The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.02 - March-April (2013 vol.17)
pp: 62-68
Yong Cui , Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology, Beijing
Jiang Dong , Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing
Peng Wu , Tsinghua University, Beijing
Jianping Wu , Tsinghua University, Beijing
Chris Metz , Cisco Systems
Yiu L. Lee , Comcast Cable Communications
Alain Durand , Juniper Networks
ABSTRACT
IPv6 transition presents many challenges to the Internet community, and various solutions have been proposed, including dual stack, tunneling, and translation. Tunneling supports "like-to-like" IP connectivity across an "unlike" network, whereas translation supports "like-to-unlike" IP interconnectivity. No overarching strategy exists to address all possible scenarios. Because tunneling can keep the end-to-end model that the Internet is built on, the authors have developed a tunnel-based framework that solves the transition problems in backbone and access networks with different tunneling mechanisms.
INDEX TERMS
Tunneling, Internet, Encapsulation, IP networks, Routing, Protocols, Payloads, 4over6, IPv6 transition, next generation Internet, softwire, tunneling
CITATION
Yong Cui, Jiang Dong, Peng Wu, Jianping Wu, Chris Metz, Yiu L. Lee, Alain Durand, "Tunnel-Based IPv6 Transition", IEEE Internet Computing, vol.17, no. 2, pp. 62-68, March-April 2013, doi:10.1109/MIC.2012.63
REFERENCES
1. G. Tsirtsis and P. Srisuresh, Network Address Translation-Protocol Translation (NAT-PT), IETF RFC 2766, Feb. 2000; www.ietf.org/rfcrfc2766.txt.
2. B. Carpenter and K. Moore, Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds, IETF RFC 3056, Feb. 2001; www.ietf.org/rfcrfc3056.txt.
3. C. Aoun and E. Davies, Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status, IETF RFC 4966, July 2007; www.ietf.org/rfcrfc4966.txt.
4. O. Troan, “Request to Move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic Status,” IETF Internet draft, June 2011.
5. W. Townsley et al., IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd), IETF RFC 5969, Aug. 2010; http://tools.ietf.org/htmlrfc5969.
6. Y. Cui et al., “Public IPv4 over Access IPv6 Network,” IETF Internet draft, Sept. 2011.
7. A. Durand et al., Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion, IETF RFC 6333, Aug. 2011; http://tools.ietf.org/htmlrfc6333.
8. T. Murakami et al., “IPv4 Residual Deployment on IPv6 Infrastructure,” IETF Internet draft, Sept. 2011.
9. X. Li et al., Softwire Problem Statement, IETF RFC 4925, July 2007; www.ietf.org/rfcrfc4925.txt.
10. J. De Clercq et al., Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE), IETF RFC 4798, Feb. 2007; http://tools.ietf.org/htmlrfc4798.
11. J. Wu et al., Softwire Mesh Framework, IETF RFC 5565, June 2009; http://tools.ietf.org/htmlrfc5565.
12. J. Wu et al., “The Transition to IPv6, Part I: 4over6 for the China Education and Research Network,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 10, no. 3, 2006, pp. 80–85.
13. Y. Cui et al., “The Transition to IPv6, Part II: The Softwire Mesh Framework Solution,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 10, no. 5, 2006, pp. 76–80.
14. C. Huitema, Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs), IETF RFC 4380, Feb. 2006; www.ietf.org/rfcrfc4380.txt.
15. B. Storer et al., Softwire Hub and Spoke Deployment Framework with L2TPv2, IETF RFC 5571, June 2009; http://tools.ietf.org/htmlrfc5571.
44 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool