IPv6: DoD’s Chicken or Egg?
By Jim Bacchus
CEO of Digital Presence, Colonel in Marine Corps Reserve,
Completed active duty with US NORTHCOM and the Joint Chiefs of Staff

While scholars, skeptics and technocrats have been debating the merits and profundity of IPv6 for the past several years, the egg (or chicken, as you may view it) has matured. Now the central question is - will the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) use the IPv6 transition to facilitate quantum improvements in targeting, sensornets and tactical communications? Or will they instead treat it as an unfunded mandate to be ignored until later in the decade?

First, let us presume that any reader of an IPv6 Newsletter will not need an arcane description on the value of ubiquitous static addressing for DoD or the unprecedented peer-to-peer capabilities offered by IPv6. I will therefore move on to correlate IPv6 to the strategic doctrine of the US Department of Defense and let you, the reader, decide if it is the chicken or the egg.

Since the 2005 "soft mandate" OMB memoranda, requiring the by-2008 conversion to IPv6, DoD has done only advanced planning and, unfortunately, little practical experimentation. On the other hand, the Department of Defense has articulated strategies and doctrines that read like advertisements for the technology improvements offered by ubiquitous static addressing. There are literally hundreds of projects and programs underway that could be called transformational, yet the networks which they will rely on (both on the NIPR and SIPR, non-secure and secure DoD networks) are unlikely to see profound IPv6 enablement until the end of the decade.

During 2006 we have seen publication of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and a myriad of planning directives, including the classified Strategic Planning Guidance. The QDR articulates, in moderate detail, how quantum improvement is needed in moving data from the sensor to the shooter and in the networking of allied and coalition partners. Both these categories are rich venues to actually accelerate IPv6 addressing adoption while we use IPv6 as a catalyst for transformation. Can DoD have its cake and eat it too? That is, can it actually deploy the unfunded mandate of IPv6 faster and with a huge impact?

For IPv6-enabled technology to provide transformational capabilities and applications, there is a need for measurable and meaningful progress. This means more than just the type that culminates in a picture for a technology magazine of a server rack and happy technicians that have routed data packets, but have not improved the enterprise of war fighting. In other words, there should be a couple of small wins so that even the skeptics will recognize that IPv6 is far more than a bunch of PowerPoint slides and a nifty way to switch digital packets. So, what are examples of projects that DoD could embark on, within current budgets, that could be transformational and pull IPv6 along?

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Networking sensors and shooters. The QDR calls for, "The ability of the future force to establish an 'unblinking eye' over the battle-space through persistent surveillance will be key to conducting effective joint operations." Why not incorporate - in the next major 2007 exercise with NATO - a closed sensor network that would apply IPv6 addresses to the sensors themselves, and launch the embryonic practice of actually "seeing" through to other nations' sensor nets. This would be a clear goal for DoD (See pages 55 through 58 of the QDR, http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/report/Report20060203.pdf).

2. Coalition and allied interoperability. The QDR brings to the forefront the longstanding issue of working better and smarter with allies. What better place to start than the enclave of IPv6. There has not yet been an exercise or demonstration that validates the US and allied integrated use of static IPv6 addressing. While most allies have stated their national plan to convert networks, allied militaries are in many cases waiting for the United States to propose the technocratic framework from which to operate. While DoD has made great progress in planning the back office (JC2), and the front office (standing JTF HQ initiatives), we need to exercise and plan for these capabilities to be IPv6-enabled and capable of plug-and-play with a wide variety of allies. Let's start simple, and build some redundant enclaved IPv6 email networks into 2007 exercises. Low risk, low cost and a good place to start.

3. The "1,000 Ship Navy." During speeches in 2005 and 2006, senior US Navy officials have pondered the metaphor, "1,000 Ship Navy." This is really only politics – the US alone will never see the Navy rolls have 1,000 combatant vessels. However, when networked together, key allies and the US do have 1,000 combatant vessels in total. So? The first step should be some experimentation with this awesome capability. Why not, on an unclassified network basis, link 1,000 allied vessels, and let the captains and crews experiment. Is there a www.NATOMySpace.mil in our future? Again, unclassified and low risk with minimal cost. T his is another fast way to figure out the transformational power of unlimited static IP addressing, while taking little or no risk.

4. Make IPv6 an agenda item. Things don't happen in big organizations unless they are measured. Let's move IPv6 as an agenda item, from the bowels of technical meetings to the hot seat at operational and transformational meetings. Nothing like a war fighter continuing to ask, "When can I get my unlimited and static addresses throughout my networks and systems?" The war fighter could get it very quickly – a lot of things can be improved in war fighting once IPv6 addressing is the standard. DoD should make a conscious effort to get IPv6 into the governance process supporting the QDR initiatives.

While I could go on for 100 pages simply talking about the QDR and other transformational programs, laying out IPv6-enabling concepts and calling for action, I won't. What I will do is suggest that within current budgets and mandates, true transformational and technology leaders will make something like what I have described here happen over the next 12 months. With a little luck, my next article will describe something actually happening, not just more studies and reports. Without DoD-wide transformational actions and real experimentation, we will be waiting until 2010 (or later) to see whether IPv6 was the chicken or the egg.