ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IPv6 standard?

2009-09-17 12:16:52
 
a standard does not deployment make.  There are networks still 
running DECNETpV, Chaosnet, X.25, and even XNS.   If there ever
is a time when IPv4 -not- running somewhere, it is likely to be
after 2038 - there is no "pure" IPv4 today and it is doubtful there
will ever be a "pure" IPv6 Internet.

--bill


On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:29:52AM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
There are hundreds of millions of IPv4 computers and perhaps millions  
of individual IPv4 transport networks, large and small.

Here are some useful points along the way from pure IPv4 to pure IPv6.

A. Every new computer is able to talk IPv6

B. Every transport is able to talk IPv6, i.e. every network from tier  
1 ISPs down through wifi hot spots and every internal corporate network

C. Every major service, e.g. Google, CNN, Amazon, is reachable via IPv6

D. Every new computer is not able to talk IPv4

E. A substantial number of transports are unable to talk IPv4

F. A substantial number of major services are not directly accessible  
via IPv4 (but, of course, will be accessible via gateways)

I haven't included supporting details like DNS and gateways between  
IPv4 and IPv6.

We're basically at A.  Give some thought to the dates you'd assign to  
B through F.  Feel free to disagree that these are significant steps  
along the path, but if you do disagree, please propose other  
reasonable and measurable mark points.

I didn't include the bitter end of this process, i.e. the complete  
disappearances of IPv4.  If we get through steps A through F, the rest  
won't matter much.

I have trouble believing this will all happen in less than 20 years.   
I do not have trouble imagining it might take much longer.

I don't have any stake in the outcome.  It's fine with me if it  
happens faster.  However, the mechanisms for interoperability between  
IPv4 and IPv6 are still being worked out and the products to do the  
work, i.e. application gateways, are not yet plentiful.  Moreover,  
even when the first products appear, there's a long maturation cycle.   
As one example, two years ago the ICANN Security and Stability  
Advisory Committee (SSAC) looked at the products in the security area  
-- firewalls, etc. -- to see whether the feature sets for IPv6 were  
the same as for IPv4.  The good news was the products did actually  
support IPv6.  The bad news was the feature sets were noticeably poorer.

Our report, SAC 021, http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ 
sac021.pdf , concluded with:

IP version 6 (IPv6) transport is not broadly supported by commercial  
firewalls. On average,
less than one in three products support IPv6 transport and security  
features. Support among
the firewall market share leaders improves this figure somewhat.

Support for IPv6 transport and security services is available from  
commercial firewalls for
all market segments, however, availability of advanced security  
features is lagging in
SOHO and SMB segments and strongest in the LE/SP segment.

Overall, relatively little support for IPv6 transport and security  
features exists. However,
some form of traffic inspection, event logging, and IP Security  
(IPsecv6) are commonly
available among products that support IPv6 transport and security  
services.

Internet firewalls are the most widely employed infrastructure  
security technology today.
With nearly two decades of deployment and evolution, firewalls are  
also the most mature
security technology used in the Internet. They are, however, one of  
many security
technologies commonly used by Internet-enabled and security-aware  
organizations to
mitigate Internet attacks and threats. This survey cannot  
definitively answer the question,
"Can an organization that uses IPv6 transport enforce a security  
policy at a firewall that is
commensurate to a policy currently supported when IPv4 transport is  
used?" The survey
results do suggest that an organization that adopts IPv6 today may  
not be able duplicate
IPv4 security feature and policy support.

The observations and conclusions in this report are based on  
collected survey results.
Future studies should consider additional and deeper analyses of  
security technology
availability for IPv6. Such analyses are best performed by  
certification laboratories and
security assessment teams. Before attempting further testing and  
analysis, the community
must alter the perception among technology vendors in general (and  
security vendors
specifically) that the market is too small to justify IPv6 product  
development.


The situation is probably better now, but I would guess there's still  
some distance to go.

Imagine the decision process for the CIO or network architect of a  
medium or large company.  A security policy exists and it's  
implemented with a collection of commercial products -- firewalls,  
routers, intrusion detection systems, etc. -- all configured and  
managed to support the company's security policy.  Further imagine the  
both the transport and the individual devices are all capable of  
supporting and using IPv6.  How quickly will the CIO or network  
architect decide that it's time to switch everyone over to IPv6?   
Among other things, he will likely want to make sure he can continue  
to implement the company's security policy.  As of two years ago, he  
couldn't buy products that would function at the same level.

IPv6 is definitely necessary and we should all do everything we can to  
move in that direction.  I'm just noting that even when IPv6 is widely  
available and in broad use, there will be a long tail before IPv4  
fades from the scene.

Steve






On Sep 17, 2009, at 2:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

"Steve Crocker" <steve(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com> wrote:

We're some distance away from deprecating IPv4.  Maybe 20 years,  
maybe  50 years.  For a very long time, IPv6 and IPv4 will co-exist.

I know you wrote those figures to be provocative, Steve. :-)
I mean, 50 years? That's like saying "computers will still run on  
valves in 50 years' time" in 1950.

Of course this is a matter of appreciation, and frankly, does it  
really matter how long IPv4 will be around?

Let's worry at the future, not the past.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>