Alex Lightman, Publisher
This March issue of 6Sense, the International Newsletter
of the New Internet, includes white papers from Juniper
and Ericsson, thoughts on The
Next Generation IP Network from Spirent, and my
thoughts on ten ways to accelerate IPv6
adoption. I am especially pleased to have Dr.
Lawrence Roberts' top five lessons
learned from the ARPANET applicable to IPv6. There
is a saying that the wise learn from the mistakes
of others, while the foolish don't learn from their
own mistakes. What can we say of a nation that has
not learned from one of the greatest successes in
its history, the Internet?
For only $50 million or so in US federal funding we
had an economic boom that increased federal tax revenues
from $1 trillion in 1990 to $2 trillion in 2000, with
1/3rd to 1/2 of that growth attributable directly
or indirectly to the Internet. In other words, $50
million invested in the old Internet by the federal
government returns about $500 billion a year, every
year (and growing) to the federal government alone
- a million percent return, every year. Or, put another
way, the Dept. of Defense has paid for itself, forever,
and is in fact a profit center. I have called this
the Greatest Return On Investment in history. In contrast,
the US has invested $50 billion in Egypt (a thousand-fold
over what was invested in the Internet), with no measurable
return. A thousand similar major investments
for no return scenarios could be presented that
compare unfavorably with the Internet investment.
Now, in 2005, we have an opportunity to again invest
a small amount in the New Internet to reap large rewards
in the future. Since everyone knows how much power
can come from Internet advances, we can even go further.
That's because we can share the cost of investing
in the Internet with America's allies or Coalition
Partners. That's part of the logic motivating the
for IPv6, which will be held May 23-26, 2005.
We hope to get representatives from the top 20 companies
and top 20 to 40 military partners of the US to discuss
A way for the US Department of Defense and its
components to coordinate the IPv6 Capable
certification process with industry, so that network
interoperability can be assured in a timely manner,
without the confusion of programs that imply
they speak for the Dept. of Defense.
A way for the 150 or so agencies of the federal
government to coordinate with and learn from the
Dept. of Defense experience in IPv6, exploring
the possible benefits of speaking with one voice
on certification, interoperability, and even potentially
volume procurement, to reduce the overall costs
of moving to IPv6 compared to those of proceeding
in an uncoordinated and patchwork fashion.
A way for the 50 or so coalition partners of
the US to explore the possibility of synchronizing
their IPv6 migration schedules and sharing the
costs and benefits of certification, and even
potentially their research, development and deployment.
The cost to fully transition to IPv6 could end up
being hundreds of billions of dollars. Imagine if
there were a way to save a major part of this by coordinating
actions and purchases. That's part of the potential
of the Coalition Summit for IPv6. Though there are
around 100 million companies in the world (mostly
sole proprietorships), only a tiny fraction of these
companies have the depth and breadth of IPv6
expertise to contribute significantly to these discussions,
and representatives from many such companies will
be in attendance at this event.
For more information on the Coalition Summit for IPv6,
The Coalition Summit for IPv6 is organized by IPv6
Summit, publishers of this newsletter, and organizers
of the IPv6 Summits in San Diego (June 03), Arlington
(Dec. 03), Santa Monica (June 04), and Reston (Dec.
04). The Coalition Summit for IPv6 will be held May
23-26, 2005 at the Hyatt Regency, in Reston, Virginia
(the same venue as our US IPv6 Summit last December).
We hope that you will register today and join us in
late May for several great conversations, with over
50 great speakers and panelists, and dozens of coalition
partners. Please feel free to write me at email@example.com
or call at 310-717-7745 if you'd like further information.
CEO, IPv6 Summit, Inc.
The Top Five Lessons Learned from the ARPANET Applicable
Lawrence G. Roberts
CEO, Anagran Inc.
Between 1967-1969, I was at ARPA, where I designed,
obtained funding for, and managed the development
and installation of the ARPANET. Capitalizing on its
initial success, I expanded the network to 23 nodes
by 1973. Over the years, the initial network has doubled
in size annually, growing into the Internet as we
know it today. The ARPANET facilitated the largest
positive impact on the US economy of any government
R&D project ever attempted. However, as
the Internet continues to take over virtually all
communications, the US is falling behind other countries.
There are many improvements still necessary, such
as security and QoS. By re-examining history, perhaps
we can determine how to move forward to create these
improvements and strengthen the US economy.
IPv6 Return on Investment (ROI) Analysis Framework
Pau, Prof. Mobile Business
Rotterdam School of Management, Netherlands; and Ericsson
Core Networks, Sweden
This article puts the analysis of the overall generic
profitability of IPv6-based products or services into
the context of a) investment analysis, and then b)
an evaluative technology adoption in phases. Whereas
it cannot serve as an argumentation for a specific
product or service, or its migration, it encapsulates
the key factors in a structured way, and weighs them
against each other. It also assesses the relative
merits of IPv4 and IPv6 as a basis for comparison,
and points out the role played in the investment analysis
of the time bases for the IPv4 and IPv6 introductions.
Using simplifications, some key overall conclusions
can be made showing that over the technology deployment
cycle, IPv6 is bound to have both profit enhancing
and profit risk reduction properties. A non-exhaustive
list is given in the incremental deployment phase
for some additional or new revenue sources. Any specific
return on investment analysis for a specific product
or service would have to meet a number of assumptions
listed herein, and would depend on the availability
of full specific data.
This paper does NOT address specific technical issues,
largely reported elsewhere, e.g., by the IETF (Internet
Engineering Task Force) or the IPv6 Forum. It focuses
only on the generic profitability issues related to
IPv6 deployment, and employs a quantitative approach.
From the historical perspective, the reader is reminded
that IPv4 and its forerunners required, research,
product engineering, migration, and then deployment
just as IPv6 does now!
The implications on the business values and models
of IPv4 address exhaustion are not discussed, but
the reader is referred to Reference 3 (this explicitly
affects some of the operating costs analysed here).
Bandwidth usage costs, as well as service provisioning
are also not accounted for, but are assumed to be
similar for IPv4 and IPv6 in real costs. Specific
aspects of bandwidth marginal costs, which are higher
for mobile networks, are discussed in Ref. 3 and the
calculations therein. Likewise, routing address table
growth, NAT operating costs, technical means for migration,
security, and privacy implications are not addressed
specifically, but are referred to in Ref. 1.
ENTIRE WHITE PAPER [676k PDF]
Ten Ways to Advance IPv6 Adoption in the US and its
Coalition Partner Nations
CEO, IPv6 Summit, Inc.
I recently discussed participation in the Coalition
Summit for IPv6 with a number of companies. Some of
them were sponsors of past IPv6 Summits we've organized.
Others are just getting started with IPv6. Nearly
all have the same questions: When will the IPv6 market
happen in the US? When will we be able to attribute
product sales to IPv6?
Many of these companies have invested substantial
funds in research, development, testing, and certification,
for a period of up to six years, and are now getting
upper management pressure to show a return on investment.
Several have difficulty in being able to do so, and
some say that their companies may stop selling IPv6
products in the US or even temporarily halt IPv6 efforts.
The military contractor equivalent is to request a
waiver, enabling a company to postpone for a year
implementing IPv6 in what is provided to the Dept.
of Defense, despite the mandate to include IPv6-capable
products in anything that links to the Global Information
Grid from October 2003 onwards. The logic of a vicious
spiral is set in motion: I wont include
IPv6 in my products or advertise IPv6, say the
sellers, while buyers are not informed of the opportunities
or advantages of IPv6, so they dont ask for
it, leading to a state of affairs in the US in which
buyers do not ask for IPv6 and sellers do not offer
The outcome of a continued stalemate in IPv6 is the
lack of a healthy market for IPv6. Larry Roberts
indicates in his article in this
issue of 6Sense that government must mandate security.
I would add: there will be an economic disaster in
the US without a government mandate for IPv6 that
(as Dr. Roberts also advises) does not have both a
carrot and a stick.
The Next Generation IP Network
Product Manager, Spirent Communications
Networks are evolving. Scalability, performance,
reliability, security and cost considerations are
all driving fundamental changes in network equipment,
architecture and even the underlying protocols. Applications
are consistently increasing in their functionality
and sophistication, and these too are demanding additional
capabilities from traditionally passive networks.
IPv6 certainly is a key element of the on-going network
evolution. IPv6s increased address space, improved
security, simplified configuration processes and its
inherent support for mobile users are all factors
contributing to IPv6s inevitable dominance of
the Internet. However, it would be extremely shortsighted
to assume that this will be the only major change
in network architectures over the next few years.
Instead, IPv6 will be one of several major new components
of the next generation networks.
Other new networking enhancements are taking place
in parallel with the development of IPv6. These include
multicast routing, high availability routing, and
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). Each of these
new paradigms significantly enhances traditional networks
in its own way. Each of these must also be acutely
aware of the other concurrent changes that are taking
place to ensure that they are not disruptive to any
other evolutionary process. In particular, these new
technologies must support IPv6 in order to survive
in the next generation of the Internet. Altogether,
these technologies represent the future of IP networks.
Network administrators have ignored the challenges
associated with multicast routing for years. Applications
have recently emerged that are dependent upon multicast
communications. These applications include data casting
(stock tickers, news groups, sports scores, etc.),
webinars, videoconferences, games and simulations,
and distance learning. This means that network architects
must now include multicast routing in all future designs
The premier multicast routing protocol is known as
Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse Mode
(PIM-SM). This protocol was designed at its inception
to be agnostic regarding IP versions. This is the
only routing protocol that transparently supports
IPv6 without requiring any additional updates or appendices.
Furthermore, IPv6 was designed with multicast routing
in mind any IPv6 address that begins with ff
designates a multicast group.
IPv6 and Infranets
from a Juniper Networks White Paper
service providers and enterprises understand the importance
of transforming their approach to networking from
opportunistic to strategic and forward-looking. The
essential element in this shift is a single, secure,
evolutionary IP infrastructure over which all services
and applications can be delivered an approach
that Juniper Networks and other technology leaders
have defined as Infranets.
Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) plays a key role
in this transformation. Increasing address size from
32 bits to 128 bits creates a virtually infinite universe
of possible IPv6 addresses and ensures that Infranets
can be expanded both logically and geographically.
IPv4's current allocation, in contrast, makes it difficult
for service providers and large companies, particularly
international ones, to obtain efficient address blocks.
That has led to a reliance on network address translation
(NAT), which often adds complexity and hampers the
performance of advanced services such as voice over
IPv6 also makes it possible to assign a unique address
to virtually any devicemobile phones and PDAs
(personal digital assistants) being two recent examples.
Thus, IPv6 enables new and advanced applications to
be deployed leveraging the same flexible IP connectivity.
In addition, IPv6 provides a range of operational
benefits including: hierarchical addressing for simplifying
privacy; stateless auto-configuration for dynamic
host address assignment; simplified routing hierarchy
for better route summarization and less data fragmentation;
more flexible protocol extensions; and, inherent support
While the long term benefits of IPv6 are widely understood,
deployment demands that any IPv6 implementation meet
several immediate criteria.
COMPLETE WHITE PAPER [PDF]
Wireless Connectivity Provided By: