IPv6 technology and deployment

IPv6

Since the mid-1990's a number of technology experts and organizations have been working together to implement a new version Internet Protocol (IP), the IPv6. The reason for such determination is the advent of a technology that has gripped the entire world, inducing a myriad of internet users to communicate at will with other users, some of which are located half way around the globe. The number of internet addresses used to receive and send such communications are limited in scope due to the internal constraints of the present IP otherwise known as IPv4.

One website that touts the conversion states "there is a growing shortage of IPv4 addresses, which are needed by all new machines added to the Internet" (Welcome, 2008). That has been the primary purpose behind the adoption of the new protocol and the voices touting such actions are getting louder than when they initially spoke. Other websites and experts fret at the number of years it has taken for acceptance of the technology. One IPv6 website states that "by 2004, IPv6 was widely available from industry and supported by most new network equipment" (the IPv6 Protocol, 2008), that this was ten years after the initial implementation is not surprising considering the vast and complex undertaking it was considered to be. We know that the "IPv6 was first adopted in 1994 by the Internet Engineering Task Force, the foremost organization involved in the development of new Internet standard specifications" (Kass, 2006, pg. 11) and that the conversion process continues today.

However, it was not until nearly twelve years later that Kass wrote "adoption of next-gene ration Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) in the next-generation US. may get a lift from a recent deal signed by Juniper Networks to employ its routing platforms to power the China Next Generation Internet (CNGI) project, quite possibly the most elaborate undertaking of its kind anywhere in the world" (Kass, pg 11). Since most of the experts seem to think that adoption of the IPv6 is not only a good idea, but an idea that should be moved along in an expedient fashion, the question that begs to be answered is why has it taken nearly 14 years to do so?

There are a number of valid answers to that question. One of those answers is that the project to convert the public internet, as well as every other communication application is a huge undertaking, and that it would cost millions of dollars to do so. Another reason is because other measures have been taken to alleviate the need for additional addresses.

One expert writes that "a number of measures, such as NAT (network-address translation), seemingly have solved the address issues" (Wright, 2007, pg. 14) but in the same article Wright states that "many good reasons still exist for devices to have globally unique IP addresses" (Wright, pg. 14).

Wright believes that a whole new internet to replace the IPv4 version is 'highly unlikely' and that a 'move to IPv6 is a step in the right direction', even though those other measures have already been taken.

One cause of the delay in implementation is that many individuals do not see the benefits, or enough benefits to change out of the old and into the new. Frank Hayes, a regular contributor to Computerworld, writes about this problem. He says "You know the chicken and egg problem: IPv6 is a better protocol for the internet, but like lots of new technologies, its competing against an installed base" (Hayes, 2006, pg. 58). The old technology is now over 27 years old and there continues to be an even stronger demand for addresses, and it seems as if that demand will only continue to grow as more and more applications are developed that incorporate communication capabilities. Initially the public could access the internet only in certain areas, and with certain IP friendly instruments, such as personal computers.

The proliferation of accessibility as well as the huge number of viable commercial instruments now available to the public is as astounding as it is prolific. Individuals can now access the internet almost anywhere in the world via a wireless phone or PDA instruments that are so small they fit in the palm of the hand. Communicating with one another via text messages and by sending pictures has become a world-wide phenomena.

There are thousands of companies that have aided in this proliferation. Many of these companies have been founded with the primary purpose of furthering the 'internet revolution' in order to ensure their own profitability. There are a large number of companies that have a vested interest in the appceptance of the IPv6 application.

Companies are very much aware that "the recent proliferation of wireless networking technologies, and highly portable 'personal' computing devices has led to the development of a number of 'context aware' mobile systems" (Friday, Wu, Finney, Schmid, Cheverest, 2003, pg. 300).

Many of those same companies conduct research into how to best implement applications that will increase and ensure that they remain profitable. Friday (et al.) conducted a study on the applications they were promoting and in an effort to bring about "the evolution of the current system into a more collaborative experience that actively 'promotes a sense of community' among users of the system" (Friday, et al., pg. 300) and that the architecture they have developed to take advantage of the IPv6 capabilities will "allow ordinary citizens secure, accountable and convenient access to a set of tailored applications including location, multimedia and context-based services, and the public internet" (Friday, et al., pg. 301).

It is easy, therefore, to understand the stake that many of the players in this industry have in seeing this particular Internet Protocol implemented on a global basis. Such implementation could mean the difference between continued profitability and the possible loss of investment dollars. The advantage of the IPv6 versus the IPv4 is only recognizable when it is an end-to-end connection. Like Frank Hayes says, "until enough networks are converted -- especially the big one, the public Internet -- we can't reap IPv6's advantages to justify the cost. No chickens, no eggs. No eggs, no chickens" (Hayes, 2006, pg. 58).

Many of the experts have touted the improved security to be found with the IPv6 as an additional reason for switching over, but there are voices that disagree with that assessment. A recent Business Communication Review article states "the argument that IPSec improves the security of IPv6 networks is equivalent to the argument that IPSec improves the security of IPv4 networks" (DeNardis, 2006, pg. 51). DeNardis' reasoning is that the "IPSec encryption (the application that provides security features) can be - and often is - implemented in IPv4 networks as well as in IPv6 networks" (DeNardis, pg. 51).

DeNardis might be correct in that assertion but her statements do nothing to promote the conversion. She states in her article, "assertions that IPv6 also improves security have emanated from the U.S. Department of Defense, media outlets, network industry publications, IPv6 advocacy groups and international entities upgrading to IPv6" (DeNardis, pg. 52) but she does not see the problem from that viewpoint. The simple fact that such major entities are promoting the system's implementation means that if they fail to accomplish the very idea they are promoting, then other countries, companies and entities will realize the fruits of accomplishment long before they do. This type of scenario could lead to a number of disadvantages in trade, military communications and business transactions, as well as putting the average American citizen at a disadvantage as well. Since some people believe that communication is the key to all understanding, then the thought of being unable to enjoy that communication or the resultant understanding will not sit well with those people.