iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
“China’s IPv9” is not the same thing as either the Internet standards registry’s historic IP version 9 entry or an April Fools’ RFC. The phrase usually refers to a Chinese decimal-network proposal discussed in the 2000s. The similar names have caused persistent confusion, but the three references describe different things—and the available standards record does not show the Chinese proposal becoming an IETF Internet Protocol.
What does “China’s IPv9” refer to?
In historical reporting, “China’s IPv9” refers to a proposed decimal network associated with decimal addressing and digital- or numerical-domain naming. The project was discussed publicly in the 2000s, with reporting about proposed standards, interoperability ambitions and planned trials. Those reports show that the proposal and its claims received attention; they do not establish that it became a widely deployed network or an international IP standard.
The label is confusing because “IP version 9” also appears in two earlier, unrelated documents. Neither one documents the Chinese proposal.
Three different meanings of “IPv9”
| Use of the name | Date and source | What it describes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| TUBA / IP version 9 | RFC 1347, June 1992 | A proposal to run TCP and UDP over CLNP, using larger addresses and offering a migration path. | IANA’s historic registry associates version 9 with RFC 1347 and marks it “Reserved (Historic).” It is not the Chinese decimal-network proposal. RFC 1347 · IANA IP Version Numbers registry |
| RFC 1606 | April 1, 1994 | A satirical, fictional retrospective about IPv9, including fanciful claims about routing, nanotechnology and interplanetary communication. | An informational independent submission, not an IETF standard. Its author states: “This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.” RFC 1606 and its Datatracker record |
| Chinese “IPv9” / decimal network | Public reporting in the 2000s | A proposal discussed in terms of decimal addressing and digital- or numerical-domain concepts. | Historical project and reported standards activity. The sources do not establish that it became an IETF IP standard or a current operational deployment. 2004 Sina Tech report · CERNET retrospective (2019) |
What the standards record actually says
The IANA IP Version Numbers registry is the clearest reference for the protocol-version number. It lists version 6 as IPv6 and version 9 as “Reserved (Historic),” pointing to RFC 1347. The registry record was last updated on January 28, 2021; it does not assign version 9 to the Chinese decimal-network project. See the IANA registry.
#1 Best Overall
- Keep track of everything from attendance to test scores
- Spiral bound
- Measures 8-1/2" x 11"
RFC 1347’s TUBA proposal predates the Chinese project. RFC 1606 came later, but its resemblance to the phrase “IPv9” is a joke, not a technical description of either TUBA or China’s proposal. RFC 1606’s Datatracker record identifies it as an independent submission and says it is not endorsed by the IETF or part of the IETF standards process. Read RFC 1606 and its status.
A reference to an IP version number is not, by itself, proof that a technology using the same label has been standardized. The IANA record and the Chinese project’s historical coverage concern different things.
Rank #2
- Used Book in Good Condition
How the Chinese proposal developed in public reporting
- 2002: Historical accounts describe publication of China’s Digital Domain Name Specification as an electronic-industry standard. A naming specification is not the same as adoption of a new global IP protocol. Contemporaneous coverage · CERNET’s 2019 retrospective
- 2004–2005: The decimal-network proposal drew press coverage, criticism and public debate. The retrospective reproduces portions of contemporaneous reporting and correspondence. These records document the debate, not independently verified technical performance.
- 2007: A news report relayed proponents’ claims that a base system had passed review and that a trial in Hunan was planned. A planned trial is not evidence that a sustained deployment followed. 2007 report
- 2008: An advocacy article promoted the decimal-network proposal. Advocacy is evidence of support for the project, not independent verification of its claimed capabilities or adoption. 2008 article
Did China’s IPv9 become an international standard or a working replacement?
The available standards evidence does not support saying that the Chinese proposal was approved by the IETF, that RFC 1606 describes it, or that the historic version-9 registry entry recognizes it. Historical reports show that plans, standards activity and trial claims were discussed, but they do not establish broad international adoption or a current operational deployment.
Recommended Free Tools
Claims about security, national control, compatibility, scale or cost savings should be treated as proponents’ arguments unless supported by independent technical evidence. A decimal address format alone does not demonstrate those outcomes. The reviewed historical accounts do not supply an independently verified adoption statistic or current deployment figure.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Maps for grades 5 and up
- Covers topics such as the discovery of America, Spanish conquistadors, the New England colonies, wars and conflicts, westward expansion, slavery, and transportation
- Maps are designed to be easily reproduced, projected, or scanned
- Classroom activities and brief explanations of historical events are included
- Includes answer keys
How to assess a claim about “IPv9”
- Check which meaning is intended. Is the source discussing TUBA in RFC 1347, the satire in RFC 1606, or China’s decimal-network proposal?
- Identify the kind of source. An IANA registry or RFC is not interchangeable with a news report, retrospective or advocacy article.
- Separate plans from completed deployments. A reported intention to run a trial does not prove that it occurred or continued.
- Look for independent evidence of technical results. Compatibility, security, scale and adoption claims need evidence beyond a project description or a proposed address format.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
