More Internet addresses required

Stockxpert

From IPv4 to IPv6

The Internet protocol (IP) is a set of rules by which computers worldwide are linked together. Data flowing around the Internet knows where to go because every connected device has a unique label: its IP address. The problem is that, with the massive expansion of the network, IP addresses are beginning to run out.

Currently, the vast majority of links use version 4 of the Internet protocol, or IPv4, which was defined by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in 1981 for a much smaller network. The protocol provides 32-bit addresses each consisting of four groups of numbers. This yields a maximum of some 4.3 billion unique addresses — which is not enough to satisfy booming demand from not only personal computers and Internet-connected mobile phones, but also from the microchips and sensors of ubiquitous networks (see article Ubiquitous sensor networks).

Various ways to try and overcome the shortage have been devised, such as network address translation (NAT). This allows many computers on a private network to use just one public IP address to connect to the Internet. However, the best long-term answer is expected to be deployment of a new version of the Internet protocol, IPv6. Using 128-bit addresses, IPv6 generates a total number that is so huge it would yield trillions of addresses for every person on Earth, and for the Internet of things.

Although it was defined some ten years ago, the new version of the Internet protocol is still in the early stages of deployment. Only in February 2008 were the first computers using IPv6 linked through Internet master servers without needing IPv4 technology. However, an IPv6-only website cannot reach the IPv4 Internet, and “dual stack” equipment that can cope with both protocols will be needed for several years while the IPv4 Internet persists. The challenge is to manage the transition so that the Internet does not fragment, while maintaining services and expansion. As IPv4 addresses become scarce, a market could develop in which any spare addresses are sold. This favours those who were able to join the Internet early, and could have an impact on developing countries that are just starting to go online.

There have been many discussions of the technical, administrative and coordination issues that the migration to IPv6 entails, but much more work remains to be done. The challenges were discussed in June 2008 at a ministerial meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Seoul, Republic of Korea, on the topic of Internet address space (see box). It noted that “immediate costs are associated with deployment of IPv6, whereas many benefits are long-term and depend on a critical mass of actors adopting it.” Migration to IPv6 “requires planning and co-ordination over several years”. This means that increased awareness of the issues is needed among all players, including governments.

ITU’s involvement

As a primary forum for these players, ITU has been addressing IPv6 for several years, including at the last two Plenipotentiary Conferences (in Marrakesh in 2002 and Antalya in 2006), World Telecommunication Standardization Assemblies, and World Telecommunication Development Conferences. All of these meetings have passed relevant resolutions, including on aspects of IPv6. And the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) emphasized the role of international organizations in ensuring that Internet-related developments, such as IPv6, are used to help everyone in the world gain access to information and communication technologies (ICT).

Study Group 13 of ITU’s Standardization Sector (ITU–T) is looking at the impact of IPv6 on next-generation networks (NGN). Recently, it approved three standards on this topic, and there is another in the pipeline.

ITU coordinates with other standards development organizations on the promotion of IPv6. Additionally, ITU has worked with the European Union Task Force, which is responsible for planning the deployment of IPv6 in all business sectors within the EU. ITU’s strategy is based on the progress made by these and other organizations, to which the Union brings the added value of a forum for a consensus-based approach to policy-making on IPv6 and its deployment and management.

Workshop fosters dialogue on implementation

ITU organized a workshop in Geneva on 4–5 September 2008, in order to foster dialogue and international cooperation on the implementation of IPv6. “We have noted voices and opinions from the developing world and from the developed world, from academia and research institutes, as well as from industry members,” said Malcolm Johnson, Director of ITU’s Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB), in a speech to welcome workshop participants. “Often these voices focus on the issue of the management of Internet resources, including IPv6 addresses, and that it may be appropriate to consider systems that avoid some of the problems that have arisen with IPv4 allocations.”

The workshop considered the OECD report, among other contributions, and Mr Johnson invited the “IPv6 global community” to engage with ITU on this important topic. “It will be essential in the coming months to address some of the roadblocks that have so far stalled IPv6 implementation,” he said, adding that “ITU has proven and relevant competence as the architect and custodian of the world’s international telephone numbering system, a system which is characterized by stability”. ITU could play an active role in areas such as technical and standardization issues, which will enable the most efficient and effective usage of IPv6. It would also take part in capacity building and technical assistance to help countries in the deployment process and parallel running of IPv4 and IPv6.

Eliot Lear, a senior consulting engineer at Cisco, noted that “the Internet has changed the way people live, work, play, and learn. The methods and address allocation models that have been used to get us thus far have worked remarkably well. But we are not without our challenges.” A vicious circle constraining demand for IPv6 was described by Leo Vegoda, Manager of Number Resources at the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which oversees IP address allocation and is operated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. “IPv6 does not offer any significant new features, so end-users don’t see a reason to deploy it,” Mr Vegoda said. This means that “Internet service providers (ISP) can’t make money deploying it, so no-one asks for it — so no-one deploys it!”

Akhil Verma, Head of Product Management at Tiscali International Network (TInet), confirmed the slow progress of IPv6. “Today, TInet carries terabits of traffic, but less than 0.1 per cent of this traffic is IPv6,” he said. A major problem is the lack of end-user equipment that supports the new protocol. “Don't buy new gear that can't do IPv6,” urged Mr Verma, because “by 2020, IPv4 will be gone”.

The question of whether the system is working well was raised in a contribution to the workshop on “Economic, tariff and accounting issues related to IP address allocation,” presented by Nabil Kisrawi, permanent representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to ITU. It had already been discussed by ITU–T Study Group 3, and covered such key issues as the economic or tariff incentives that might be put in place to make sure that IPv4 addresses allocated by the Regional Internet Registries (RIR) are used efficiently, as well as the economic effects if holders of IPv4 addresses are able to sell them to others. In addition, the contribution examined the costs of migration to IPv6, in particular for developing countries, and the effects upon them of the growing scarcity of IPv4 addresses.

Didier Le-Moine, convener of the correspondence group on IPv6 of ITU–T Study Group 2, reported on its findings. He said that some participants believe that the distribution of IPv4 addresses correctly reflects current use of the Internet and the proper functioning of market forces, while others believe that it is affected by the economic benefits that early adopters derive from addresses allocated to them. Some in the correspondence group think that there is nothing wrong with the slow rate of migration to IPv6, which is being driven by market forces at an economically optimum rate. Others disagree, stating that the migration involves tariff questions and that players responsible for the migration (such as network operators and ISP) see only costs (capital expenses, training, reconfiguration, user support, and so on) and no benefits.

The workshop heard from experts such as Martin Potts of the IPv6 Forum, Tayeb Ben Meriem, of the European IPv6 Task Force, and Mustapha Guirari, of Case Technology, who talked about IPv6 deployment in the Gulf Region. Participants also learned about the practical challenges faced by a “latecomer” to the Internet: Bulgaria. Krassimir Simonski, Deputy Chair of the Bulgarian State Agency for ITC, said that NAT can provide a short-term solution to the lack of IPv4 addresses in countries such as his, because “an almost unlimited number of computers can be connected behind a firewall.” However, NAT produces problems such as difficulty in tracking Internet users and in sharing resources. For Bulgaria, a move to IPv6 would “unleash the information behind NAT,” said Mr Simonski. It would allow access to the “Internet of things” and optimize traffic for multimedia applications. However, exclusive areas of IPv6 should be avoided, he said, because “the Internet should be an equalizer, not a divider.”

Asia is home to several pioneering deployments of IPv6. Japan has long been a leader in research on the technology, and the major service providers in the NTT Group have invested heavily in its deployment. China is home to the world’s biggest IPv6 infrastructure project, covering more than 40 cities nationwide, said Liu Dong, President of Beijing Internet Institute (BII) Group Holdings. This is part of the China Next Generation Internet (CNGI) programme, which includes more than 100 government-funded projects to develop IPv6 applications. Mr Liu described how all network operations during the 2008 Beijing summer Olympics had used IPv6, as had an official Olympic website. It had been one of the first major showcases for the new protocol.

Stockxpert

Conclusions

The workshop recognized the role of governments in efforts to foster the deployment and usage of IPv6. It was also noted that the transition to IPv6 might be market driven, and that those ISP keen to ensure business continuity will benefit from the migration.

Participants agreed that there is a need to share knowledge, because migration scenarios are not yet completely clear. In this regard, it could be helpful to publicize comparisons between the architecture of IPv4 and IPv6, in order to demonstrate to decision makers the value of a more agile network. It was felt that there is still uncertainty about the possible consequences of non-deployment of IPv6. Some alternatives were identified, specifically with respect to transfer markets, and consideration was given to the role of the RIR.

The meeting recommended that a project should be created within ITU to assist developing countries, based on regional needs as identified by the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT). This project should include a training component and should be carried out jointly by TSB and BDT, taking into consideration the involvement of partners who are willing to join and contribute their expertise.

“The stability of the Internet is paramount. I am sure that the problems experienced so far are surmountable, and I know that ITU has the knowledge, strength and will to assist,” said Mr Johnson.