IPv4 IPv6
Un article de Wiki.
IPv4 - IPv6
Sommaire |
DRAFT - ALAC Statement on the coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6 Network and Services
We are aware that sometime within a few years time the current pool of IPv4 addresses will expire, which may have a significant impact on the use of Internet by broad public. We are also aware that there are efforts going on by technical community to prepare for the depletion of the IPv4 addresses and promote the smooth transition into IPv6 based network. We respect the work done by the RIRs and their community and we are willing to actively collaborate more. We have made the statement at ICANN Los Angels meeting at the ASO workshop and our position remains the same.
There are more findings we got since LA meeting, however.
We have learned that IPv4 based network will not likely to go away within 10 or 20 years and thus there will be a need to make sure the coexistence of two different IP networks and services on top of them be guaranteed to the maximum extent possible.
To achieve this, more challenges seem to be ahead than originally anticipated. Recent information from technical experts suggest that three possible solutions – 1) saving IPv4 addresses by NAT/NAPT, 2) promote recollection of unused IPv4 addresses and 3) acceleration to IPv6 based network – may each have significant technical, operational and economic and policy challenges.
Report by the Study Group for the smooth transition to IPv6 by the Japanese government
Here are some specific challenges identified:
- For the coexistence of IPv4 and v6 based networks, all users equipment should have “dual stack” capability, which are not built in with most broadband routers at home and office today.
- Ingenuity to provide communications between IPv4 and IPv6 will be required: For users without such dual stack capability, “translation” function between IPv4 and v6 protocols and applications above that should be placed inside the network, but to date no such service is practically incorporated. It will require technical development and business decisions to purchase and place them. The Japanese Working Group report suggests that realistically only a limited number of most important application protocols can be prepared in time.
- Network configurations must be changed to such a degree that a new network could be built (which poses both burdens and opportunities)
- Technicians and operational know-how are not sufficient at the moment
- Initial costs will be huge
- The operational costs will be the same as those now, but double investments for both IPv6 and IPv4 operations will be required for some time
Resulting position
We think that much has to be done by all operators and service providers of global Internet as well as by policy makers concerned to cope with these serious challenges.
We are very aware that the operation of Internet and provisions of many services on top of IP connectivity are not under the direct purview of ICANN per se, however in order to minimize the potential confusion and instability for the global end users, we call for the concerted efforts by all parties including ICANN community, rather than separating the efforts and responsibilities by separate and narrow domains without horizontal coordination.
We expect ICANN community, including address allocation community (RIRs) and Domain Name operation community (IANA/, and gTLDs and ccTLDs) to work together with address standardization community (IETF), operation community (NANOG, SANOG, ISPs and ASPs), Vendors and public policy people (Governments) with the meaningful participation, inputs and outreach with the users community (AtLarge, Business and NCUC) and public policy entities (GAC).
We think the lack of such effort will create more confusion but not solution to the users.
To this end, ALAC plan to organize a series of workshops at the coming ICANN meetings and any other feasible venues and hope all stakeholders concerned to join this campaign.
ajout ultérieur
I felt that the ending part is bit short, and came up with the following para to be added a the very end. Please feel free to include, modify (or not).
We believe that these Organizational Development activities have enhanced the efficiency and effectiveness of the new body of ALAC/RALO/ALS and offer a sound base for further development in view of the ALAC Review now launched. We think ALAC Review and its result will contribute further enhancement of AtLarge in more sustainable and effective direction that will bring better ICANN as a whole.
Misc Comments
Guru
Thanks Izumi for the statement. I found the following para powerful:
"We think that much has to be done by all operators and service providers of global Internet as well as by policy makers concerned to cope with these serious challenges. We are very aware that the operation of Internet and provisions of many services on top of IP connectivity are not under the direct purview of ICANN per se, however in order to minimize the potential confusion and instability for the global end users, we call for the concerted efforts by all parties including ICANN community, rather than separating the efforts and responsibilities by separate and narrow domains without horizontal coordination. "
I had one query on the technical aspect - would it not be preferable, ideally to transit to a single IPv6 Internet instead of a hybrid IPv4 + IPv6 one? Is the inability to transit from IPv4 to IPv6 a result of inability to persuade entrenched institutions to pay for a complete transition to IPv6, and hence the costs of the hybrid transition will need to be borne by those who are mostly not connected today and belong to the have-nots in the digital divide, which ceteris paribus may not be a good choice (the hybrid model may impose relatively higher costs on technological developments that could have otherwise assumed a single (IPv6) network)?
On a more fundamental 'policy' or 'political' level, I wonder if the lack of concerted effort at the global levels to make the required movement on the solutions suggested in the statement are a significant sign of the vacuum of global governance processes? And there seem to be atleast two fundamental issues:
A. ICANN and other IG bodies do not have the will (nature of its constituencies) and or the authority to push for the technical and policy changes that are critical for the transition to IPv6 or a hybrid IPv4 + IPv6 regime. B. the lack of real legitimacy within ICANN and related bodies as the GNSO affects their ability to win support of the constituency of the information society.
How can ALAC highlight both issues within and outside ICANN? To further the reform of the processes of determining ICANN constituents, democratising their participation including much larger involvement of the constituency members, relative authority of different constituencies, "ICANN + arrangements" (for e.g. through Internet Governance Forum) that have larger support of the 'Internet community' (which if defined as 'those impacted by the Internet' is entire humanity) and can bring about required policy changes for such transitions etc.
Comments on these aspects may also be useful while discussing the ALAC statement on IPv4v6, since they relate to the underlying issues of which this transition may be a symptom of.
Regards, Guru
English rewording Evan Leibovtch
I have made some suggested edits in the document. Most are grammatical and I hope they do not change the intent of the document.
DRAFT - ALAC Statement on the coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6 Network and Services
We are aware that within the next few years, the current pool of IPv4 addresses will expire, which may have a significant impact on the use of Internet by the general public. We are also aware that the technical community is making efforts to prepare for the depletion of the IPv4 addresses and promote the smooth transition towards IPv6 based network. We respect the work done by the RIRs and their community and we are willing to actively collaborate more. The current ALAC position, first presented at the the ASO workshop of the ICANN Los Angels meeting, remains essentially unchanged
Since LA meeting, however, we have undertaken further research on the issue. We have learned that the IPv4 based network will not likely to go away within 10 or 20 years. Thus there will be a need to make sure that the two different IP networks -- as well as the services layered on top of them -- be interoperable to the maximum extent possible. If higher level application layers cannot communicate properly between the two systems, it will be irrelevant (from the public point of view) that the lower levels are compatible.
The achievement of compatibility at higher levels indicatesmore challenges ahead than originally anticipated. Recent information from technical experts, reporting to the Japanese government, suggest that three possible solutions1) conserving IPv4 addresses through increased use of NAT/NAPT, 2) increased re-allocation of unused IPv4 addresses and 3) acceleration of the transition to IPv6 – may each have significant technical, operational and economic and policy challenges.
Among the specific challenges identified by the Japanese study:
- For the coexistence of IPv4 and v6 based networks, all users equipment should have “dual stack” capability, which does not exist in most broadband routers currently sold to homes and small businesses.
- Ingenuity to provide communications between IPv4 and IPv6 will be required: For users without such dual stack capability, “translation” function between IPv4 and v6 protocols and applications above that should be placed inside the network, but to date no such service is practically incorporated. It will require technical development and business decisions to purchase and place them. The Japanese Working Group report suggests that realistically only a limited number of most important application protocols can be prepared in time [ what time ?].
- Network configurations must be changed to such a degree that a new network could be built “from scratch” (which poses both burdens and opportunities)
- Technicians and operational know-how are not sufficient at the moment
- Initial costs will be huge
- The operational costs will be the same as those now, but double investments for both IPv6 and IPv4 operations will be required for some time by many users
We are very aware that the operation of Internet and provisions of many services on top of IP connectivity are not under the direct purview of ICANN per se, however in order to minimize the potential confusion and instability for the global end users, we call for ICANN to work collaboratively with other bodies as appropriate to address the challenges at hand. It is our view that only the concerted and co-ordinated efforts by all parties -- including the ICANN communitywill sufficiently achieve the necessary transitions without disruption of service.
We expect ICANN community, including address allocation community (RIRs) and Domain Name operation community (IANA/, and gTLDs and ccTLDs) to work together with address standardization community (IETF), operation community (NANOG, SANOG, ISPs and ASPs), Vendors and Governments. Within ICANN the meaningful participation, inputs and outreach is required by the users communities (AtLarge, Business and NCUC) as well as public policy entities (GAC).
It is ALAC's position that the lack of such effort will create more confusion rather than solutions to network users and general public.
To this end, ALAC plan to organize a series of workshops at the coming ICANN meetings and any other feasible venues and hope all stakeholders concerned to join this campaign.
