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 …

  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 Silver badge

      "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. 2+2=5 Silver badge

      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 Silver badge

      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 Silver badge
            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 Silver badge

    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 Silver badge

        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 Silver badge
        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

      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 Silver badge

        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 Silver badge

        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.

    1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
      Happy

      So, if it's been around for so long....

      ... why is it so badly-done?

      1. Yes Me Silver badge
        Angel

        Re: So, if it's been around for so long....

        > ... why is it so badly-done?

        Well, it's better done than IPv4. (RFC 791 would be regarded as absolute rubbish if proposed for standardisation today.) The complexities and difficulties around IPv6 are all connnected with the unavoidable problem of dealing with legacy services that don't have native IPv6 access. And these are very messy problems, as was known even before IPv6 was designed. The way out is for those legacy services (and legacy ISPs) to switch on IPv6 access.

        If you have the chance of experiencing an IPv6-only network, it's very pleasant compared to this NAT-infested rubbish we have to face daily.

  8. kmac499

    Nope; it was either Kim Jong Un or Donald Trump (cos it's yuge and biglier than IPv4)

    1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

      @kmac499

      +1

      Kim Jong Un

      Looks like I was late to the party (~12 hrs).

  9. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    Brain: We must prepare for tomorrow night.

    Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?

    Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!

    Chorus: They're Pinky, They're Pinky and the Brain Brain Brain Brain Brain!

    1. J. Cook Silver badge
  10. Blotto Bronze badge
    Paris Hilton

    Ipv6 flawed.

    As soon as trump gets his small hands on it no one will want it.

    1. Yes Me Silver badge

      Re: Ipv6 flawed.

      Don't worry, we won't let him, or his family, get near it. Paris is welcome, though.

  11. ZanzibarRastapopulous

    China

    I think they're referring to CERNET/CERNET2 which was indeed a developer of ip6 in the '90s.

    China were very interested in a new internet, because the US had nabbed all the ip4 addresses early on leaving China with an especially acute capacity problem.

    1. ZeroSum

      Re: China

      China's IPv4 address problem is a lot less acute than India's. China has about 330 million IPv4 addresses compared to India's 30 million. China has been able to get away so far with not too much CGN except in mobile.

      To keep growing without needing massive CGNs they need to deploy IPv6.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: China

        "China's IPv4 address problem is a lot less acute than India's."

        At one point in the late 1990s the whole of Vietnam had a single /24

  12. Wensleydale Cheese Silver badge

    "It'll be a doddle because we invented it..."

    But are they proud of the end result?

  13. Mr Sceptical
    Black Helicopters

    Well, you can see the attraction of it!

    Chinese state security (translated): "We enforce an unchangeable IPV6 address (by law) on all devices used inside the Great Firewall and bingo, we can follow everyone, everywhere and log everything they say, do, read and connect to. No hiding behind NAT any more. What's not to like?

    The NSA are gonna be soooooo jealous!"

    Addresses are dynamic now, but if they force local manufacturers to bake one into the networking stack of each device, how can they refuse? Do it or we shut you down and all your plant are belong to us. And enjoy the re-education hard labour camp.

    Practical enforcement is another issue, but the mindset is obvious.

    1. Paul

      Re: Well, you can see the attraction of it!

      indeed, all China needs to do is ensure IPv6 privacy is disabled by default on all phones and computers, and all devices use EUI64, and then they can track all devices where people have't figured out how to renable rfc4941 and the like

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Well, you can see the attraction of it!

      I suspect they're just hitting problems with carrier NAT. At some point even that doesn't help any more. If it was only 700 million devices they have to worry about then NAT might suffice but man + dog usually has more than one IP device and then they're all the embedded devices to worry about. China could reasonably claim to want to use all the possible addresses in IPv4. As could India.

    3. talk_is_cheap

      Re: Well, you can see the attraction of it!

      ---

      Chinese state security (translated): "We enforce an unchangeable IPV6 address (by law) on all devices used inside the Great Firewall and bingo, we can follow everyone, everywhere and log everything they say, do, read and connect to. No hiding behind NAT any more. What's not to like?

      ---

      No because devices will still move between locations, each of which will be a different IP network.

    4. 2+2=5 Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Well, you can see the attraction of it!

      > Addresses are dynamic now, but if they force local manufacturers to bake one into the networking stack of each device, how can they refuse?

      An address baked-in at the factory and not assigned by the ISP? That'll make for interestingly large routing tables.

  14. TrumpSlurp the Troll Silver badge
    Windows

    Limited address space UK? IoT?

    IPv6 talks a good fight but a lot of countries don't really seem to need it yet. Otherwise it would be dominating the ISP home market.

    To my untrained eye most homes in the UK have a NAT router by now, nestled behind carrier grade NAT where required.

    The number of home installations isn't going to grow exponentially and the number of home computers/tablets/phones/TVs is easily covered by the available private address space. As is the concievable future numbers of IoT devices.

    Unless there is an absolute technical requirement for each IoT device to have an IPv6 address we may well be able to trundle on another 10 years or more using the current address space.

    Edit: unless home NAT is fine but carrier grade NAT is struggling.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Limited address space UK? IoT?

      IPv6 talks a good fight but a lot of countries don't really seem to need it yet.

      For a lot of countries read America? The whole of East Asia is running layers of NAT already and suffering as a result. We only don't hear about it because for tech journos Silicon Valley is the only place that matters. And they have to cover real problems like having to share an LTE cell with more than ten other devices!

      IPv6 isn't perfect but it's now the accepted standard for the next generation.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Limited address space UK? IoT?

      "Edit: unless home NAT is fine but carrier grade NAT is struggling."

      Home NAT is fine for the most part.

      Home NAT behind ISP NAT is a piece of crap (been there done that. It's the norm across SE Asia and you'll see it in the UK if you use your phone as a gateway. Lots of things start breaking in odd ways)

      Carrier Grade NAT is an unmitigated 40 foot high pile of dingo shit which manages to put your security at risk too. (if your NATed IP keeps changing but the remote site is still talking to the old address, then someone else is getting your data thrown at them. There are some interesting attack surfaces to be explored there)

  15. James 51 Silver badge
    Pirate

    Perhaps it was an attempt to avoid a not invented here problem by claiming it was invented here, even if it wasn't. A little white lie to make the disruption more palatable. Of course removing identify obfuscation tools such as NAT is a bonus. Or perhaps it’s a building an artificial island on a permanently submerged reef to claim sovereignty sort of move.

  16. Oneman2Many

    Surprised that Africa is not in danger of running out. Much like asia, everyone pretty much has a feature or smart phone and home connections are quite common these days.

    1. Len Silver badge

      Many countries in Africa are Mobile First or even Mobile Only countries so many Africans will be behind fudges like Carrier Grade NAT.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "Surprised that Africa is not in danger of running out."

      The only reason is that for the most part(*) it never had many ranges to start with, so was running layered NAT long before AFRINIC was created- and that only has a few ranges left.

      (*) South Africa had a large chunk of netspace.

      Bear in mind that IPv4 was a hacky kludge only intended to last 5-10 years until the better protocol came along. If you're wondering what IPv5 was, we know it as IPX - which turned out to be unrouteable.

      That's why Jon Postel allocated /8s so freely in the early days. /16s became the norm only after it was realised IPX wasn't going to replace it.

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Naaah, Ipv5 was internet stream protocol-2, and was routable https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1190

        Also, contrary to popular belief, IPX was routable.

  17. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Trump invented it

    or was that the great firewal?

  18. YourNameHere

    I thought

    I thought Trump invented it. I heard that on Fox News.

  19. Number6

    Prior Art

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

    Was that before or after Al Gore invented the internet?

  20. Number6

    El Reg is still IPv4 only. As is the BBC. Perhaps it's all a plot by the Chinese to prevent their people from accessing such subversive media.

    1. ZeroSum

      EL Reg are hosted on Cloudflare now. They should just turn it on and get it over with.

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019