Internet Protocol Version 6 Deployment Research Articles

The hidden standards war: economic factors affecting IPv6 deployment

Purpose The data communications protocol supporting the internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) is almost 40 years old, and its 32-bit address space is too small for the internet. A “next-generation” internet protocol version 6 (IPv6), has a much larger, 128-bit address space. However, IPv6 is not backward compatible with the existing internet. For 20 years, the internet technical community has attempted to migrate the entire internet to the new standard. This study aims to address important but overlooked questions about the internet’s technical evolution: will the world converge on IPv6? Will IPv6 die out? or will we live in a mixed world for the foreseeable future? Design/methodology/approach The research offers an economically-grounded study of IPv6’s progress and prospects. Many promoters of IPv6 sincerely believe that the new standard must succeed if the internet is to grow, and assume that the transition is inevitable because of the presumed depletion of the IPv4 address resources. However, by examining the associated network effects, developing the economic parameters for transition, and modeling the underlying economic forces, which impact network operator decisions, the study paints a more complex, nuanced picture. Findings The report concludes that legacy IPv4 will coexist with IPv6 indefinitely. IPv6 is unlikely to become an orphan. For some network operators that need to grow, particularly mobile networks where the software and hardware ecosystem is mostly converted, IPv6 deployment can make economic sense. However, the lack of backward compatibility with non-deployers eliminates many network effects that would create pressure to convert to IPv6. A variety of conversion technologies, and more efficient use of IPv4 addresses using network address translation, will support a “mixed world” of the two standards for the foreseeable future. Originality/value The authors’ conceptualization and observations provide a clearer understanding of the economic factors affecting the transition to IPv6.

Are We There Yet? IPv6 in Australia and China

IP (Internet Protocol) version 6 (IPv6) was standardised in 1998 to address the expected runout of IP version 4 (IPv4) addresses. However, the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 has been very slow in many countries. We investigate the state of IPv6 deployment in Australian and Chinese organisations based on a survey of organisations’ IT staff. Compared to earlier studies, IPv6 deployment has advanced markedly, but it is still years away for a significant portion of organisations. We provide insights into the deployment problems, arguments for deploying IPv6, and how to speed up the transition, which are relevant for many countries.

Privacy and Security of DHCP Unique Identifiers

As protection against the current privacy weaknesses of StateLess Address AutoConfiguration (SLAAC) in the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), network administrators may choose to deploy the new Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6). Similar to the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) for the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4), DHCPv6 uses a clientserver model to manage addresses in networks, providing stateful address assignment. While DHCPv6 can be configured to assign randomly distributed addresses to clients, the DHCP Unique Identifier (DUID) was designed to identify uniquely identify clients to servers and remains static to clients as they move between different subnets and networks. Since the DUID is globally unique and exposed in the clear, attackers can geotemporally track clients by sniffing DHCPv6 messages on the local network or by using unauthenticated protocol-valid queries that request systems’ DUIDs or leased addresses. DUIDs can also be formed with systemspecific information, further compromising the privacy and security of the host. To combat the threat of the static DUID, a dynamic DUID was implemented and analyzed for its effect on privacy and security as well as its computational overhead. The privacy implications of DHCPv6 must be addressed before large-scale IPv6 deployment.

A performance study for IPv4–IPv6 translation in IP multimedia core network subsystem

AbstractA Next Generation Network (NGN) is an advanced, packet‐based network that exploits broadband and QoS‐enabled transport technologies for enabling multimedia services. In NGNs, the principles and requirements of IP Multimedia Sub‐system (IMS), which are used to deliver the desired benefits, should be carefully examined and studied. Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is adopted by Third‐generation Partnership Project (3GPP) to solve address storage problem and provide new features (e.g. plug‐and‐play and mobility) for IMS. However, in the early stage of IPv6 deployment, the existing Voice‐over‐IP (VoIP) networks support Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) only. For IPv4–IPv6 interworking between IMS and the existing VoIP networks, the IMS‐Application Level Gateway (IMS‐ALG) and the Transition Gateway (TrGW) are proposed to translate Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Real‐time Transport Protocol (RTP) packets, respectively. In this paper, we focus on the IPv4–IPv6 translation for RTP packets, which is the bottleneck of VoIP performance. Specifically, we developed a TrGW called National Information and Communications Initiative (NICI)‐TrGW. In NICI‐TrGW, we perform IPv4–IPv6 translation at the Linux kernel and adjust the header room of kernel‐level packet buffer for each packet to reduce memory‐copy operations. We evaluate the performance of NICI‐TrGW and the existing solutions by using the SmartBits. Our study indicates that NICI‐TrGW outperforms the existing solutions in terms of three different output measures including packet loss rate, maximum throughput, and average latency. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.