Mandated Adoption

In 2003, the interest in IPv6 integration was almost nonexistent in the U.S. market. Even though ICT companies such as Cisco Systems, Apple Computer, and Microsoft were already developing IPv6-capable products, their requirements came primarily from non-U.S. customers. Despite tireless efforts by organizations such as the North American IPv6 Task Force6 and the IPv6 Forum7 to increase IPv6 awareness among businesses, and despite visibly increased attention paid to IPv6 in the Asian markets, there was virtually no interest in it in the U.S. beyond a distant monitoring of the protocol development. The market at the time remained fixated on being provided with ROI and applications that would justify the investments in IPv6.

All that changed dramatically on June 9, 2003, when John Stenbit, assistant secretary of defense, signed the memo mandating the integration of IPv6 in the IP infrastructure of the Department of Defense (DoD) agencies. The memo states:

The DoD goal is to complete the transition to IPv6 for all inter and intra networking across DoD by FY 2008. To enable this transition, it is DoD policy for all Information Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS) which make up the GIG that: As of October, 2003, all GIG assets being developed, procured or acquired shall be IPv6 capable (in addition to maintaining interoperability with IPv4 systems/capabilities). This explicitly includes all acquisitions that reach Milestone C after October 1, 2003. The next version of the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) will reflect this requirement.8

DoD's push for IPv6 is clearly focused on the larger issue of defense strategies and technologies for the future. IPv6 is an explicitly required component

6. http://www.nav6tf.org/.

7. http://www.ipv6forum.com/.

8. Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/d20030609nii.pdf.

in the Net-Centric Operations and Warfare Reference Model (NCOW RM), the architecture for future Global Information Grid (GIG)-based operations going forward. IPv6 is the first of 12 transport design tenets in the National Information Infrastructure (NII) "Network-Centric Checklist" required to enable a network-centric military:9

The Transport Infrastructure is a foundation for Net-Centric transformation in DoD and the Intelligence Community (IC). To realize the vision of a Global Information Grid, ASD/NII has called for a dependable, reliable, and ubiquitous network that eliminates stovepipes and responds to the dynamics of the operational scenario— bringing Power to the Edge. To construct the Transport Infrastructure DoD will:

• Follow the Internet Model

• Create the GIG from smaller component building blocks

• Design with interoperability, evolvability, and simplicity in mind

Figure 4-1 highlights the major design tenets of DoD's Net-Centric Checklist.

NII Net-Centric Checklist

NII Net-Centric Checklist

Figure 4-1 Nil Net-Centric Checklist—Major Design Tenets

9. http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/docs/NetCentric_Checklist_v2-1-3_.pdf.

The announcement was not the first sign of interest in IPv6. The DoD Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Center for Engineering acquired an IPv6 prefix in September 2000, and the Defense Research and Engineering Network (DREN) acquired an IPv6 prefix in June 2001. The mandate, however, defined a clear IPv6 path for DoD. At the same time, this policy was a veritable IPv6 earthquake across U.S. markets. It reverberated in the service providers' space, where shortly after the news became public, one service provider (SP) announced IPv6 service offerings.10 It reverberated with the large government contractors who had to become IPv6 proficient and develop the ability to interface with their largest customers over IPv6. The procurement requirements identified by the mandate did not escape the ICT equipment and software companies. And the shock wave did not stop at U.S. borders. Within a relatively short time, the departments of defense of U.S. allies expressed support for similar, albeit smaller-scale initiatives. This mandate was a turning point for IPv6 adoption in the United States.

Many businesses soon took interest in IPv6, but it is important to note that they did it for one of two reasons: they were either afraid of losing one of their largest customers or they saw an opportunity to enter or even displace a competitor in this market space. There were not any great applications, but there was a key customer. And when the dust settled a little, it became apparent that the mandate was not backed financially. This tempered both the excitement and the concerns of the businesses that found themselves pushed toward IPv6. The spike in the 2003-2004 IPv6 prefix allocations in North America and its decline during the subsequent years probably reflect market reaction.

Figure 4-2 shows the IPv6 prefix allocation trend around DoD's mandate announcement.

10. Denise Pappalardo, "Verio Takes the Plunge on IPv6," Network World, July 7, 2003, http:// www.networkworld.com/news/2003/0707verioipv6.html.

IPv6 Prefix Allocations Across Regions

IPv6 Prefix Allocations Across Regions

S 100

n

o o o

n

m O

I

- * b

h

L

n

hL

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

■ RIPE NCC □ APNIC DARIN □ LACNIC □ AFRINIC

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

S 100

■ RIPE NCC □ APNIC DARIN □ LACNIC □ AFRINIC

Figure 4-2 Historical Data for IPv6 Prefix Allocation Across Regions

NOTE The data presented in Figure 4-2 is based on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) "Internet Number Resource Report, December, 2007, available at http://www.nro.net/documents/presentations/ nro-jointstats-Dec07.

Although the intent of Figure 4-2 is to use the IPv6 prefix allocation statistics to highlight U.S. market reactions to the DoD mandate, through other views, it also provides interesting data about the IPv6 interest worldwide. Figure 4-3 shows the cumulative IPv6 prefix allocation over time as of February 2008.

The analysis of the IPv6 prefix allocation by size provides another interesting

perspective. Figure 4-4 shows the allocation sizes in terms of /48 blocks (2 addresses) as of February 29, 2008.

Cumulative IPv6 Prefix Allocations

Cumulative IPv6 Prefix Allocations

Figure 4-3 Cumulative IPv6 Prefix Allocation Across Regions as of February 2008

-♦- Total

-■- RIPE NCC

APNIC

-*- ARIN

-*- LACNIC

-•- AFRINIC

Figure 4-3 Cumulative IPv6 Prefix Allocation Across Regions as of February 2008

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

Figure 4-4

Feb-2008 Size in/48s (Millions)

RIPE NCC 2,154

APNIC 1,586

AFRINIC 3

LACNIC 8

ARIN 25

AFRINIC

LACNIC

ARIN

APNIC

RIPE NCC

Cumulative IPv6 Equivalent /48 prefix Allocation by RIR (February 2008)

Detailed analysis of the 20 largest allocations (see Table 4-1) shows that APNIC (RIR for Asia Pacific) and RIPE NCC (RIR for Europe) have 20 out of the 20 allocations larger than /25. There are three strategic differences between the allocations of APNIC, RIPE NCC, and those of other RIRs:

• Large, country-specific and sub-RIR allocations, such as the European Regional Registry

• Larger carrier allocations to support fixed-mobile convergence and service to multiple countries (Deutsche Telekom AG, France Telecom, NTT, and others)

• Specific allocation of "portable" address blocks in Asia Pacific to support multihoming11

Despite developing a strong case for the need to move toward IPv6 and despite a logical strategy of IPv6 enablement through the regular refresh process by enforcing IPv6 requirements in the procurement process, DoD started to lose the audience it created through the announcement. Businesses were starting to retreat into a "wait and see" mode.

NOTE It is important to note that making the case for IPv6 was not a small feat for DoD. After all, among the world's organizations, DoD owns the largest IPv4 address space and would probably be one of the most conservative organizations when it comes to inserting a new protocol in its environment. Nevertheless, after shaking off some of the IPv6 myths discussed in Chapter 2, DoD developed a strong, consistent set of arguments in support of IPv6 as a requirement for addressing all its assets (sensors, soldiers, tanks, ships, and planes) in its Global Information Grid (GIG), for supporting its vision of an integrated battlefield.

11. APNIC, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy," Sec. 5.8., "Portable Assignments," http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ipv6-address-policy.html#5.8.

Table 4-1 Top 20 IPv6 Allocations by Size at the end of2007a

Prefix

Country

RIR

Netname

2003::/19

DE

RIPE NCC

DE-TELEKOM-20050113

2a01:c000::/19

FR

RIPE NCC

FR-TELECOM-20051230

2001:2000::/20

EU

RIPE NCC

EU-TELIANET-20040510

2001:8000::/20

AU

APNIC

TELSTRAINTERNET41-AU-20041202

2400::/20

KR

APNIC

KORNET-KRNIC-KR-20050601

2400:2000::/20

JP

APNIC

SBB-IPv6-20050712

2401:6000::/20

AU

APNIC

DEFENCE-DCC-MGMTCONFIG-20070810

2a01:2000::/20

IT

RIPE NCC

IT-INTERBUSINESS-20060516

2001:5000::/21

EU

RIPE NCC

EU-EN-20040910

2001:a000::/21

JP

APNIC

NTTWEST-IPv6-JPNIC-JP-20041201

2001:b000::/21

TW

APNIC

HINET-IPv6-TWNIC-TW-20060315

2a01:1000::/21

PL

RIPE NCC

PL-TPSA-20060201

2400:4000::/22

JP

APNIC

OCN-JPNIC-JP-20050815

2402::/22

KR

APNIC

KRENv6-20061020

2408::/22

JP

APNIC

APNIC-AP-ALLOCATED-PORTABLES8

2a00::/22

DE

RIPE NCC

DE-ARCOR-20050420

2a00:2000::/22

GB

RIPE NCC

UK-BTENT-20070829

2001:1c00::/23

NL

RIPE NCC

NL-BENELUX-20040510

2001:4600::/24

NO

RIPE NCC

NO-TELENOR-20041006

2a01:800::/24

DE

RIPE NCC

DE-ON-20060412

a. Source: Links to allocated IPv6 prefixes per RIR on RIPE NCC IPv6 statistics site - http:// www.ripe.net/rs/ipv6/stats/index.html.

a. Source: Links to allocated IPv6 prefixes per RIR on RIPE NCC IPv6 statistics site - http:// www.ripe.net/rs/ipv6/stats/index.html.

The important thing is that the U.S. government's strategy did not stop there, and in January 2004 the Department of Commerce (DoC) posted an RFC stating:

The President's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace directed the Secretary of Commerce to form a task force to examine the issues implicated by the deployment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) in the United States.12

12. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2004/ipv6rfcfinal.htm.

It requested comments on the benefits of IPv6 and the government's role in its adoption. The message of the recommendations received was "lead by example."

NOTE The feedback received by DoC was interesting because it led to a different strategy from the one already being executed quite successfully in Japan. You can review the comments received at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/ipv6/ commentsindex.html.

The conclusions of DoC's RFC materialized on August 2, 2005, when Karen Evans of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, an executive office of the president of the United States) issued a memorandum for the chief information officers with the subject: "Transition Planning for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)." It states, among other things, that OMB has ".. .set June 2008 as the date by which all agencies' infrastructure (network backbones) must be using IPv6 and agency networks must interface with this infrastructure" and that "[t]o avoid unnecessary costs in the future, you should, to the maximum extent practicable,

ensure that all new IT procurements are IPv6 compliant. 13

After much prep work and with the stroke of a pen, OMB memorandum M-05-22 created an opportunity for businesses to support the U.S. government's civilian agencies' implementation of IPv6. Incumbents and new businesses catering to these U.S. federal agencies found themselves again facing IPv6 requirements. ICT businesses had to meet mandate requirements, large telecom contracts up for renewal saw the addition of IPv6 service requirements, and integrators had to develop IPv6 expertise. Some relaxation occurred when it was found, once again, that the mandate was not backed financially and the terms of compliancy to the mandate were ambiguous. Hardware, software, and network SPs have not been able to ease up. The acquisition of IPv6-enabled products and services is being enforced through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). Although full implementation of

13. OMB Memorandum M-05-22, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-22.pdf.

IPv6 for U.S. federal agencies will not occur in 2008, IPv6 has become a requirement of network-enabled products and services purchased for U.S. government use.

NOTE Even in the case of civilian agencies, there was interest in IPv6 prior to the mandate. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in support of its scientists, collaborators, and research facilities around the world, ran several IPv6 projects such as 6TAP (http://www-6bone.es.net/). DOE received an IPv6 prefix allocation (2001:400:/ 32) in August 1999 and its Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) currently runs IPv6 in its core backbone.

In June 2006, Market Connections, Inc. completed a federal market analysis commissioned by Cisco Systems.14 The study revealed the way in which federal agencies viewed the mandates and their progress toward achieving the goals of the mandates. It is interesting to note that 39 percent of the respondents stated that they would have not implemented IPv6 prior to 2008 or later. Interestingly, a year later the Internet community converged in estimating IPv4 address space exhaustion in 2009, which, in hindsight, highlights the tremendous role played by the mandates in raising early awareness.

Figure 4-5 shows the progress made toward the 2008 mandate targets as measured through the poll conducted by Market Connections.

To their credit, both defense and civilian agencies continued to make progress despite some mandate ambiguities, some technical challenges inherent to a new protocol, and the lack of explicit funding to support its integration. The agencies developed both technical and planning expertise and, under the guidance of several forward-looking leaders, are developing services that leverage IPv6. With the 2008 target date getting closer, the "wait and see" approach is not an option anymore for the businesses that interact with the U.S. government. After all, the U.S. government is the largest enterprise in the world, with a 2007 estimated IT budget of $79 billion.

14. "IPv6 Survey: Taking the Federal Pulse on IPv6," http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/gov/ Cisco_IPv6_Report.ppt.

IPv6 Planning Complete

Within the 2007 Fiscal Year

Q70/

Within the 2007 Fiscal Year

Q70/

Within the Next Three Months 4%

IPv6 Implementation Complete

Already Complete 2%

Within the Next Three Months 4%

IPv6 Implementation Complete

Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year

Figure 4-5 Expected IPv6 Integration Timeline Based on the Market Connections Poll

The "adopt through mandate and lead the economy through example" strategy has its challenges, but in the end it led to significant achievements:

• Defined the IPv6 profile of networking equipment and devices: After gaining experience with the protocol operation and its conformance testing, both defensive (DISA) and civilian (NIST) agencies identified the device IPv6 profile that will meet their respective mandate requirements.

In the process, the various government test labs, in collaboration with vendors, significantly improved IPv6 test tools and their conformance suites, which will have a great benefit to the market. In early 2008, the Federal CIO Council (http://www.cio.gov/) provided the guidance for evaluating IPv6 readiness in the context of the mandates.15 This guidance was based on the experience accumulated over time with the protocol and it was an essential step toward measuring the success of the IPv6 mandates.

• Increased technology education: Both mandates kicked off huge educational efforts that quickly brought staffs up to speed on the technology. Education is a key element to any successful integration and is a way to generate new jobs.

• Raised the priority of IPv6 in the SP market: Government agencies placed clear IPv6 service requirements in their telecom contracts. They required multiprotocol (IPv4 plus IPv6) VPNs. This led to all major U.S. SPs planning and rolling out service for their existent or potential government customers. The exercise makes it easier for SPs to now offer the same services to the rest of their customer base.

• Raised the priority of IPv6 in the enterprise market: All major government contractors are working hard on developing and acquiring IPv6 expertise and deploying it at least in parts of their network.

• Helped identify technical concerns and drive solutions: Through the planning process, the government agencies identified implementation shortcomings and inconsistencies and worked with vendors to fix them or put them on an aggressive roadmap. These efforts will benefit many of the businesses that plan their own deployments.

• Became a worldwide leader: Many governments around the world are now closely monitoring the U.S. government's IPv6 strategy in order to understand the drivers, the possible options, and the applications to their own infrastructures.

15. William Jackson, "Guidance for Demonstrating IPv6 Capability," Government Computer News, February 28, 2008, http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/45891-1.html.

• Increased protocol implementation consistency across networking products: The U.S. government has been actively supporting the Moonv6 project (http://www.moonv6.org) that conducts extensive interoperability test work. These efforts also led to the accumulation of expertise on IPv6 deployments.

In a final analysis, the U.S. government mandates did more than just break the status quo; they actually forced the creative people in the government agencies and businesses alike to take a closer and more serious look at IPv6. In combination with enthusiastic early adopters, these idea incubators will lead to new services and new operational concepts and architectures. In fact, several other IPv6 adoption drivers have emerged in the U.S. market since 2003, as discussed later in this chapter.

0 0

Post a comment