Every time a device connects to the Internet, it gets its own unique “Internet Protocol” address. The current system, IPv4, has been around since the early 1980s, and provides for about 4.3 billion addresses. By the early 1990s, however, it became clear that the available addresses would someday be depleted, and so a new addressing system, IPv6, was created. IPv6 has a capacity of 3.4 x 10^38 addresses. That’s a hard number to visualize, but think of it this way: It’s far more than all the grains of sand in the world, and more than enough to forever guarantee an address to every device that needs one.
Only one problem: IPv6 adoption has been slow to take off. To ensure everything works smoothly, many domains have been limiting IPv6 deployment to approved networks – a practice known as DNS whitelisting. Although this helps with the gradual transition to the new system, some groups have been concerned that whitelisting could be abused, used to accomplish non-technical objectives that could be anti-competitive in nature.
This week, the Broadband Internet Technology Advisory Group (BITAG), which I have been actively involved with since its founding, released a report offering several solutions to speed IPv6 adoption. The suggestions include limiting the duration of the use of DNS whitelisting, being open and transparent about whitelisting policies, and using primarily quantitative data to determine which sites are whitelisted, to minimize any impression of discrimination in the decision-making process.
It sounds unremarkable: A problem was identified, an advisory group formulated suggestions, and a report was released. What is remarkable is that this group exists at all. This isn’t just a bunch of armchair observers proposing solutions that make sense from a policy perspective; these are actual engineers from different sectors of the communications industry, from academia and from the advocacy community coming together to determine, from a technical perspective, the best solution to pressing technological problems that affect how the Internet operates and the user experience on the Internet. The Internet and broadband industry has never seen anything like this.
BITAG can trace its origins to several events. One was a series of roundtable discussions on technology policy at the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado School of Law. There, a broad-cross section of the Internet community realized the need for an independent technical advisory group to discuss technical issues. Then there were the Verizon-Google discussions that led to open Internet statements and a joint filing at the Federal Communications Commission on the right framework to ensure openness, innovation and advancement in broadband technologies. That partnership showed us the value of bringing together companies that have very diverse views and origins to learn together and openly examine all possible solutions to difficult problems. During our discussions, we jointly proposed the creation of the BITAG and actively worked together with others to establish the advisory group.
A really compelling feature of BITAG is that it draws its members from so many different communities. We have application providers like Google and Microsoft, content providers like Disney and FOX, equipment manufacturers such as Intel and Cisco, and Internet commerce providers including Verizon, Comcast and AT&T. What’s more, institutions like Carnegie Mellon, the Internet Society, and Public Knowledge are integral members, providing a broader perspective when individual companies’ engineers might get caught up in the weeds.
Together, the companies, advocates and academics of BITAG seek to examine and resolve important technical issues related to the operations of the Internet and broadband networks as they affect the user experience in particular. This body of technologists can also provide balanced and thoughtful suggestions regarding best practices for industry and academia, and useful advice for government leaders.
It has taken some time to establish the organization and put in place operating policies and guidance. It was important to make sure the group’s procedures and guidelines were carefully designed to ensure openness and thoroughness in the way it conducts its work. Also, in a group with such diversity, it has been important for members to come to understand each other better. Efforts like these with so many members and so many technically challenging issues are not easy to launch and maintain. But we have succeeded in issuing our first report and to me, while the report contains very thoughtful ideas and advice, a very significant aspect of all of this is simply the fact that the BITAG has survived and gotten its sea legs.
As BITAG moves forward, we look forward to tackling the most pressing technical issues of the day and providing guidance to industry and policy makers.
--
With research and writing support from Matthew S. Schwartz and Sanjay Udani