CLARKE CALLS FOR NATIONAL DIALOG ON NEXT-GENERATION IP

Clarke likened IPv6 to “mini Y2K issue.” He also urged wireless industry “to step up” support of wireless priority access, despite what he called unfounded concerns that system would bump subscribers off mobile networks in emergencies.

Internet Engineering Task Force designed IPv6 to replace 20-year-old current version, IPv4. One of key problems IIPv6 is meant to address is shortage of Internet addresses. Clarke said there hadn’t been “groundswell” in U.S. for IPv6. “If any industry has a stake in adopting IPv6 it’s wireless,” he said, since industry’s interests center on need for address space that 3G systems will create and for securing existing systems: “I think you need to think about as an industry what your role is as a group.” This version also contains enhanced security in protocol, he said. Japan has made national commitment to move to IPv6 by 2005, with Europeans having set a similar target. One implication of this is security, Clarke said: “They are going to be more secure than we are if they move to IPv6 and we're not.” Another important issue is that security measures such as firewalls and intrusion detection systems that are set on current IPv4 “are not going to work against cyberthreats organized on IPv6,” he said. “This means we will not be as secure as the Europeans and the Japanese because we're not running IPv6, but it also may mean we are less secure than we are now because people running IPv6 may be able to penetrate some of our systems.”

Separately, Clarke outlined transition process that President Bush put in place for Dept. of Homeland Security. Senate is poised to take up that issue after House passed bill earlier this week. Saying new dept. could be created within “a matter of days,” Clarke said transition team had plans to phase in integration of units, including critical infrastructure units. That includes phase-in of Commerce Dept.’s Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office, FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection Center and Defense Dept.’s National Communications System.

As for wireless priority access, Clarke said Defense Dept. appropriations bill for fiscal 2003, one of only 2 spending bills passed so far by Congress, would zero out $73 million in funding proposed for program by Administration. In taking that money out of defense budget, Congress stipulated that it should be in spending plan for pending Dept. of Homeland Security. Problem with that is that department doesn’t yet exist, although funding for priority access is needed now, he said. “I think you as an industry need to step up to this issue,” he said. He said industry could play role in educating consumers about impact of priority access on wireless networks, which creates priority system for queuing up national security and emergency response workers to make wireless calls in emergencies. Important point for carriers to stress is that that doesn’t mean customers already using their wireless phones would be bumped off network, he said. “The number of people who are going to be given priority cellphone service is going to be infinitesimally small,” he said.

“Now there has also been a problem, to be perfectly frank, that some people in the industry have had doubts about whether it is a good idea,” Clarke said. “They're afraid their customers will protest. Your customers will protest if you don’t explain it properly, or if you allow rumors and misconceptions to persist.”

Asked about possibility of “push” technology to alert wireless users of emergencies, Clarke noted that several smaller companies are working on such systems. He said that several smaller Ore. technology development companies are working on this capability. Concerning Wi-Fi versus mobile wireless security, Clarke said that 2 often get confused. While mobile wireless systems are secure, Wi-Fi wireless systems often aren’t, Clarke said. He recommended that mobile wireless sector step up efforts to make sure that public understands distinction between 2 security scenarios.