|
Derived From: GAO, Internet Protocol version 6, Federal Agencies Need to Plan for Transition and Manage Security Risks, p. 21-22 (May 2005)
Transition of the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6 has been compared to the Y2K effort, demanding significant investment of resources and time in order to achieve. [Cook] Heretofore, the transition has been slow and controversial. [ICANN 10-07] Much like Y2K, companies do not necessarily recognize IPv4 number exhaustion as an immediate problem, and therefore are putting off the investment required into the future - with the risk that in the future (just like Y2K), there may be insufficient time for remediation and remediation may be more expensive.
IPv4 and IPv6 are different numbering protocols. IPv6 is not backward compatible with IPv4. This means that during the transition, the network will utilize two fully distinct addressing schemes. [Bush slide 7] It is likely that IPv4 numbering were remain a legacy in the network for a good time into the future. [ICANN 10-07]
Partial list of equipment that will need to be transitioned include
- Routers
- Backbones
- Exchange Points
- Regional ISPs
- Local Networks
- Authentication and session set up
- Servers
- Server farms
- Local Networks
- Authentication and session set up
- DNS
- Home CPE
- DSL Modems
- Cable Modems - DOCSIS
- Fiber Modems
- Mobile hand units (mobile phones)
- Applications
- Telephony
- Firewalls & Security
- Databases
- Email
Various transition methods exist to ensure that a computer running IPv6 can communicate with a computer running IPv4. These transition methods or techniques include the following:
In a dual stack network, hosts and routers implement both IPv4 and IPv6. Figure 6 depicts how dual stack networks can support both IPv4 and IPv6 services and applications during the transition period. Currently, dual stack networks are the preferred mechanism for transitioning to IPv6. [The Sprint to IPv6, Internet News 12.19.07 (Sprint will utlize Dual Stack solution)]
Tunneling allows separate IPv6 networks to communicate via an IPv4 network. For example, for one type of tunneling method, IPv6 packets are encapsulated by a border router, sent across an IPv4 network, and decoded by a border router on the receiving IPv6 network. Figure 7 depicts the tunneling process of IPv6 data inside an IPv4 network. [Sprint Paper]
Translation allows networks using only IPv4 and networks using only IPv6 to communicate with each other by translating IPv6 packets to IPv4 packets. The use of a translator allows new systems to be deployed as IPv6 only, while older systems remain IPv4 only. While this method may result in bottlenecks while packets are being translated, it can provide a high level of interoperability.
These transition methods represent a few of the common approaches for ensuring interoperability between IPv6 and IPv4 communications. They can be used alone or in concert to enable communication among IPv4 and IPv6 networks. However, while such techniques mitigate interoperability challenges, in some instances, they may result in increased security risks if not analyzed and managed.
NATs: This project would be a lot further along if the Washington Nationals were a part of the solution; however, until the Washington Nats get their new stadium built, this solution refers to Network Address Translation devices. Basically this is a black box, typically at the border of a network, that translates one set of addresses into another (much like the translation example above). On the outside the NAT is typically public IP numbers; on the inside on the private network are used a private set of numbers not visible to the Internet. There is set-aside a specific block of IP numbers for internal private use that are never suppose to be seen in the public routing table. This is a nice conservation trick. The NAT can be assigned one IP number; behind the NAT on the private network can be hundreds or thousands of devices with private IP numbers that can be reached through the NAT. NATs, however, break the end-to-end design of the Internet and thereby do not work as well with certain applications such as P2P and VoIP. [ICANN 10-2007]
One of the benefits of IPv6 is that it increases the supply of IP numbers, removes the need for NATS, and thereby restores end-to-end connectivity. Applications can talk directly to each other without a NAT in the middle which can break that connectivity. Ironically, many network operators like NATs exactly for this reason, it breaks end-to-end connectivity. They would prefer to have one or a few addresses interacting with the Internet as a whole, as opposed to 1000s of addresses inside their network interacting with the Internet. NATs create single doors into networks at which a great deal of security can be implemented. SysOps have more control over what is going on and over their network. Even if IPv6 is implemented, a number of Sysops have indicated that they will continue to use NATs.
Overall US Transition
- Matt Hines, What the US is missing by ignoring IPv6 , InfoWorld (Mar. 12, 2008) (" In the U.S., the relatively high number of IPv4 addresses still available and the widespread use of NAT has made IPv6 a “why bother?” project for most companies, Gomi said, even though most computers, operating systems, and network hardware built in the last four years support IPv6. ")
Major Networks IPv6 Status
| Network |
Comment |
| Above.net |
Received IPv6 Allocation from ARIN (per RIPE). |
| Allstream |
|
| AOL |
Received IPv6 Allocation from ARIN (per RIPE). |
| AT&T |
|
| British Telecom |
Global Networked IT Services Key Features. |
| Cable & Wireless |
"Since October 2000 Cable & Wireless offers native IPv6 peering at the INXS" INXS Native IPv6 Peering |
| Cablevision |
|
| CenturyTel |
|
| Charter |
Charter Hints at DOCSIS 3.0 , Light Reading 's Cable Digital News (Feb. 27, 2008) ("“We plan to test next-generation Docsis 3.0 in the second half of this year,” said CEO Neil Smit during today's earnings call with reporters and analysts. He later noted that deployments likely won't follow until 2009.") |
| Cincinnati Bell |
|
| Clearwire |
|
| Cogent |
Received IPv6 Allocation from ARIN (per RIPE). |
| Comcast |
|
| Cox |
Mike Robuck, Migrating Your Network to DOCSIS 3.0, Communications Technology (Feb. 5, 2007) ("In contrast to Comcast, Cox's Ben Bekele, senior DOCSIS engineer, said IPv6 wasn't as big a priority for his company because of how Cox has its systems architected.") |
| Covad |
|
| Deutsche Telekom |
|
| Defense Research and Engineering Network DREN |
Dual Stack. IPv6 Network Pilot |
| Earthlink |
|
| Embarq |
Received IPv6 Allocation from ARIN (per RIPE). |
| France Telecom |
|
| First Communications |
|
| Global Crossing |
- GC Blog IPv6
- AT&T, Global Crossing team to aid IPv6 transition, FCW Aug. 30, 2006
- Global Crossing Deploys IPv6 in Global Network, Global Crossing press release (Oct 10, 2005)
- Asia Global Crossing announces beta test phase or IPv6 capability, BNET Jan 15, 2002
- W David Gardner, Lucent, Global Crossing Move Ahead on IPv6 , TechWeb (Oct. 11, 2005) ("Global Crossing reported that it has deployed IPv6 natively across its global IP network.")
|
| Hughes Direcway |
|
| Insight |
|
| Internet2 |
|
| KDDI |
|
| Level3 |
|
| Localnet |
|
| MediaCom |
|
| NTT |
|
| Mediacom |
|
| Moonv6 |
|
| Qwest |
Received IPv6 Allocation from ARIN (per RIPE); IPv6 : A carrier's perspective, Qwest 2003 ARIN XI ("Qwest today operates a native [OC3] IPv6 network
separate from IPv4 network") |
| TW Road Runner |
|
| SAVVIS |
- Received IPv6 Allocation from ARIN (per RIPE).
- Carolyn Duffy Marsan, Savvis chooses CISCO for Network Upgrade , Computer World (Dec. 12, 2006) ("The new network is capable of supporting IPv6 -- a long-anticipated upgrade to IPv4, the Internet's main communications protocol -- and Savvis plans to begin IPv6 testing next year. "We will be ready to release a product based on IPv6 in 2008," Doerr says.")
|
| Speakeasy |
- NYIIX Members List (Telehouse America ) (Speakeasy, RIPE NCC, F Root Mirror, KDDI, exchanging IPv6 traffic at NYIIX)
|
| Sprint |
|
| Teleglobe |
The peer 2 peer Internet: Crossing the IPv6 chasm to new territories of revenue opportunities , Teleglobe Dec 2004 US IPv6 Summit (Slide 36 "Teleglobe facilitates the world 's first intercontinental native IPv6
connection ; becomes a founding member of the IPv6 forum.
- Teleglobe presents its original IPv6 plans at the Telluride March
2000 IPv6 Forum
- 2003: Teleglobe starts an IPv6 pilot and is the first Canadian
carrier to announce commercial IPv6 introduction.") |
| Time Warner Telecom |
|
| United Online |
|
| Verizon / MCI / WCOM / UUNET |
- MCI Joins IPv6 Testbed, NW (Feb. 2, 2005).
- Moon6 Participant.
- 6Bone Participant. 6Bone. (UUNET)
- Received IPv6 Allocation from ARIN (per RIPE).
- Verizon Federal Networking Solutions Professional Services .
- Joab Jackson, Is the OMB IPv6 mandate faltering , GCN (Dec. 18, 2007)
- Verizon MAE IPv6 Support .
- Rhonda Ascierto, Verizon Business to roll out IPv6 by '09 , Computer Business Review (Sept 26, 2007) ("Verizon Business, which began its first phase of deploying IPv6 on the public IP network in 2004, will complete the North America region in 2008 and move into the Asia-Pacific and European regions from late 2008 to 2009.")
- Loring Wirbel, Verizon enters second phase of IPv6 transition , EETimes (Sept. 25, 2007) ("The genesis of the network was formed from MCI's Very-High-Performance Backbone Network Service, which became IPv6-capable in 1998 in its vBNS+ instantiation. Because this network was the second to be allocated IPv6 address space by the American Registry for Internet Numbers, the federal government began working closely first with MCI, then with Verizon Business, to use vBNS+ to meet the U.S. government mandate to turn to IPv6 by mid-2008.")
- Verizon Business plans 18 month transition to IPv6 , ITWire (Sept. 26, 2007)
|
| Windstream |
|
| XO |
ARIN IPv6 Allocation. |
Note: This is similar to the situation of Y2K disclosure statements. Survey of networks is based on "readily apparent information" found on websites. This means we went to the website and made a good faith effort to try to find the information. Information is not guaranteed to be complete or accurate.
|
