GSA and IPv6 White Paper

February 12, 2004

Richard L. Williams, Chief

Applications Engineering & Technical Support

GSA Federal Technology Service

Office of Service Delivery (TOM)

10304 Eaton Place, Room 2-1002

Fairfax, VA 22030

Tel: 703 306-6290

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rapid expansion of the Internet has created a "success disaster" in
terms of IP addresses. The two most noticeable issues are *Internet
address exhaustion* and *routing table size expansion*. Studies
performed in the early 1990s showed that the current 32-bit Internet
Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) address space would be exhausted between 2005
and 2011 if drastic measures were not taken. As a stop-gap measure, the
Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) addressing policy was devised and
implemented; but CIDR has merely postponed the inevitable Internet
address exhaustion problem. Network Address Translation (NAT) routers
and other equipment have also slowed the address growth problem. A new
version of Internet protocol, IPv6, was proposed in the mid 90s, and a
draft standard issued in 1998. Unfortunately, the Internet has grown so
large, and is now so widespread geographically, that no single authority
has the ability to order a "flag day", which was the old method of
telling all users that as of a certain date, some change in the Internet
(then called the "Arpanet") protocol would take place, and everyone had
to conform or be left out. Since any major transition, such as that to
IPv6, would involve substantial time, effort, and new equipment, the
matter is by no means straightforward, especially since the Internet is
now a well-established commercial entity, and not a research vehicle.

This paper addresses the IPv6 question from the standpoint of the
Federal Government, and in particular, from that of GSA, as the prime
supplier of telecommunications services to the Federal community. GSA
has identified the following issues:

1.  *Requirements for and benefits of IPv6*. Few specific "must have"
    areas have been identified. In general, arguments focus on the need
    to make many more *classes* of devices (beyond PCs) addressable and
    controllable over the Internet, thus enabling new
    *functionality*---the primary benefit of a switch to IPv6. The new
    functionality is only vaguely discernable at the present time, but
    is expected to materialize over a period of time, most likely 5-10
    years. However, this gives the Government time to prepare by
    transitioning to IPv6-enabled or compatible hardware and software
    through the normal cycle of equipment replacement, something GSA can
    do in its new contract vehicles. At this point, no monetary value
    can realistically be placed on the benefits expected to accrue from
    IPv6. But this does not mean that the benefits will not be
    substantial, only that the applications cannot be predicted.

2.  *Costs associated with deployment of IPv6*. Clearly any transition
    to a new technology will involve costs. Because there is limited
    immediate demand for IPv6, this allows the Government to phase it in
    gradually in most cases and thus take advantage of the normal
    replacement cycle for equipment, as discussed above. The costs to
    implement IPv6 break down into two areas: (1) hardware, software,
    staff resources to deploy IPv6; and (2) agency costs for training,
    operational changes.

3.  *Transition to IPv6*. At the present time, transition to IPv6 is
    envisioned to be gradual. Because the IP address shortage is not
    expected to reach the critical stage for 5-10 years, a reasonable
    time frame for transition is 2005-2010. DoD has adopted a 2003-2008
    time frame. Costs will be minimized with such a time frame, though
    of course any new ways of doing business which depend on the
    capabilities of IPv6 will incur transition costs. Presumably,
    however, there will be benefits offsetting the costs. Problems may
    arise for new applications which require IPv6, in which case no
    transition is possible, and also with legacy applications which are
    coded around IPv4. For these, recoding or entirely new application
    software will be required.

4.  *Role for GSA in deployment of IPv6*. The role of GSA in deployment
    of IPv6 will be a function of Government policy as determined by the
    legislative and executive branches, of commercial trends, and of
    particular needs of agencies. Pending the issuance of such a policy,
    GSA can undertake certain actions. Among them are:

    -   Make IPv6 available to all agencies. By making IPv6
        compatibility a requirement for all future contract vehicles,
        GSA will be preparing the Government for the coming transition

    -   Pressure agencies to transition by phasing out support for and
        availability of IPv4. This may be premature at the present time,
        given the expected transition timeframe.

    -   Make transition assistance available. This would be a sensible
        way to assist agencies in their planning.

    -   Develop Government-wide transition plan and schedule.

> GSA's FTS2001 contract has been used recently by the National Guard in
> their procurement of their new national network, Guardnet, which
> supports IPv6 connectivity, so GSA is on the forefront of offering
> IPv6 capabilities.[^1]

Many companies are now shipping products based on IPv6. Included are
host implementations by Apple, BSDI, Bull, Digital, Epilogue, FreeBSD,
FTP Software, Hitachi, HP, IBM, INRIA, Interpeak, Linux, Mentat,
Microsoft, NetBSD, Nokia, Novell, NRL, NTHU, OpenBSD, Pacific Softworks,
Process Software, SICS, SCO, Siemens Nixdorf, Silicon Graphics, Sun,
UNH, and WIDE. Router implementations are available from 3Com, 6WIND,
Bay Networks, cisco Systems, Digital, Hitachi, IBM, Merit (routing
protocols), Nokia, NTHU, Sumitomo Electric, and Telebit
Communications.[^2]

The purpose of this paper is not to study these issues exhaustively but
to bring out the main points associated with each, so that further study
can be undertaken in the most important areas.

#  Overview

In the last decade, there has been a tremendous increase in the number
of users and information providers on the Internet. The requests for
computer Internet addresses and for easier methods of configuring large
computer networks have increased correspondingly. With this growth
unfortunately, addressing issues have also arisen. The two most
noticeable issues are Internet address exhaustion and routing table size
expansion. Studies performed in the early 1990s showed that the current
32-bit Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) address space would be
exhausted between 2005 and 2011 if drastic measures were not taken. In
east Asia, which was assigned fewer addresses to start, the problem has
already become acute.[^3] As a stop-gap measure, the Classless
Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) addressing policy was devised and
implemented; but CIDR has merely postponed the inevitable Internet
address exhaustion problem. On the other hand, routing tables are
growing at 1.5 to 2.0 times of memory technology. In July 1992, IETF
called for proposal for a next generation Internet (IPng). An IPng area
was formed in November 1993. Subsequently, the area developed a new
Internet protocol known as Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6).
Unfortunately, the Internet has grown so large, and is now so widespread
geographically, that no single authority has the ability to order a
"flag day", which was the old method of telling all users that as of a
certain date, some change in the Internet (then called the "Arpanet")
protocol would take place, and everyone had to conform or be left out.
Since any major transition, such as that to IPv6, would involve
substantial time, effort, and new equipment, the matter is by no means
straightforward, especially since the Internet is now a well-established
commercial entity, and not a research vehicle.

This paper addresses the IPv6 question from the standpoint of the
Federal Government, and in particular, from that of GSA, as the prime
supplier of telecommunications services to the Federal community. GSA
has identified the following issues:

1.  Requirements for and benefits of IPv6

    -   What are Government-unique requirements which can only be
        satisifed with IPv6?

    -   What are shared Government and private-sector requirements which
        can only be satisfied with IPv6?

    -   What will happen to Government operations if IPv6 is not
        adopted?

    -   What benefits are expected to accrue to agencies from use of
        IPv6?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Costs associated with deployment of IPv6

    -   What are costs in terms of hardware, software, staff resources
        to deploy IPv6?

> -Planning
>
> -Transition
>
> -Implementation
>
> -Operation

-   What are costs in terms of agency training, operational changes?

2.  Transition to IPv6

    -   What are obstacles and pitfalls?

    -   What is a reasonable time frame for transition (beginning, end)

    -   Who will bear the costs?

3.  Role for GSA in deployment of IPv6

    -   Make available to all agencies

    -   Pressure agencies to transition by phasing out support for and
        availability of IPv4

    -   Make transition assistance available

    -   Develop Government-wide transition plan and schedule

    -   Public policy aspects of IPv6 question

The purpose of this paper is not to study these issues exhaustively
(that would require a much longer paper and much greater effort,
including extensive discussions with agencies), but to bring out the
main points associated with each, so that further study can be
undertaken in the most important areas.

#  Requirements for and benefits of IPv6

IPv6 has following enhancements over IPv4.

-   Expanded address space

-   Improved option mechanism

-   Address autoconfiguration

-   Increased address flexibility

-   Support for resource allocation

-   Security capabilities

The most obvious change in going from IPv4 to IPv6 is the increase in
the address space from 32 bits in IPv4 to 128 bits in IPv6. This will
allow for the connection of far more devices to the Internet (or any
network using IP). Though this comes at the price of larger packet
headers (40 vs. 20 bytes) and associated processing requirements, that
should pose only minimal problems because of the steadily increasing
speed of computer hardware, with speeds doubling roughly every 18 months
to 2 years. A key advantage of the larger packet header is the ability
to implement Quality of Service (QoS) technologies. Address
autoconfiguration mechanism are designed to allow plug-and-play of
network devices -- simply plug in the host machine and it will
automatically configure IP address, network prefix, and automatically
find all available routers. This feature will reduce the management and
operation overhead. IPv6 security is an integrated implementation of
Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) policies and procedures. IPsec is
mandatory for IPv6 but optional for IPv4.

At the present time, few specific pressing needs for the increased
address space offered by IPv6 can be identified; only general trends are
emerging.

*Government-unique requirements*

These will need to be defined in conjunction with agency discussions,
but special DoD requirements may be anticipated, together with HHS.
Typically these applications would arise when battlefield management
requires communications with many devices, possibly carried by
individual soldiers. For example, deployment of Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks
(MANETs) in battlefield conditions may be extended to require IP
addresses for the various pieces of equipment carried by each soldier.
Another possibility is use of extended IP addresses in conjunction with
RFID devices. While not every RFID device will be capable of
communications, it may be desirable for boxes or containers, which can
report on contents.

*Shared Government and private-sector requirements*

In general, IPv6 is envisioned as a means to facilitate the move from
PC-only networks to networks in which the network enables entertainment
media, conferencing, and command and control of devices and appliances.
Of course, this can be extended to automobiles and portable devices of
all types, linked by means wireless connections, leading to improved
transportation systems, for example. It is the extension to new *types*
of devices that perhaps poses the greatest threat to the current address
space of IPv4. At the present time, the uses of such networks are not
well-defined, but evolutionary development can be expected to occur,
just as it did with the PC, for which, in 1978, people had only general
ideas about what it might be able to do. The Government can be expected
to move in parallel with the private sector with respect to such
generalized networks, as they will become common business tools. The
same remarks apply to the QoS expected to be available with most
implementations of IPv6.

*What will happen to Government operations if IPv6 is not adopted?*

Because applications of IPv6 are only vaguely defined, it is difficult
to pinpoint problems which will arise if IPv6 is not adopted. At this
point, about all that can be said is that the Government may fall behind
the private sector in its ability to carry out business in the most
efficient manner, and ultimately in its ability to communicate
effectively with citizens. The improved security features of IPv6 would
also be unavailable to Government, making it more vulnerable to security
problems.

*What benefits are expected to accrue to agencies through use of IPv6?*

The benefits expected include more efficient internal operations and
business processes, more efficient physical infrastructure (buildings,
transportation), and better interaction with mobile users. Development
and optimization of such systems will likely require substantial time,
however.

#  Costs associated with deployment of IPv6

As with any major technology change, costs may be broken down into two
areas

1.  Technology: Costs to deploy the technology

2.  Human factors: Costs to change the way people go about their
    business

*Technology costs*

Technology costs break down into four areas: (1) planning, (2)
transition, (3) implementation, and (4) operation.

\(1\) Planning. Agencies will have to plan how they will phase IPv6 into
their operations. It may be safely assumed that all equipment purchased
after a certain date will be capable of running under either IPv4 or
IPv6, with automatic sensing as to which protocol is in use. Changing
operations may be more complex if advantage is to be taken of IPv6
features. Plans for retrofitting old equipment, if necessary, must also
be drawn up.

\(2\) Transition. This will be most critical in those areas where
operations are going to change as a result of new IPv6 capabilities.
Where there is no operational change, use of hardware which can operate
under either protocol should eliminate most transition problems, with
older IPv4-only equipment eventually becoming obsolete for other reasons
and eliminated. It can safely be assumed that equipment manufacturers
such as Cisco will deploy the software needed to handle the overlap
period, and ensure smooth transition at that level.[^4] In general,
equipment providers and service providers are well prepared to handle a
possible IPv6 transition because it is their business to adopt new
standards as quickly as possible.

\(3\) Implementation. It will be necessary to replace all existing IPv4
hardware with new hardware that can handle both IPv4 and IPv6, or IPv6
only. As this includes nearly every PC in existence, millions of
switches and routers, and many mobile devices, that will not be
inexpensive. However, the cost issue is mitigated by the fact that
transition to IPv6 is expected to take many years, and most of today's
equipment will have been scrapped long before IPv6 takes over and IPv4
is permanently retired.

\(4\) Operations. New operational capabilities taking advantage of IPv6
capabilities may require more microprocessor-based devices, and thus
more trained staff to operate and maintain them. If operations change,
then training for all staff in new procedures will become necessary. If
applications programs need to be modified or new ones written, costs
could become high.

*Human factors costs*

These costs tend to be underestimated because people tend to
underestimate the difficulty and time associated with changes in
business practices (or home activities). In general, it can be assumed
that, in addition to transition costs, there will be a period of
adjustment to new technology during which productivity may actually
decrease. Some workers may never feel comfortable with it. IPv6 is
fortunately buried far down in the technology infrastructure, (unlike
the PC), so these problems will most likely be less than in other cases.
These costs have to be estimated on a case-by-case basis, and will be
greatest when there are large operational changes in an office.

#  TRANSITION TO IPv6

*Obstacles and pitfalls*

In the case of "disruptive" applications (those that can only work under
IPv6), and which portend great benefits, there of course can be no
"transition": the new hardware and software must be put in all at once.
Since everything is unlikely to work smoothly at first, a shakedown
period must be allowed.

Many application programs that utilize IPv4 addresses directly will have
to be recoded to handle IPv6. If the programs are old, this may no
longer be feasible, and these programs will have to be replaced by newer
ones. If the applications were custom-written, and the original writers
are no longer available, then new custom applications may have to be
commissioned. This may be a lengthy process, with the need to test and
debug any newly created software.

*What is a reasonable time frame for transition (beginning, end)?*

IPv6 hardware and software has been available since the late 90s, but
there has been little thus far in the way of transition. Except for east
Asia, where problems are more acute, it is likely that serious
transition efforts to IPv6 will not begin on a wide scale for another
year or so. However, DoD has already committed itself to IPv6, and
requires all acquisitions as of October, 2003 to be IPv6 compatible. DoD
expects to complete its transition in 2008, taking five years for the
process. In general, five years appears to be a reasonable transition
time frame, as few pieces of computer and networking equipment have a
useful life which is longer than this, and it allows ample time for all
the implementation issues discussed in the previous section to be
addressed. If agencies begin to transition in the 2005 time frame, the
transition process for the Government will be complete around the end of
the decade.

*Who will bear the costs?*

In general, agencies will have to bear the costs, as no federal subsidy
programs are in effect. However, as discussed in previous sections, if
transition is planned carefully, little in the way of new equipment will
have to be purchased for this purpose, as routine replacements and
upgrades will take care of the problem as they can be expected to have
IPv6 compatible hardware and software. New applications software, if
required, and costs to implement "disruptive" applications, will of
course be extraordinary expenses, but may save money in the long term.
Much of this, however, may be considered analogous to the costs to
agencies of implementing "service to the citizen" information
systems---it is part of modern-day expectations.

#  Role for GSA in deployment of Ipv6

*Make IPv6 available to all agencies through new contracts*

Since there does not appear to be any reason why the Government should
not move toward IPv6 over a 5 year transition time frame, GSA should
make IPv6 compatibility a requirement for new hardware and software
soon, perhaps as early as 2005, or with the Networx contracts. This
would be in accordance with the DoD procurement policy discussed above,
and would make transition to IPv6 fairly painless. One feasible approach
would be to require all hardware to be IPv4/IPv6 capable for 5 years,
and thereafter only IPv6 capability would be required.

*Pressure agencies to transition by phasing out support for and
availability of IPv4*

This approach would have to be part of a Government-wide policy decision
to implement IPv6 as rapidly as possible. As it would force a transition
in a short time period, it would likely drive up costs to agencies, who
would have to replace some equipment before the end of its useful life.

*Make transition assistance available*

To facilitate agency planning for transition, GSA could compile an IPv6
transition guidance manual or similar material. The material should
address the process and procedure of transition to IPv6, and the key
factors which agencies must consider in planning their IPv6 migration.
Assistance could also take the form of engineering support, training, or
hands-on help with development of new IPv6-enabled applications. GSA
could contract with a number of vendors, who would be available on a GSA
schedule or through a GWAC to any agency that required assistance in
these areas. Agencies could then get the type of assistance they
required from vendors who are familiar with GSA's approach to IPv6 and
any Government-wide policies.

*Develop Government-wide transition plan and timetable*

GSA could also take on the role of Government-wide planning for
transition to IPv6, including timetables. In this way, it could
formulate guidelines for all agencies with respect to their transition
strategies and IPv6 implementation goals. As part of this effort, GSA
could make transition assistance available, and of course would require
suitable IPv6 compatible hardware and software in all of its contracts
and schedules.

*Public policy aspects of IPv6 question*

Migration to IPv6 is more than a technology problem, however. It
involves policy issues concerning Government's role in moving the
country toward IPv6, as a national standard which presumably will
advance commerce and make the country more competitive. These decisions
need to be made at the executive level, and then GSA will do its best to
implement them.

*Current availability*

GSA's FTS2001 contract has been used recently by the National Guard in
their procurement of their new national network, Guardnet, which
features IPv6 compatibility, so GSA is already on the forefront of
offering IPv6 capabilities.[^5]

It should be noted that many companies are now shipping products based
on IPv6. Included are host implementations by Apple, BSDI, Bull,
Digital, Epilogue, FreeBSD, FTP Software, Hitachi, HP, IBM, INRIA,
Interpeak, Linux, Mentat, Microsoft, NetBSD, Nokia, Novell, NRL, NTHU,
OpenBSD, Pacific Softworks, Process Software, SICS, SCO, Siemens
Nixdorf, Silicon Graphics, Sun, UNH, and WIDE. Router implementations
are available from 3Com, 6WIND, Bay Networks, Cisco Systems, Digital,
Hitachi, IBM, Merit (routing protocols), Nokia, NTHU, Sumitomo Electric,
and Telebit Communications.[^6] Other companies are expected to follow
suit. Interoperability of products, however, may take a few years to be
as transparent as IPv4 interoperability is today.

[^1]: Guardnet does not yet use IPv6 in its operations.

[^2]: Source: Sun,
    http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html

[^3]: John Lui, "Asia running out of IP-address room", CNET Asia, 28 May
    2003, <http://www.zdnet.com/2100-1103_2-1010666.html?tag=fdfeed>.

[^4]: Three methods have currently been defined to handle networks
    during the transition period. The first is use of dual stacks in all
    equipment, an IPv4 stack and an IPv6 stack, with the correct one
    selected automatically. The second is use of tunneling, in which
    IPv6 networks are connected through IPv4 network clouds by means of
    a tunnel. The third is a translation mechanism built into IPv6
    devices which allow them to talk to IPv4 devices.

[^5]: Guardnet does not yet use IPv6 in its operations.

[^6]: Source: Sun,
    http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html