GCN Tech Blog

By GCN Staff

Blog archive

Is the OMB IPv6 mandate faltering?

How many agencies are actually embracing IPv6? Fewer than you might think, at least if you believe a recent article from Network World.

We have mixed feelings about this story. One the one hand, we admire that the reporter connected the dots on how agencies are responding to the Office of Management and Budget's mandate to move to IPv6.

On the other hand, we were chafed by those parts that are either deliberately misleading, or, at the least, show some editorial confusion.

The article opens quite sensationally.

"U.S. federal agencies have six months to meet a deadline to support IPv6, an upgrade to the Internet's main communications protocol known as IPv4. But most agencies are not grabbing hold of the new technology and running with it, industry observers say," writes Carolyn Duffy Marsan.

Of course, we all know that agencies only have to have their backbone networks enabled for IPv6 by the end of next June. They don't have to be running IPv6 across their networks, as implied by that opener (though oddly enough, this fact is actually stated quite clearly deeper in the article).

So, if the mandate states only that the backbone support should be in place, and if agencies are meeting this goal (a fact the article doesn't contest), where is the failing, exactly?

Also curious is how the article does not quote a single fed on the subject. Why not Peter Tseronis, co-chairman of the CIO Council's IPv6 Working Group? How about someone from OMB, who could have shed some light on the Administration's expectations on how agencies should move forward after the deadline has passed?

Rather, only telecom vendor executives are quoted. As a result, all the evidence for this slow adoption is secondhand and, natch, biased towards increasing IPv6-oriented purchases.

Worse, it does not take into account OMB's recently-launched Trusted Internet Connections mandate, which strongly encourages agencies consolidating their network access points to use those vendors on the Networx contract. Networx requires vendors to support end-to-end IPv6, possibly making the whole issue somewhat irrelevant.

Such shortcomings aside, the article has plenty of compelling material to raise the question of if agency IT leaders are truly thinking about IPv6, or if they are only
doing only the minimum to meet the requirements of OMB.

"To meet the OMB mandate, all they have to do is enable IPv6 on their backbone routers and then they get the check mark. And that's nothing," senior vice president and general manager of Qwest Government Services Diana Gowen told Network World.

Managers from AT&T, Global Crossing, NTT America, Qwest, and Verizon all indicate that they have few customers looking into IPv6 options beyond what is required by the OMB mandate. Verizon, for instance, has IPv6 support as part of its multi protocol labeled switching service, though few agencies utilize the capability.

So, is this article a harbinger of a wobbly mandate, or is it hype-mongering? Or are we just jealous that Network World reported it first? You be the judge.

Posted by Joab Jackson on Dec 18, 2007 at 9:39 AM


inside gcn

  • consolidation (By tereez/Shutterstock.com)

    Inside Kentucky's strategy for improving IT operations

Reader Comments

Wed, Dec 19, 2007 Jim Dunbar FL

The reality of mandating the switching the entire Internet Infrastructure over to IPV6 by June 08 is a high risk endeavor.I don't have a lot of confidence that the OMB or other Government agencies mandating this realize the complexity of this task and what has to happen to make this a reality.Having been at Lucent Technologies / Bell Labs previously and heavily involved with OSPFv2, BGP-4, and the integration of MPLS advanced routing protocols into the carrier space, there was some serious testing and validation that had to be accomplished in order to introduce MPLS into the existing layer 2 switching / layer 3 routing environments. Now when you take the integration of these routing protocols and add in the new IPV6 data structure, there needs to be the same kind of interoperability testing in a live network of some complexity with a series of the big vendor iron switching / routing systems (Cisco, Juniper) to name a few that provide the core layer 2 / layer 3 switching environments in the MAE WESTs, MAE Easts, and all other major core backbone nodes supporting the major lon haul carriers (AT&T, SBC, Verizon, etc; etc;) Who is going to tell John Chambers at Cisco that he has to have all of the Cisco core switches and routers in every Class 4 and Class 5 Central Office in the United States as well as all of the Data Center Gateways (MAE EAST , MAE WEST)etc; that all of these systems have to be operating on IPV6 by June 08?There needs to be a major real world network design team with a live network setup that can be tested and validated (with the cooperation of the switching / routing / SONET / DWDM) vendors and providers of the major carrier Data Centers and Central Offices prior to switching over, or you may have some rude awakenings. So, when I read a "Quote" from OMB that they don't want any more excuses for making the deadline..............I have to think that the "Clue Bird" needs to be pecking on some heads, to give certain people a clue as to what needs to happen technically in the real-world, so that this transition can be carried out in a phased manner. Having Equipment IPV6 Capable is a whole lot different then executing these systems in an IPV6 newtork with all of the routing protocols (RIPv2, OSPF, BGP-4, and Integrated with MPLS)

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

resources

HTML - No Current Item Deck
  • Transforming Constituent Services with Business Process Management
  • Improving Performance in Hybrid Clouds
  • Data Center Consolidation & Energy Efficiency in Federal Facilities