IPv6 Transition and the “New Internet”

by Barton Reppert

The lead organizer of an upcoming U.S. industry “summit” conference on Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) warns that if the United States is merely a follower rather than a leader in implementation of IPv6 and the “New Internet,” the results could be devastating for America’s global competitiveness.

“The New Internet has the potential to create 10 million new American jobs and trillions of dollars in revenue for the United States, but leadership is slipping away to other countries, and it will soon be difficult, if not impossible, to recover,” says Alex Lightman, chair of United States IPv6 Summit, set to be held 6-9 December in Reston, Va. IEEE-USA President Gerard Alphonse is expected to be among speakers at the summit, which will bring together executives from dozens of U.S. and multinational companies involved with Internet development.

Lightman, who is also chair and CEO of Innofone.com Inc., based in Olney, Md., and Santa Monica, Calif., asserted that “if we don’t show leadership in the New Internet, we get a loss of millions of jobs and market share across thousands of companies.”

“A loss of public trust and reputations in transactions over U.S. networks using the existing, highly vulnerable IPv4 protocol, coupled with an increase in trust of IPv6 networks in Japan, Korea, China, and the 25 nations of Europe could have a devastating impact on America’s service economy. Internet service providers, telecommunications giants, banks, brokers, and even our defense contractors will lose business,” he said in a telephone interview.

Lightman’s comments echoed his testimony at a 29 June House Committee on Government Reform hearing, during which the panel’s chair, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) pointed to the crucial role the United States played in past decades in originating and developing the Internet.

“Within an hour’s drive of Fairfax County (Virginia), there are about one-quarter of all internet service providers on the entire planet,” Davis said in an opening statement. “About a quarter of all the Internet packets in the world are going through a hub in Northern Virginia.”

But Davis observed that “the current Internet, and the protocols and networks that underpin it, may have reached its limit. IPv6 offers benefits for expanded addressing, greater security, and new products, services and missions for Next Generation Internet applications. However, it also presents several challenges,  including understanding the international implications; preparing the federal government; and ensuring a secure transition.”

Two U.S. Government Accountability Office officials — David A. Powner, director, Information Technology Management Issues; and Keith Rhodes, chief technologist and director, Center for Technology and Engineering — presented the findings of a new GAO report on IPv6.

By using 128-bit addresses rather than 32-bit addresses, IPv6 dramatically increases the available Internet address space from approximately 4.3 billion addresses in the older IPv4 protocol to approximately 3.4 x 10³⁸ in IPv6.

The GAO report noted that interest in IPv6 is “gaining momentum” around the world, particularly in parts of the world — such as Asia and Europe — that have limited IPv4 address space to meet their industry and consumer communications needs.

“As a region, Asia controls only about nine percent of the allocated IPv4 addresses, and yet has more than half of the world’s population,” the report said. “As a result, the region is investing in IPv6 development, testing and implementation. For example, the Japanese government’s e-Japan Priority Policy Program mandated the incorporation of IPv6 and set a deadline of 2005 to upgrade existing systems in both the public and private sector. The government has helped support establishing the IPv6 Promotion Council to facilitate issues related to development and deployment, and to provide tax incentives to promote deployment.”

The GAO also observed that “the Chinese government’s interest in IPv6 resulted in an effort by the China Education and Research Network Information Center to establish an IPv6 network linking 25 universities in 20 cities across China. In addition, China has reportedly set aside approximately $170 million to develop an IPv6-capable infrastructure.”

According to the report, the European Commission initiated a task force in April 2001 to design an IPv6 Roadmap. The Roadmap serves as a way to coordinate European efforts for developing, testing and deploying IPv6.

“Europe currently has a task force that has the dual mandate of initiating country/regional IPv6 task forces across European states and seeking global cooperation around the world,” the GAO said. “Europe’s task force and the Japanese IPv6 Promotion Council forged an alliance to foster worldwide deployment.”

The GAO report, focused largely on the transition of U.S. federal computer systems and networks to IPv6, said that key planning considerations for federal agencies include developing inventories and assessing risks; creating business cases that identify organizational needs and goals; establishing policies and enforcement mechanisms; determining costs; and identifying timelines and methods for transition.

“In addition, managing the security aspects of an IPv6 transition is another consideration since IPv6 can introduce additional risks to agency information,” the report said. “For example, attackers of federal networks could abuse IPv6 features to allow unauthorized traffic or make agency computers directly accessible from the Internet.”

The GAO noted that “in April 2005, the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team (US-CERT), located at the Department of Homeland Security, issued an IPv6 cyber-security alert to federal agencies based on our testing and discussions with DHS officials. The alert warned federal agencies that unmanaged (or rogue) implementations of IPv6 present network management security risks. Specifically, the US-CERT notice informed agencies that some firewalls and network intrusion detection systems do not provide IPv6 detection or filtering capability, and malicious users might be able to tunnel IPv6 traffic through these security devices undetected.”

According to the GAO report (issued in May), the Defense Department “has made progress in developing a business case, policies, timelines and processes for transitioning to IPv6. Despite these efforts, challenges remain, including finalizing plans, enforcing policy, and monitoring for unauthorized IPv6 traffic.”

“Unlike DOD, the majority of other federal agencies reported not yet having initiated key planning efforts for IPv6,” GAO reported. “For example, 22 agencies lack business cases; 21 lack transition plans; 19 have not inventoried IPv6 software and equipment; and none had developed cost estimates.”

Also testifying at the 29 June House committee hearing was Jawad Khaki, Microsoft Corporation vice president for Windows networking and device technologies.

Khaki said IPv4 “has fostered amazing growth of the Internet. Yet with the rapid growth of broadband technologies, the advent of new Internet-connected devices, and increasing concerns about the functionality and flexibility of the IPv4-based Internet, more advanced networking technologies are desirable.”

“A gradual, market-based conversion to IPv6 is the most technologically feasible and least disruptive way of addressing these concerns and realizing the full promise of the Internet,” Khaki said. “A strong partnership between government and industry is also critically important, as is a proactive national policy to promote IPv6.”

The Microsoft executive testified that “in keeping with this government’s role in the development and incubation of the ARPANET, NSFNet, and IPv4, we support an active and engaged government policy geared towards promoting IPv6 as the next generation networking protocol.”

Noting that “several Asian governments and the EU are working with their commercial partners to stimulate faster adoption of IPv6,” Khaki told the committee that “we suggest that these efforts be evaluated for consideration, particularly tax incentives and government-matched funding.”

At its 7 October meeting, the IEEE-USA Committee on Communications and Information Policy (CCIP) is expected to consider the recent GAO report, as well as the question of whether to develop an official IEEE-USA position statement on IPv6.

CCIP Chair Bob Powers commented about IPv6: “It seems one of those cases where it’s a good idea, but there are things that need to be paid attention to in implementing it. If you build a 100-mile-per-hour automobile and forget to put brakes in it, maybe you’ve got a problem …"

Larry A. Blosser, CCIP vice chair and an attorney with DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary in Washington, D.C., noted that “there are lots of issues that are sort of swirling around IPv6 transition. Some of the issues that have been raised are obviously cost issues and security issues.”

Barton Reppert is a freelance science and technology writer specializing in S&T policy coverage. He previously worked for 18 years as a reporter and editor with The Associated Press in Washington, New York and Moscow. He can be contacted at barton.reppert@verizon.net.