The document outlines plans for piloting IPv6 infrastructure in Germany, focusing on secure services for government and municipalities. It details experiments involving the enabling of central registers, energy monitoring applications, and migration tools for e-government applications, emphasizing the need for IPv4 and IPv6 to run in parallel during the transition. Validation criteria include innovation, learning effects, and cost efficiency, with a goal of proving the advantages of IPv6 over IPv4.

1. IPV6 PilotingDr. Heinz-Werner SchueltingDeutschland-Online Infrastruktur (DOI)14. Dezember 2010Ghent

2. Deutschland Online Infrastruktur DOI: Infrastructure providing services for federal government, states and municipalities

3. Nation wide secure MPLS-Network

4. Secure eMail

5. Public Key Infrastructure

6. Basic Services: DNS, DNSsec, TSIG,

7. Status IPv6 Readiness

8. Transport: IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack (10/2009)

9. Network protection devices (6/2010, now in test)

10. Encryption devices (9/2010, now in test)

11. IPv6 Production planned: 2/2011Status of IPv6 readyness in DOIExtent of Test PilotTransport, VPNs, IPsec, QoS, High Availability

12. DNS, DNSsec, TSIG, eMail, SMTP auth, PKIPilotsVoIP Dataport / HamburgIP telephony based on IPv6

13. 120,000 end-user devicesTestbed DOIIP/MPLS layer

14. Services (eMail, DNS, network protection, encryption devices)

15. PKI

16. Crypto Management

17. IPv6 Tunnels

18. Failover / High AvailabilityExamples of possible experiments (1a)IPv6 enabling of central registers (e.g. transport authority, pension authority)Initial situation

19. access to central registers over several different networks

20. multiple NATting > missing or incorrect DNS resolutions

21. "hard-wired" IP addresses

22. lack of transparency > separate authorization process

23. Europe wide sTESTA based data exchange

24. Solution / Show case

25. Use of unique global IPv6 addresses at involved parties

26. IPv6 enabling of selected central registers and servicesExamples of possible experiments (1b) IPv6 enabling of central registers (e.g. transport authority, pension authority) (cont.)Possible Stakeholders

27. Transport Authority / Pension Authority

28. Public Service Centers

29. Municipalities

30. Transition Plan

31. IPv6 and IPv4 have to run in parallel

32. Most registers will not be IPv6 enabled in the first stepExamples of possible experiments (2)IPv6 based energy monitoring application Initial Situation

33. Germany must reduce gas emissions by up to 90% in the long term

34. This can be done by monitoring and controlling large numbers of devices

35. Solution / Show case

36. Ipv6 enabling of metering applications

37. Show case: Complex energy user like a school, a hospital

38. Possible Stakeholders

39. Thermal Engineering GmbH Quedlinburg (SME)

40. University Magdeburg (F&E)

41. Ministry of Economy and Labour of Saxony-Anhalt (Public)Examples of possible experiments (3a)Migration Toolset for eGov ApplicationsInitial Situaton

42. No experience with IPv6 in administrations of small municipalities

43. Large number of specific applications with users in different IPv4 networks

44. Solution / Showcase

45. Step 1: IPv6 enabling of centrally hosted applications with dual stack access

46. Step 2: IPv6 enabling of a small administration unit

47. Step 3: Migration guide for small administrationsExamples of possible experiments (3b)Migration Toolset for eGov Applications (cont.)Possible Stakeholders

48. KDVZ Citkomm (public service provider)

49. Small municipality

50. Software development Company (SME)

51. Transition Plan

52. IPv6 and IPv4 have to run in parallel

53. Step 3 contains a long term transition planExamples of possible experiments (4)Requirements profile for IPv6 in ICT equipmentGermany appreciates and supports the Slovenian proposal for aIPv6 profile for ICT equipmentSome comments for further development:more details than at RFC level

54. guidelines for use of optional fields defined in some RFCs

55. a matrix matching requirements and policies to certain IPv6 functions

56. next step could be IPv6 software requirements

57. Proposal:

58. getting support from EU COM to spread this in Europe

59. to be integrated into the pilot (mapped against results from the experiments)

60. Relevant validation criteria (1)InnovationNew techniques coming with IPv6 should be used and tested

61. Examples: mobility, security, use of vast numbers of addresses

62. Benefits of these approaches should be provedLearning effectExperiments should show weaknesses and stumbling blocks of IPv6 migration

63. Requirements to products (> profile) and configurations should be derived

64. Public administrations and SEMs throughout the EU should benefit from the results

65. Relevant validation criteria (2)Cost efficiencyApproach should show cost advantages compared with IPv4 based solutions

66. Costs and benefits have to be analyzed

67. Cost of the migration should become transparent

68. Costs must be monitored

69. Thank you for your attention!HeinzWerner.Schuelting@bmi.bund.de