|
1
|
|
|
2
|
- IPv6 was developed in the mid-1990s to replace
IPv4, the common standard used today
- Primary objectives were to
- Increase address space - 128 bits instead of
32 bits
- Improve efficiency - Simplified header structure
- Enhance capabilities - Flow label and priority
differentiation added
|
|
3
|
- Very few (500) IPv6 address blocks have been assigned
worldwide (around 75 in the U.S.)
- Internationally
- Japanese, Chinese, and European governments
have appropriated public funds to help incentivize
adoption of IPv6
- Manufacturers are installing IPv6 capabilities
into many consumer and networking products
|
|
4
|
- President’s National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace
- “[F]orm a task force to examine the issues related
to IPv6, including the appropriate role of government,
international interoperability, security in transition,
and costs and benefits. The task force will
solicit input from potentially impacted industry
segments.”
- Extensive information gathering
- Request for Comments
- Meetings with stakeholders
- Literature review/Industry interviews by RTI
|
|
5
|
- Commonly-cited Benefits
- Additional IP addresses
- Simplified mobility
- Reduced network administration costs
- Increased security options
- Improved network efficiency
- Improved quality of service (QoS)
- Are there others?
- Are some potential benefits more likely/feasible
than others?
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
- Examples include:
Network Address Translators (NATs) and firewalls
- Potential Benefits
- Provide some measure of anonymity
- Enable increased address space
- Provide additional security point/filter
- Potential Costs
- Break end-to-end applications and necessitate
extensive workarounds
- Add complexity to networks
|
|
9
|
- To date, IPv6 has not achieved significant market
penetration
- Whether, when and how IPv6 may be deployed hinges
on critical issues including
- Emergence of “killer” applications
- Security concerns (pro and con)
- International competitiveness
- Government’s role in deployment
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
- Likely Deployment Strategies
- Many IPv6 capabilities could be added as part
of routine upgrades
- Transition will likely be gradual – several
mechanisms will allow IPv4 and IPv6 to communicate
during transition
- Likely Implementation Costs
- Hardware, software, labor, and indirect costs
(i.e., productivity losses)
- Labor costs may dominate
|
|
12
|
- Experts agree that testing is needed to ensure
interoperability
- Interoperability among different manufacturers’
IPv6 hardware/software
- Interoperability between and among IPv6 and
IPv4 networks
- Examples of ongoing activities include the NAv6TF-led
Moonv6 test bed
|
|
13
|
- Will sustainable “first-mover” advantages exist?
- Implications for U.S. hardware and software vendors
- Implications for U.S. corporate and industrial
Users
- International interoperability concerns
- Cost of early (accelerated) deployment
|
|
14
|
- No significant market barriers identified
- Monopoly power not seen as an issue
- Social benefits exceed private returns
- Inability to capture the full return on investments
- Potential Implications are
- Underinvestment in standards, protocols and
conformance
- Chicken-or-egg dilemma
|
|
15
|
- Types of involvement:
- Government as a consumer
- Government support for R&D
- Technology to support infrastructure – standards
and protocol development
- Application development – test beds, interoperability
and conformance testing
- Information dissemination
- Others?
|