The region (represented by the AP-NIC RIR)

The Cyberblank operations, engineering and enquiry
communities are 1 sense of put significant attending into a relatively new
Version (actually 15 class old) of the Internet Protocol – Informatics version
6 (IPv6) designed to solve several architectural limitations of the existing
IPv4 protocol . The most essential feature of IPv6 is that it has provides fiat
s of magnitude more reference space than the humanity ‘s foreseeable IP
connectivity needs. IPv6 has become especially pertinent in the last two long
time because the global Internet computer savoir-faire apportioning
architecture relies on the presence of a free pond of IP name and reference to
allocate to sites operating Internet base . The Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) exhausted its unallocated address pool in February 2011, and
the Asia-Pacific region (represented by the AP-NIC RIR) followed suit in April
2011. The remaining RIRs too are expected to run out of unallocated speech in
the next few geezer hood . This exogenous pressure from IPv4 address scarcity
has driven widespread adoption of IPv6 into modern operating organization and
web equipment. Prior to implementation of IPv4, engineers and scientists
workings on ARPANET public debate d on the length of an IP address. The debate
was between 32-bit and 128-bit address duration . The resulting scarcity of
IPv4 address pulley block leads to gradual depletion of IPv4 address space. In
order to save and reuse the address blocks, serving provider (SP) resort to
mechanisms like multiple layers of Network Address Translation (NAT). The more
nonpareil approach to solve the offspring of address scarcity facing the
electronic network ing industry is to move towards the IPv6 addressing scheme.
IPv6 provides 3.4 x 1038 name and address and comes with other additional
improvement . First, it provides increased efficiency in routing. Second, it
provides faster packet processing. Third, it supports multicast thereby
overpowering the trouble of broadcasting packets. One-quarter , it avoids
network address translati

 IPv6 adoption has been slow and faces numerous
obstacles. First, there is no true financial driver for companies. The
exhaustion of IPv4 address space has been advertised for years and the industry
has developed technology to extend IPv4 address usage. The most popular of
these technologies is Network Address Translation (NAT). NAT helped to push out
the exhaustion of IPv6 by roughly a decade. This has bought time for IPv6 to
mature further.

During this year’s world IPv6 day, the goal is to
enable approximately one percent of the Internet with IPv6 support. This is not
an estimate of actual IPv6 traffic. The experts expect IPv6 traffic to increase
exponentially in the coming years.


& Assumptions :


research paper comments on some of the common transition technologies that
would facilitate the co-existence of both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the coming
years. This research paper provides a cable provider-centric approach in
describing the transition technologies. Our research paper only discusses
existing co-existence technologies and tries to determine the advantages and
disadvantages in the transition techniques we’ve researched. Additionally, our
research is focused on those technologies being considered for deployment by
our interviewees. Those technologies are Large Scale Network Address
Translation (LSN), Dual Stack, IPv6 rapid deployment (6rd), Dual Stack Lite
(DS-Lite), and NAT64. Our observations and conclusions are based on our
interactions with the industry experts in IPv6 as well as academic research.

Our research paper follows certain assumptions. The
first assumption is that additional IPv4 addresses will not be available in the
immediate future as a result of IPv4 exhaustion. Secondly, that transitioning
to IPv6 or implementing IPv4 extension technology are the only solutions that
will solve the problem of IPv4 address exhaustion.







3 IPv6 Adoption Strategies & Technologies

Dual Stack:


Dual Stack implementation consists of a network topology that provides the
ability to route and forward IPv4 and IPv6 packets. This functionality can be
at just the customer’s environment, on the SP’s network core, its edges, or
some other combination. The dual stack approach can be deployed across the
entire network or in regional areas but in order for the dual stack approach to
work, protocol continuity for packets in transit must be met.


Technologies :

Translation engineering science translate one protocol into
another protocol. This facilitates interoperability between the communications
protocol . There are many transitional technologies. In this paper, we stress
on NAT64 as most of the interviewees cited this translation technology the most


Research :


This research report offers a
broad scope of IPv4/IPv6 co-existence technologies ideal for a cable provider
meshing . There are numerous option for further research. The scenarios (2,
deuce-ace and sevener ) that were not discussed are areas that require further
research. In particular further research on technologies that allow IPv4 hosts
to communicate with IPv6 hosts and services is needed. Additionally, each of
the recommended technologies could also be further researched by exploring
functioning and carrying out issues.


for the new version of IP (v6):


The new
version of the IP protocol that was to be developed required the following main
objectives: extend the IP address space, correct the defects of IPv4 standard
and improve its performance as much as possible, anticipate future needs, and
promote innovation by simplifying the implementation of functional extensions
to the protocol These objectives were constrained, however, in that they had to
retain the principles that made IPv4 such a success”end-to-communication”,”robustness”,
and “best effort”.


new with IPv6?


First of all, IPv6 provides a much larger
address place than IPv 6, with the transition from trinity 2-chip coding of
IPv4 destination (4.3 one thousand million addresses) to 128-scrap coding of
IPv6 addresses (3.4 1038, or 340 jillion , one million million , billion,
billion addresses). As a result, IPv6 is seen as an “enabler”,
capable of stretching our imagination. It is also an chance to restore the
“end to end” communication style l, one of the foundations of IPv4
that was shaken by the massive inflow of NATs. In gain ,IPv6 provides a new
form of auto configuration, known as “stateless” for master of
ceremonies s. For a host, this mechanism consists in automatically building a
local address for it to communicate with its neighbours, and then to build a
global IPv6 address on the basis of the information announced by a local router
on the network link. The stateless au-configuration mode is in addition to the
existing “stateful” auto-configuration mode, covered by the Dynamic
Master of ceremonies Shape Protocol (DHCP). Finally, IPv6 enables better
consolidation of multicasting and better support for functional extensions, by
encapsulating them in dedicated optional header , such as those for security or
mobility .

integration of IPv6: how, who and where?


The integration of IPv6 is a
gradual , collective initiative, for which all the player in the meshwork are
responsible, each according to their own function and labor s. There will be no
D-day for a sharp ‘switchover’ to IPv6. Before deciding how this should be
carried out, the following enquiry have to be asked: what is to be done, by
whom, and where? Let us start with what everyone should do on their own
computing machine , i.e. upgrade / update the operating system and web
applications they use, to shuffle them compatible with IPv6. For most operating
system of rules and typical net applications, there is almost nothing else to
do, since the recent versions hold IPv6 properly. However, unless you are an
decision maker of a large network, in general you will not have to handle all
of these return at once. In other news, you can usually take attention of your
patronage and ask the other players later to take charge of theirs, especially
when you do not depend on them for yours! Even if you do manage a large network
with multiple obligatio , there is no spot in doing everything at the same
clock time , but gradually after a serious task of prioritisation and planning.

Research Question


need of the hour is to enable IPv6 capabilities on all existing networks.
However, IPv4 networks cannot upgrade to IPv6 networks immediately. This is
partially due to the perception of the technical immaturity of IPv6 as compared
to IPv4. Also, service providers are highly risk-adverse and are not receptive
to new changes so instantly. Additionally, there is a lack of IPv6 awareness.
The technical incompatibilities to convert all the network

understand IPv6 instantly is another issue that must be met.
These factors lead us to look for alternatives that support co-existence of
IPv4 and IPv6 addressing schemes in networks 4.

The deployment of IPv6 is a phenomenon that has started and
is set to grow further in the years to come. There are many issues and
obstacles to achieve 100% IPv6 networks directly. Therefore, this paper focuses
on the transitional technologies and strategies required to achieve IPv4-IPv6
co-existent networks.




Similar to our
belief that the composition of a maturing IPv6 topology should look more like
the IPv4 topology, we also expect a convergence to occur between the best AS
path between a given pair of in IPv4 and IPv6. An-other reason to compare IPv4
and IPv6 AS path congruity is its correlation with performance. In Section 7 we
show that IPv6 data plane
performance is worse than IPv4 when the AS paths differ, but
when the AS paths are the same, IPv6 performance is comparable to that of
IPv4. Improved congruity between
IPv4 and IPv6 paths seem to improve

IPv6 performance,
which is likely to further promote IPv6 deployment. To explore trends in
congruity between IPv4

and IPv6 paths, we
first calculate the fraction of AS paths from a given vantage point (VP) toward
dual-stacked origin ASes (i.e., ASes that advertise both IPv4 and IPv6
prefixes) that are identical in IPv4 and IPv6. If there are multiple IPv4 or
IPv6 AS paths available between a given VP and an origin AS, we report it
having an identical AS path if any of the paths are the same.




Continuing to
explore our hypothesis that a maturing IPv6 network should look more like the
IPv4 network, we compare the evolution of routing dynamics in IPv4 and IPv6. In
particular, we focus on the evolution of update churn, correlation between the
update churn seen from different vantage points, path exploration, and
convergence times in IPv4 and IPv6. We focus on these metrics for the following
reasons. First, we hypothesize that both IPv4 and IPv6 should show a similar
relation between update churn and the size of the underlying topology. Second,
due to bussness relationships and dense interconnection among ASes,churn
becomes localized, and each vantage point does not see the same set of routing
events. Consequently, correlation between update churn seen at different
vantage points can serve as a measure of the maturity of the underlying network
and business relationships. Finally, previous work has shown that end-to-end
delays and loss rates are significantly higher during routing events. It is
thus useful to compare the extent of path exploration and routing convergence
times during routing events. If these metrics are significantly worse in IPv6
as compared to IPv4, then it could deter the adoption of IPv6.



Features of IPv6:

IPv6 is a powerful
enhancement to IPv4 with features that better suit current and foreseeable
network demands, including the following:

address space

—IPv6 speech es are 128 bits, compared to
IPv4’s 32 bits. This larger address space provides several welfare , including:
improved global reachpower and tractableness ; the ability to aggregate
prefixes that are announced in routing tabular array ; easier multihoming to
several Internet military service providers (ISPs); auto configuration
that includes link-layer addresses in the IPv6 addresses for “stopper and
play” functionality and goal -to-end communication without network address
translation (NAT); and simplified mechanisms for address renumbering and

simpler header provides several advantages over IPv4, including: better routing
efficiency for performance and forwarding-rate scalability; no requirement for
processing checksums; simpler and more efficient extension header mechanisms;
and flow labels for per-flow processing with no need to examine the transport
layer information to identify the various traffic flows.

for mobility and security:

Mobility and security measure help ensure
submission with Mobile River IP and IP security (IPsec) criterion s. Mobility
enables people to move around in networks with mobile network devices, with
many having wireless connectivity . Mobile IP is an Net Engineering Project
Effect (IETF) standard available for both IPv4 and IPv6 that enables mobile
devices to move without rift in established network connexion. Because IPv4
does not automatically provide this sort of mobility , supporting it requires
additional configurations. In IPv6, mobility is built in, which way that any
IPv6 guest can use it when necessary. The routing headers of IPv6 brand mobile
IPv6 much more efficient for goal lymph node than mobile IPv4 does. IPsec is
the IETF standard for IP network security, available for both IPv4 and IPv6.
Although the social occasion are essentially identical in both environments,
IPSec is mandatary in IPv6. IPSec is enabled and is available for use on every
IPv6 node, making the IPv6 Internet more secure. IPSec also requires cay s for
each device, which implies global key deployment and statistical distribution .

are a variety of ways to transition IPv4 to IPv6.

One approach is to have a dual
stack with both IPv4 and IPv6 configured on the interface of a network device.

Another technique uses an IPv4
tunnel to carry IPv6 traffic. One implementation is IPv6-to-IPv4 (6-to-4)
tunneling. This newer method (defined in RFC 3056, Connection of IPv6
Domains via IPv4 Clouds) replaces an older technique of IPv4-compatible
tunneling (first defined in RFC 2893, Transition Mechanisms for IPv6
Hosts and Routers.

The Move Toward
IPv6: Issues and Actions

Experts believe that because of the destination limitation of
the current Information processing v4 communications protocol , the Net is
outpouring out of space and we are headed for catastrophe . The root is to
deploy IPv6, a next-multiplication protocol more than three decades in the
fashioning that uses an savoir-faire bit size four 10 senses of time that of
its predecessor and therefore provides a wider kitchen stove of IP name and
computer address possibility . Experts believe that because of the address
limitations of the current Net Protocol Version 4 (IPv4), the Internet is
running out of address space and we may be headed for an IP catastrophe. The
increasing tightness of advanced servers, trust on virtual computing, and use
of mobile client twist are just a few things accelerating the problem, to the
degree we may run out of IP address pick by next year. The solution, the expert
say, is to deploy IPv6, a next-multiplication protocol more than three decades
in the making that uses an address bit size four times that of its predecessor
and therefore provides a wider range of mountains of IP address theory . Critic
counter by claiming techniques like meshing address rendering (NAT) can change
public savoir-faire into larger sets of private savoir-faire and any electric
potential problems created by the inherent limitaitons of the current IPv4
protocol In this WAN Nation series, we look at the push
to deploy IPv6, as well as the reasons why it may not be a good idea to wait
too long or assume shortstop -term fixes will provide a long-term solution.