Subject: US DoD and IPv6

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:31:41 -0400 (EDT)

So, I came across a interesting recent (June 24, 2010) article on the US
DoD's news site (http://www.defense.gov/news/), which quote Kris Strance,
"the chief of internet protocol for the [Dod]", as saying:

  "{the DoD} philosophy is one that when a component has a mission need or a
  business case to move to IPv6, then they can do that ... It's driven by
  their need rather than an overall [Department of Defense] mandate."

(The complete article is at: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59780

This seems a significant change in course from that given in the "Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Interim Transition Guidance" of September 29, 2003,
which said that:

  "the DoD has established the goal of transitioning all DoD networking to
  the next generation of the Internet Protocol, IPv6, by fiscal year (FY)
  2008."

The date slippage is not a big deal, I'm ignoring that. What is of more
interest is that it appears (from the news story) that there has been a
further* change of course on IPv6 adoption, from 'we _are_ going to
transition' to 'in cases where there is a monetary or operational case to
convert, it will happen, but otherwise not'.

Can anyone shed any light on this apparent change in policy?

	Noel

-----

* The only other policy course change I am aware of is the one from August
16, 2005 ("Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Policy Update"), which said
that:

  "... waiver submissions for programs not transitioning to IPv6 by FY2008.
  Henceforth, IPv6 waivers are not required by DoD CIO policy."

(The original September 29, 2003 policy had said "If the IPv6 capable
criteria {for any DoD acquistion} cannot be met, a waiver will be required.")

I suppose that technically the seeming current course fits within that updated
policy, but it still seems to be a change in emphasis and direction.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:59:17 -0400

> convert, it will happen, but otherwise not'.

Does this surprise anyone with experience with the DOD ? It doesn't me.

Regards
Marshall 

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:20:36 +1300

> Does this surprise anyone with experience with the DOD ? It doesn't me.

It sound to me like a case for the phrase often used by my late colleague
Mervyn Hine at CERN, when the management performed a U-turn: "Aha! Reality has
broken in again."

The fact is that official mandates are not a very good reason for
upgrading systems. Running out of a resource is a much better one.
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:40:20 +1300

Phill,

On 2010-09-28 16:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The US DoD is running out of IPv4 space?

Where did I say that?

> I very much doubt it.

Maybe, maybe not... how would we know?

> 
> Problem with the idea that resource depletion will drive adoption of IPv6 is
> that it ignores the fact that people who have plenty of IPv4 addresses may
> not be that worried about the inability of others to get hold of them.

Sure, and those people can live in their own little world, until
something changes. Then, they either have a plan in place, or they panic.

> And some people are going to see ways of keeping out the competition. Their
> view of IPv4 will like the view of the medallion owners who keep New York
> Taxis expensive and hard to find even though there is no shortage of drivers
> willing to work.

Yes, just as incumbent telcos fought against the Internet twenty years
ago, until something changed.

> The reason IPv6 is still at the project stage is that the designers had the
> wrong view of economics. You don't make IPv6 attractive by making it
> different to IPv4, you make it attractive by eliminating all the
> differences.

If only life was that simple, Phill. In any case, we can't rewrite history,
and many operators are well beyond "project" and well into "plan".
Content providers who aren't into "plan" have a problem coming up if they
still want to grow their audience a few years from now.

   Brian

> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>>>> (The complete article is at:
>> http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59780

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:32:43 -0700 (PDT)

GOSIP

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1039

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:51:42 -0700

> http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/

The fact of the matter as a vendor, is that if you want to get through
network equipment requirements for, for example the army approved
products list (AAPL), ipv6 conformance testing is now no longer an
annnex, it's simply part of the process.

The 2005 mandate said that equipment and services you procure for
certain roles in the network must have the ipv6 compliant checkbox
ticked, we're well beyond that now.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:21:27 -0400

Hi Noel.

I don't think there is any real change in DoD policy. Anyone who has
followed the DoD IPv6 work more closely or who sells products to the
DoD has long seen that the IPv6 requirements are more nuanced and
depend on a lot of factors. And there have always been exceptions and
waivers, depending on local circumstances.

We are still in that situation today, though overall, the requirement
for IPv6 is still there and is stronger than ever.

Joel said it pretty well. Vendors have mostly moved beyond this. There
are DoD networks where IPv6 is running today, and there certainly are
networks where it is not. IPv6 deployment has never been as simple as
"you must do it".

Just as a general FYI, for those not following this space more
closely, industry's position wrt IPv6 has clearly shifted during the
last year. As one colleague recently put it, "reality has set in". A
year ago, many big operators and companies were still taking a
wait-and-see approach to IPv6. Over the last year, we are seeing some
major players come to the realization that "we have to do this" and
have actually started doing so. This is real deployment, not just
playing around. But of course, there is a long road ahead, with more
trials and testing before a lot of this can go live in a production
setting. But momentum clearly seems to be shifting.

See the following articles for some indications of where things are
and what is happening in the pipeline.

Akamai:
    http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/091610-akamai-ipv6.html

Verizon:
    http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/082410-verizon-ipv6.html
    http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/090310-verizon-ipv6.html?source=NWWNLE

AT&T:
    http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/082610-att-ipv6.html
    http://www.business.att.com/enterprise/exchange_resource/Topic/tech

T-Mobile USA:
    http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta

And of course, the IPv6 efforts of Comcast, Google, Netflix,
Limelight, etc. are all "old news" at this point.

Oh, and today, there is an NTIA-sponsered workshop on IPv6:

    http://www.affirm.org/NTIA_IPv6

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/advisory/IPv6/IPV6WorkshopAgenda_09282010.pdf

And presumably the entire USGv6 program is "old news" these days.
(http://w3.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/testing.html). Yet that program appears
to be humming along, with lots of vendors getting products tested (and
fixed!). (And like the DoD program, there are nuances to USGv6, there
are exceptions, it's not an absolute no-wiggle-room requirement, etc.)

And if you want to understand who is about to  get slammed by the pain
of address shortages, look at the mobile wireless space.

During 2010, the number of mobile subscriptions worldwide is expected
to reach 5B (yes 5 billion), and 1B of those will include internet
access (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-10454065-78.html). The
number of mobile subscriptions is expected to double to 10B by 2015
(according to Morgan Stanley)! All those mobile devices need
addresses!

Lots of stuff happening. Much of it behind the scenes. None of this
will play out quickly. But I think industry has really turned a corner
in the last year, and momentum is building. The landscape will look
very different a year from today.

Thomas

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:25:12 -0400

I very much doubt it.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:25:12 -0400

I very much doubt it.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:55:23 -0400

Oh and this just in today, a new OMB directive for all of USG
(http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/28/kundra-sets-new-ipv6-deadlines.aspx):

> “The federal government is committed to the operational deployment and
> use of Internet Protocol version 6,” states the transition memo, which
> was released through OMB. The memo directs agencies to:
> 
>     * Upgrade the servers and services the public uses, such as Web,
>       e-mail and Domain Name System servers, to use native IPv6 by the
>       end of fiscal 2012.  
>     
>     * Upgrade internal client applications that communicate with
>       public Internet servers and supporting enterprise networks to
>       use native IPv6 by the end of fiscal 2014. 
> 
>     * Designate an IPv6 transition manager by Oct. 30 as the person
>       responsible for leading the agency’s transition activities. 
> 
>     * Ensure that agency procurements of networked IT comply with
>       Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements for using the USGv6
>       profile and testing program for the completeness and quality of
>       IPv6 capabilities. 
> 
> The Federal IPv6 Task Force will meet with agencies to explain
> government policy and share best practices.

Thomas