Subject: RE: Chinese IPv9

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 23:43:20 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>

    > There is technical content, but no business content and the service
    > providers are ignoring it as a waste of time.

Sounds like an apt description for some other IPvN efforts... :-)

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Joseph C. Mushi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:13:28 +0800

> providers are ignoring it as a waste of time.

I think we still have many areas within IPv6 that need more researches and
concentration. Why doesn't this group join hand to insure full exploitation
of IPv6? In my opinion, I don't think whether China or the rest of World
Internet community needs more address space than that provided by IPv6 at
this time, as per their school of thought. As far as I know even China has
not yet full exploit IPv6.

Mushi.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jul 2004 21:52:57 +0000

> ... Why doesn't this group join hand to insure full exploitation of IPv6?

based on http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=1405,
i'd say that the answer to that question is implied by the following quote:

        China and the United States are currently the only two countries
        that possess root domain name analysis servers, IP address servers,
        independent domain names, IP addresses and MAC address sources.

IPv6 is apparently being seen as just one more way in which the United States
is trying to dominate the world's commerce and communications systems.  The
IPv9 team in China is able to justify continued government funding simply by
saying that "this will make China a peer of the United States".

One way of reading these tea leaves is to say that ICANN hasn't been seen as
truly open, truly inclusive, or truly independent.  "Lapdog of the US-DoC"
was one critic's description.  Speaking as an early adopter of Vint's and
Jon's philosophy of openness/inclusiveness/interoperability, it's really
painful to see balkanization and to consider it inevitable.
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:37:42 +1000

"JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" wrote:
	[..]
> - We need a multilingual multinational root matrix.

....instead I think we're going to be getting a root canal.

gja