IPv6: Difference between revisions
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
In 1991, the Internet Architecture Board ([[IAB]]) recommended the need for additional address flexibility. Based of this recommendation, the Internet Engineering Task Force ([[IETF]]) formed the Routing and Addressing (Road) Group to examine the consumption of address space and the exponential growth in inter-domain routing entries. <ref>[http://www.potaroo.net/papers/2002-10-ipv6/IPv6.pdf IP Version 6 Geoff Huston]</ref> The IETF Road GroupThe Road Group enumerated three possible serious problems which include:<ref>[http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=1519 RFC Archive]</ref>Exhaustion of the class B network address space, Growth of routing tables in Internet routers beyond the ability of current software, hardware, and people to effectively manage and Eventual exhaustion of the 32-bit IP address space.It also recommended immediate and long term solutions which include the adoption of CIDR route aggregation proposal, reducing the growth rate of routing table and called for a call for proposals "to form working groups to explore separate approaches for bigger Internet addresses."<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref> | In 1991, the Internet Architecture Board ([[IAB]]) recommended the need for additional address flexibility. Based of this recommendation, the Internet Engineering Task Force ([[IETF]]) formed the Routing and Addressing (Road) Group to examine the consumption of address space and the exponential growth in inter-domain routing entries. <ref>[http://www.potaroo.net/papers/2002-10-ipv6/IPv6.pdf IP Version 6 Geoff Huston]</ref> The IETF Road GroupThe Road Group enumerated three possible serious problems which include:<ref>[http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=1519 RFC Archive]</ref>Exhaustion of the class B network address space, Growth of routing tables in Internet routers beyond the ability of current software, hardware, and people to effectively manage and Eventual exhaustion of the 32-bit IP address space.It also recommended immediate and long term solutions which include the adoption of CIDR route aggregation proposal, reducing the growth rate of routing table and called for a call for proposals "to form working groups to explore separate approaches for bigger Internet addresses."<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref> | ||
In 1993, IETF formed the Internet Protocol Next Generation (IPng) Group to evaluate the proposals and it will be responsible in determining how to proceed in selecting a successor to the IPv4.IPng evaluated and reviewed the proposals of [[CATNIP]],[[SIPP]] and [[TUBA]]. After numerous discussion the IPng Directorate recommended the adoption Simple Internet Protocol Plus (SIPP) Spec. (128 bit version) as the basis for the next generation of Internet Protocol. The version number 6 was assigned by IANA and it was officially called IPv6.<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref> | In 1993, IETF formed the Internet Protocol Next Generation (IPng) Group to evaluate the proposals and it will be responsible in determining how to proceed in selecting a successor to the IPv4.IPng evaluated and reviewed the proposals of [[CATNIP]],[[SIPP]] and [[TUBA]]. After numerous discussion the IPng Directorate recommended the adoption '''Simple Internet Protocol Plus (SIPP) Spec. (128 bit version)''' as the basis for the next generation of Internet Protocol. The version number 6 was assigned by IANA and it was officially called IPv6.<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref> | ||
==Features of IPv6== | ==Features of IPv6== | ||
Revision as of 20:06, 21 June 2011
IPv6 (Internet Protocol Version 6) is the version of internet protocol which supports the 128-bit IP addresses. It has been developed as the next generation protocol to increase the 4 billion IP Addresses available and it will eventually replace the nearly exhausted IPv4, which supports 32-bit address apace.[1] IPv6 has been developed to provide advantages over the current internet protocol. It is expected to solve several network problems by eliminating the need for Network Address Translation (NAT).
Background[edit | edit source]
As early as 1990, internet experts predicted that the 4 billion available IP addresses under the IPv4 is not enough to accommodate the rapid growth of internet users worldwide. During the Internet Engineering Task Force Meeting(IETF) in Vancouver in 1990, Phil Gross, Chairman of the Internet Steering Group (IESG) together with Frank Solensky and Sue Hares informed that the Class B space will be exhausted as early as March 1994. The solution to the problem is to assign multiple Class C address.This expansion signaled a great problem which would mean deciding to whether to limit the size and growth rate of the internet or to disrupt the network by changing new strategies or technology.[2]
In 1991, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) recommended the need for additional address flexibility. Based of this recommendation, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) formed the Routing and Addressing (Road) Group to examine the consumption of address space and the exponential growth in inter-domain routing entries. [3] The IETF Road GroupThe Road Group enumerated three possible serious problems which include:[4]Exhaustion of the class B network address space, Growth of routing tables in Internet routers beyond the ability of current software, hardware, and people to effectively manage and Eventual exhaustion of the 32-bit IP address space.It also recommended immediate and long term solutions which include the adoption of CIDR route aggregation proposal, reducing the growth rate of routing table and called for a call for proposals "to form working groups to explore separate approaches for bigger Internet addresses."[5]
In 1993, IETF formed the Internet Protocol Next Generation (IPng) Group to evaluate the proposals and it will be responsible in determining how to proceed in selecting a successor to the IPv4.IPng evaluated and reviewed the proposals of CATNIP,SIPP and TUBA. After numerous discussion the IPng Directorate recommended the adoption Simple Internet Protocol Plus (SIPP) Spec. (128 bit version) as the basis for the next generation of Internet Protocol. The version number 6 was assigned by IANA and it was officially called IPv6.[6]
Features of IPv6[edit | edit source]
Based on the published RFC 1883, IPv6 has the following capability:[7]