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== | ||