CNY 20 billion is about $3.2 billion USD

so approx $2^32 then. ....

So once exceed, it falls back to -1? XD

PLA Unit 61398 is tired of pivoting through all those pesky NAT firewalls.

Every time I hear someone calling a NAT a firewall, it rubs me the wrong way.

No matter what security benefits a NAT may or may not provide, a NAT is anything BUT a firewall. Stop calling NAT a firewall!

Stop giving me orders as if I work for you.

Rubbish. IPv4 NAT is not a security feature.

I wish the US would spend this much to promote IPv6.

On top of what wmf said, with whatever government investment has or has not already been made, the U.S. has the fourth highest* IPv6 adoption by percentage of requests as of Dec 2013 [1]. That is double what it was just six months prior [id].

Moreover, I doubt the US has as pressing a need to stave of address space exhaustion as do developing countries like China with rapidly expanding internet uptake.

*biased by Akamai's usage rates from country to country, of course

[1] http://www.networkcomputing.com/networking/ipv6-adoption-her...?

Why? Japan spent a lot of effort on IPv6 and what did it get them?

Why? To get widespread ipv6 support, I'd suppose.

IPv6 adoption on its own is pretty meaningless.. I suspect it had more to do with economics than tech.

This is total guesswork.. But here goes.. Japan likley invested heavily in IPv6 because their economy is very tech driven, the risks of running out of IPv4 or even being viewed as "behind" were likely the driving factors IMO

Cheap gigabit internet for all?

I'm not sure IPv6 had anything to do with the cheap or gigabit... Maybe the "for all"... But even that's a stretch :)

I guess they can spend the money on getting rid of Windows XP, as it barely works.

Dedicated to the high speed network connection inside the great wall.

wow, been downvoted a lot. seems no one understands what I'm talking about here.

IPv6 addresses are determined by the computer MAC address, some governments must be excited about this feature.

That's entirely misleading.

The MAC address is used if you autoconfigure IPv6, it's not required. Also you can enable privacy by requesting your host to generate a random host identifier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Privacy

I believe pretty much every single IP stack implementation uses privacy extensions by default now.

Actually I don't think that is true yet. FreeBSD does not by default for example.

It's not entirely misleading if you can imagine a certain government requiring registration of devices before allowing access to networks like the Internet.

I'm not sure I see how IPv6 would really make that any easier? Privicy extensions or not...

Forging a MAC address is trivial.. If that's all you use to enforce the registration, it will be trivial to bypass!

And - if government wants to do this.. There are easier ways.

That is completely false. Most IPv6 in use right now is statically assigned, not automated, and not all automated systems use MAC to make a unique IP.

I don't think thats true, I think most is automated. There are people like Comcast just allocating ipv6 automatically, that far outnumbers manual setup.

There's nothing that requires this. IPv6 addresses can be ephemeral and not tied to hardware identifiers.