniacal threat and endangering us all from pollution to human rights (forced organ harvesting/concentration camps) to pandemics.
They need to go. If the world ever had a singular villain it's the CCP.
Screw (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They need to go.
Ok. Where will they go, and how do you propose to do this? Keep in mind, China isn't some 95 pound pimply faced youth. Whatever scenario you come up with to make them "go," they can probably do to other countries as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Where will they go, and how do you propose to do this?
The dustbin of history. It remains to be seen if the SAPC will go after them first or Russia, and even in places like Africa where countries and people are getting pissed off. Unless something fundamentally changes and hard, they've likely already written their own execution - and will get charged the bullet for it.
Does it even work? It's vaporware (Score:5, Informative)
However, we can be certain that even from the sales documents that the approach is wrong. This description:
"The New IP presentation paints a picture of a digital world in 2030 where virtual reality, holographic communication and remote surgery are ubiquitous — and for which our current network is unfit. Traditional IP protocol is described as “unstable” and “vastly insufficient”, with “lots of security, reliability and configuration problems”.
The documents suggest a new network should instead have a “top-to-bottom design” and promote data-sharing schemes across governments “thereby serving AI, Big Data and all kinds of other applications”."
The problems they want to address are: instability/reliability, lack of bandwidth (I guess), security, and difficult configuration. I imagine they are talking about ICMP, because at this point DHCP is dead simple.
At what point have you ever said, "this system is unstable and unreliable, we should make it more reliable by centralizing control?" Another name for "centralized control" is "Single point of failure."
Re: (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Re:Does it even work? It's vaporware (Score:5, Informative)
I guess you mean BGP [wikipedia.org] as neither ICMP [wikipedia.org] nor DHCP [wikipedia.org] have any meaning for configuration capabilities internet-wide, their configuration capabilities apply only for LANs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problems with this are not about censorship, I don't know why anyone would think China needs more tools for that, the problems here are about network neutrality.
If a tree falls in the forest... (Score:1)
Those who know better can continue to run the internet properly and those who want this "new scam" can scream impotently in a corner if they wish.
What's the problem?
Re: (Score:1)
This look very attractive to your leader. You ordered to implement or hit the road Jack.
Regards, #1 Best China Forever!
China is asshoe (Score:3)
To quote a Hong Konger. Right now, I think China ought to be cut off from the internet completely, a complete electronic shunning. I also want a total ban on sales to or purchases from China, although that would take a couple of years to implement.
PRC Delenda Est.
Re: (Score:1)
I also want a total ban on sales to or purchases from China, although that would take a couple of years to implement.
That would take more than just a couple of years. Much more, so long as your goals also include not destroying world economies far more than covid 19 has done.
Keep in mind China is the supplier for the majority of components found in most everything we take for granted.
Covid has had a really bad effect, yes, but we do still have functioning hospitals and medical equipment, grocery stores and pharmacies can still accept payments and maintain inventory, delivery services still have a functioning fleet of ve
Lol, don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't even get traction on protocol changes that make good sense, and have largely been agreed on by everyone, like switching to IPv6. That transition has been happening for... what, twenty years now? Internet infrastructure changes at a glacial pace. On occasion, that turns out to be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll see much faster adoption if they build and export it.
Re: (Score:2)
As if we needed yet another reason to blacklist Huawei and anything they export.
Re: (Score:1)
Boycott? Boy, it took more than long-haired homeless hippies holding the sidewalk hostage to stop the Nazis.
What makes you think China and Communism will be any easier, with your decaying infrastructure and pitiful lack of industry.
Re: (Score:2)
What communism? They have a class structure and currency. That is not communism by definition. They are fascist capitalists. You know, what the rest of the world is moving towards over time?
Conspicuously absent from descent.. (Score:1)
The US government was conspicuously _not_ amount the descenters. It seems quite clear, that for the same reasons the Chinese want this, the US wants this as well.
Leave it to Europe, again, to fight for freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
I am amused to see this post down-voted by the obedient slaves of Trumps propaganda. Supposedly intelligent technically sophisticated people all drawn into the lie that China is somehow more evil than their own superpower administration. And the actual truth is buried down here at the end of the comments. Ironically I have to use the same slogan that the troll peddlars of misinformation use when they gang up to reinforce their alt-right hate filled vomit in comment forums - WAKE UP SHEEPLE! you are being ma
RIPE is not part of the EU (Score:4, Informative)
RIPE is responsible for the region of Europe. It is not controlled by or was created by the EU.
EU law applies (Score:2)
just the same way US law applies to The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) since they are based in the USA...
Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) serves Europe, Central Asia, Russia, and West Asia and is subject to Dutch/EU law
TCCP/IP (Score:3)
So, CCP proposes new TCP/IP...
TCCP/IP
And so (Score:2)
and a new "top-to-bottom" governance model that decentralizes the internet and puts it into the hands of a few crucial node operators.
IdoNotThinkThatWordMeansWhatYouThinkItMeans.jpg
Free China! (Score:2)
JinYang!!! (Score:2)
"I make the New-IP"
This guy stays busy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree - we do need a newer TCP/IP (Score:1)
Why not IPv6 finally? (Score:1)
I haven't looked into this lately, but why aren't we being forced to use IPv6 yet? Last I heard it was always "too expensive to upgrade" but that was like 2 decades ago. Haven't all the parts we've been buying, to expand the internet and increase it's speeds, been IPv6 compliant? If not, why not? Is certification expensive? Or is the protocol that much harder to do, so the hardware must be much more capable?
If we're not trying to fix the decentralization "problem", then what is New IP solving that IPv6
Misbehaving. Right. (Score:2)
[A] "shutoff protocol" to cut off misbehaving parts of the internet
Like those of Hong Kong, perhaps? Or anything that Comrade Winnie-the-Pooh Xi decides to block?
Remember Battlestar Galactica? (2004) (Score:2)
Opening episode... all battlestars shut down by a mysterious signal from an adversary, leaving everyone essentially defenseless.
But, let me put it this way...
Politicians should be SCREAMING against this (I mean, sure, they'll gladly take the money from lobbying). Because if it ever happens, heaven help us all if a nation full of TV/Streaming addicts suddenly has their tv shows and internet cut off.
It makes the Zombie apocalypse seem like a game of toy soldiers in comparison.
And then when food orders can't