Talk:IPv9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IPv9 is one of three possible things:

1) A TUBA protocol implementation in China.
2) An alternative DNS implemented in China.
3) An IETF April Fool's Day joke (see RFC1606 and RFC1607).

The question is which of the first two is part of the June Chinese announcement? It's not very encyclopedic to have articles based almost entirely on isolated news reports. If there is going to be an IPv9 article, it needs technical documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vector4F (talk • contribs) 04:09, July 6, 2004

Contents

[edit] TUBA

I believe the focus of this document/article should be TUBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stilroc (talk • contribs) 16:34, July 24, 2004

I agree. Covering TUBA and mentioning the RFC jokes would complete the article.
Vector4F 03:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
TUBA, as in TUBA?
but yes, this IPv9 thingy smells like (science) fiction made up by some mad professor. -- 89.49.152.121 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPv9 is a hoax

The article should be deleted. --88.73.49.163 00:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Western?

After reading the majority of this article, I came to two conclusions. 1. It needs cleaning up drastically. 2. It is very anti-western. Mentions the promises that it will be cheaper by for example, "50% as it is being made under the PRC" and "it can be argued that it costs more because IPV6 is American" This leads me to believe this article is a teensie weensy hoax written up by a Chinese student (as the English is not up to WikiPedia's usual standards, hence Engrish. IP technology usually makes it leaps in series of 2, so the next incarnation of the net should actually be IPv8. Also note that the Article states the removal or replacement of the "English" internet. The author of this article needs to let on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.144.9 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding IP stepping, I think you're wrong; IPv5 exists but isn't used, so the logical next version would probably be IPv7. But of course you're right that the article needs massive cleanup (or deletion).--62.20.90.195 16:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm for deleting the majority of it, as it is mostly a wall of engrish babble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.112.63 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I tried to read this article in its entirety, and understood very little about this purported protocol. Aside from missing verbs and bad spelling, there are full sentences which I simply could not understand the meaning of. The content appears to be notes from a lecture or presentation (powerpoint?) that have been transcribed into a wikipedia article: "This chap defines..." To the best of my understanding, the main idea here is that an IPv9 address can be the same as a phone number, so a company's web site and phone number can be identical (although the IPv9 address must be preceded by some prefix or a lot of zeros). (I believe IPv6 could theoretically accomplish the same thing, using a particular prefix to map the phone network.)

I noticed misrepresentations about solving the IPv4 addressing crunch. The IPv6 addressing scheme certainly allows for every human being to have an IP address, as stated; it's actually large enough for every human being who ever lived to have millions of network addresses for each and every minute of their lives. So what's the point about stating that IPv9 (having a few more bits) will help solve the addressing congestion of today?

The "claimed innovations of IPv9" seem to be nothing of the sort-- as far as I can understand, all of them are true of IPv6. Except the first one I didn't understand-- at the physical layer, devices communicate by MAC address-- and? IPv6 allows the MAC address to be subsumed into the network address, just like is mentioned here.

And what exactly does this sentence mean in the context of comparison between IPv6 and IPv9: "In a nuclear or regional war, serious damage situation and natural disasters it is still robust but considered in the major political events and turmoil it could still be ineffective."

Based on the fact that I learned very little from this article, I think the bulk of it should be deleted, at least until there are technical sources that can be used to base the article on. -- User:myrrhlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.194.111 (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.57.39 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Definitely delete this article. It is pure, unadulterated garbage. Ayengar (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is incredibly poorly written, and probably non-notable. Some brief Googling leads me to believe IPv9 is not a hoax, but rather based upon a single person's (crazy) ideas. The article states that IPv9 is in wide use in China today, but I could find no evidence of it use. I support deletion. --Alex Cohn (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
me 2 support deletion--210.6.140.201 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite, rather than Delete: We should hold Chinese authority and media accountable

It may sound controversial and political. It is, after all, just a suggestion.

China has officially declared the success of decimal networking, which is claimed to be based on IPv9.

Basically you have two camps of reactions. One is official achievement and [http://china.tdctrade.com/content.aspx?data=CHINA_content_en&contentid=1005959&src=CN_BuNeTrSt&w_sid=194&w_pid=630&w_nid=9929&w_cid=1005959&w_idt=1900-01-01&w_oid=156&w_jid=

China's media coverage] about its compatibility with current international standards of IPv4 and IPv6 in the future:

Another is critique (mostly from non-Chinese) of its hype and its political agenda:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/813112_china_internet_root_ipv9/ http://www.chinabusinessblog.com/2008/01/25/internet-protocol-number-9-number-9-number-9/

I agree with normal editorial standard, this article should be deleted. However, the hype of IPv9 might need some counter-argument and necessarily evaluation of its potential effects (beneficial or harmful) to the open architecture of Internet which I personally believe in. Hanteng (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)