In those days when we focused on the Ukraine-Russia war, ITU’s standards meeting was in the background from March 1-9 [1]. This meeting is a kind of workshop that sets the standards for the telecom systems we use. The “New IP” project, which is discussed because it will be presented to this conference by China (Huawei), means that the internet is almost divided [2].
The prevalence of Internet infrastructure is now more than 30 years old (although the protocol is much older). We say that the Internet is decentralized and distributed, management is not monopoly, but it is not exactly like that. There are some governing bodies. These are the groups that both create the internet architecture and set the rules (for example, defining .com addresses in domain names). Previously, only the USA was predominant, now there is an effort to share a little more in governance. But still not as expected.
In addition, there are technological changes forced by the technologies on the internet, such as haptic (tactile sensing) applications. That’s why there are people who work on administrative and architectural needs. One of these studies is the “Network 2030” study conducted by the International Telecom Union.
While this work is going on, China has unveiled a work called “New IP” –with the Huawei presentation. This is a project that could divide the internet.
We asked the matter to Huawei and ICANN separately. We asked more or less similar questions to Huawei as the owner of the project and ICANN for preparing a report on this subject.
Huawei questions could not answer questions at this time. We saw the news that you can reach by just clicking here. Looking at the text of the news, China accuses the West of politicizing the “New IP” issue. Interestingly, the reference information page we gave to the news we published on this subject last year [3] has become inaccessible this year[4]. But it is possible to find some information from other articles.
You can read below the answers given to our questions by ICANN, the institution that Ukraine’s minister fedorov who is responsible for digital transformation, asked to “cut off Russia’s internet”.
1. What is the Network 2030 study? Why was this study needed?
The ITU-T Focus Group Technologies for Network 2030 (FG NET-2030) or “Network 2030” was created by the Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) Study Group 13 during the World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly (WTSA3) meeting in Geneva, which was held from 16 to 27 July 2018. The group concluded its activities in July 2020.
The overarching goal of the Network 2030 Focus Group was “to study and advance international networking technologies, and investigate the future network architecture, requirements, use cases, and capabilities of the networks for the year 2030 and beyond. [5]”
- These networks are expected to support novel scenarios, such as holographic type communications, haptic sensing, remote surgery, extremely fast responses in critical situations and high-precision communication demands of emerging market verticals.
- The focus group description claimed that “Network 2030 based systems shall ensure they remain fully backward compatible, supporting both existing and new applications. [5]”
The specific goals for the Network 2030 Focus Group were:
- Study, review, and survey existing network technologies, network platforms, and network standards to identify gaps and challenges towards Network 2030 which are not supported by the existing and near future networks like 5G/IMT-2020.
- Formulate all network aspects of Network 2030, which include but are not limited to vision, requirements, architecture, novel use cases, and evaluation methodology, as related to the fixed network.
- Provide guidelines for network standardization roadmap.
- Establish liaisons and relationships with other Standards Development organizations (SDOs) such as the International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) Radio Communications Sector Working Party 5D (ITU-R WP 5D) for addressing aspects of radio access networks.
2. Network 2030 work ended in 2020. Did this study achieve its goal? Putting the question in reverse, is the reason why “New IP” was created because it didn’t reach its 2030 target?
We cannot comment on whether it achieved its goals. For more information the feasibility of New IP, ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) published a paper discussing the focus group’s work and New IP. More specific information on this topic may be found here.
3. What are the differences between the 2030 study and the New IP?
Net 2030 focused on use cases. New IP is a set of technologies.
4. What kind of technical problems may arise in the transition from the existing IP structure to the New IP system?
Due to the lack of specifics, it is difficult to view New IP as a candidate as an Internet protocol standard. Rather, it appears to be a list of perceived issues about the current Internet architecture and a list of desired features.
Although New IP can use a new variable length addressing type, IPv4, IPv6, or any combination, it is not compatible with the existing deployed IPv4- or IPv6-based infrastructure. As such, New IP would have to be used in parallel with the current Internet infrastructure, interconnecting via gateways.
- The introduction of these gateways will mean increased operating and capital costs and added complexity to network operations.
- Any significant global adoption of the standard would probably face decades-long timelines, especially when considering the still lackluster adoption of IPv6 twenty five years after its definition.
For more details, ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) published a paper discussing the focus group’s work and New IP. More specific information on this topic may be found here.
5. The concept of “many nets” made me think of “islets of the internet”. Is the new IP something like this? Does this mean the integrity of the internet is compromised? Is it even an idea of an internet that can be entered with passports?
The notion of ManyNets, understood as a federated set of networks, would result in the end of a single Internet.
6. From the report, it is understood that such a system will make the operation of the internet more difficult and even prolong the times (latency). Why would a group with knowledge of networks prefer such a thing? Or do we need this in terms of internet security for the future?
ICANN does not have an opinion on why any group would prefer certain technologies. ICANN can, however, provide an assessment of a New IP on the operations of the Internet. For more information on this topic. Please see the following paper:
ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) published a paper discussing the focus group’s work and New IP. More specific information on this topic may be found here.
7. Is New IP such a threat to expression freedom?
New IP advances the idea of a strong regulatory binding between an IP address and a user.
- If deployed, such techniques could make pervasive monitoring much easier because it would allow any intermediary element (router, switch, and so on) to have full access to exactly which user is doing what.
8. Is it appropriate to send the proposal to ITU instead of IEFT or ICANN? Or why was it sent to the ITU? Could this also be a reaction to the U.S. administration of the internet — with organizations like IEFT and ICANN–, let alone independent?
- New IP is not a fully realized technical Internet standard. Questions of who would adopt it and why is unclear and beyond ICANN’s mission.
- To date, there are no publicly available, definitive, and complete descriptions of New IP. As such, it can only be seen at best as “work in progress” and cannot be fully analyzed and compared to a standard such as the TCP/IP protocol suite.
- ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) published a paper discussing the Network 2030 Focus Group’s work and New IP. More specific information on this topic may be found here.
9. With this proposal (whether it is accepted or not) is there a possibility that the internet will be divided (eg west-east)?
ICANN operates as an unbiased technical Internet leader. Objective 3 of ICANN 2021-2025 Strategic Plan requires ICANN to “embrace the rapid evolution of emerging technologies, business, and security models” to maintain its agility as the Internet evolves. This means ICANN has to continuously assess new standards, technologies, rules, etc., to fulfill its mission.
- This includes assessing the compatibility of New IP with the current Internet. The question of compatibility is essential to understanding the challenges potentially facing any deployments of New IP, either as a general replacement of IP, or as an ad-hoc solution in private networks.
Not all technology proposals are equal. Some may provide benefits for certain users but put the security, stability, or resiliency of the system of unique identifiers that ICANN helps coordinate at risk. As such, understanding the impact of emerging technologies is required to recommend if they should be embraced.
Although New IP can use a new variable length addressing type, IPv4, IPv6, or any combination, it is not compatible with the existing deployed IPv4- or IPv6-based infrastructure. As such, New IP would have to be used in parallel with the current Internet infrastructure, interconnecting via gateways.
- The introduction of these gateways will mean increased operating and capital costs and added complexity to network operations.
- Any significant global adoption of the standard would probably face decades-long timelines, especially when considering the still lackluster adoption of IPv6 twenty five years after its definition.
New IP’s notion of ManyNets, understood as a federated set of networks, would result in the end of a single Internet.
[1] World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA-20)
[2] Update on WTSA-20 Preparations and New IP
[3] Çin ve Huawei’in Yeni IP Planı
[4] A Brief Introduction about New IP Research Initiative
[5] Focus Group on Technologies for Network 2030
[6] ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021- 2025,” June 2019