DETERMINATION OF IPV6 PROTOCOL, ITS DEPLOYMENT
AND EFFICIENCY, IN COMPUTER SYSTEM NETWORKS IN
OPARA, F. K. and ETUS CHUKWUEMEKA
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria.
The upsurge in use of the Internet has led to an increased requirement for
Internet protocol (IP) numbers, which are rapidly running out. A new standard for IP
numbering is being introduced to help overcome some of the limitations of the old
provide enough addresses for the next century. This next generation IP
tagged Internet protocol version six (IPV6), is a technology that is gaining momentum. It
proposes a major change in the basic network infrastructure of the Internet and is poised
reaching effects due to the ubiquity of the Internet today. However, due to the
prompting need to keep
up with emerging technological trends, this work investigates
and addresses the necessity of IPV6, its developmental efforts so far, its structu
features and mechanisms, and transitional strategies from the current IPV4 networks.
These are not without the attendant real
life constraints associated with IPV6
functionality and applications at present or as envisaged in the future; with some
mmendations; using the Nigerian Internet industry as a context determining IPV6
deployment, the extent and spread with its dictating factors, in relation to its envisaged
efficiency as the next generation Internet protocol suite.
IP numbers, n
ext generation IP, network infrastructure, transitional strategies,
deployment, and efficiency.
Internet protocol version six (IPV6), also known as the Transmission control
Internet protocol (TCP/IP) suite version number six,
is a protocol
developed for the next generation Internet with 128
bit address space. It is the
addressing protocol for data packet transmission and communication over
tomorrow’s Internet. The Internet protocol version six (IPV6), also known as the
net protocol for next generation (Miller, 1998), is the last resort of several
approaches employed in the bid to get rid of the problems of scarce Internet
addresses, which has been limiting the addressing and routing capabilities of the
current Internet p
rotocol suite version four (IPV4); with the latter’s attendant
application and network problems which affected security, privacy and better support
for mobile computing, amongst others.
At the same time IP next generation (IPng) [Brader and Mankin, 1996]
attempts to address one of the largest headaches of an IP network from the
administrator’s point of view, that is, configuring the network. Anything that
automates this process is welcomed, and IPV6 goes a long way in this respect.
With its 128
ss spaces, above 340 undecilion (i.e. 340x10
computer systems (unique hosts) can be hosted on the Internet’s multiple and mixed
private or public, whether LAN, MAN or WAN. IPV6, like any other
protocol version, contain the protocol d
ata unit (PDU), service data unit (SDU) and
protocol control information (PCI), put together to serve the purposes of data transfer
and management controls. Now, Transmission control protocol (TCP) as the base of
IPV6 (like IPV4) has a separate connection
for carrying commands and results
between client and server and another separate connection for carrying actual files
and directory transfer. The former is commonly called the command channel while
the later is called data channel. Hence, the core set o
f IPV6 development addresses
the following (Feyre, 2001):
The IPV6 base protocol (TCP/IP)
The address specification
Description of the control protocol known as the Internet Control Message
Problems of an enhanced Domain Name Service (DNS)
The transmission mechanism
This set has been expanded and developed to effect transfer of any type of file,
including executable binaries, graphic images, American standard code for
information interchange (ASCII) texts, postscripts, sound and vide
o files, and lots
Many network administrators, however, for fear that an incomplete one
changeover from IPV4 Internet to IPV6 Internet may leave life chaotic for days or
even weeks afterwards, dislike Ipv6 development. But thankfully, this shoul
d not be
the case, since an IPV6 network can talk to an IPV4 network and vice
employing IPV6 packets tunneling through IPV4 connection. So, there are few
reasons to allege fear over IPV6, and every reason to start planning and/or effecting
WHY IPV6 PROTOCOL
IPV6 development was necessitated by the ever increasing limitations and
design deficiencies of the current internetworking protocol IPV4, which is being
overwhelmed by the demands for address spaces and culminating to o
Internet routing systems and choking impacts on reliable services. The IPV4 Internet
was originally created for the purpose of serving the educational and scientific
community. However, the Internet was such a good idea that it quickly expanded
and has now become far
reaching to have touched on almost every facet of the
IP telephony, movies, e
commerce, and so on.
Two basic problems were identified to be at the crux of the Internet expansion
concerns [Huitema, 1995]:
Routing tables in core routers growing faster than the
routers’ memory spaces, and lists of available unused IP addresses shrinking
rapidly. Hence, experts say that IPV4 Internet will face a serious problem in a few
years if the address
ies are not resolved. There will be a point, they
say, when no more free addresses will be available neither for the various domain
structures which exist on the Internet nor for connecting new hosts. At that point,
no new web services can be set up, n
o more new users can sign up for accounts at
Internet service provider (ISP) companies, and no more new machines can be set up
to access the web or participate in on
However, the most prominent of the several approaches made to solve the
Internet problems is to assign a public address to one of the user’s machines
(making it a server), while hiding several other machines behind the one bearing the
official globally unique address. This approach is called Network Address
or IP masquerading [Tsirtsis and Srisuresh, 2000]. The NAT also
has its own problems as the machines hidden behind the globally unique address
cannot be addressed or accessed. As a result of this, opening connections to them
as used in on
line gaming, pe
peer networking, etc. is not possible.
Therefore, the last approach resorted to in the bid to get rid of the problem of
scarce Internet addresses, its attendant routing bottlenecks and other problems, and
that of the inherent design limitations in t
he IPV4 Internet; is to abandon the
handicapped Internetworking protocol suite (IPV4) at its base and go for a new
Internet protocol suite that will fulfill, especially, the future demands on address
spaces, and possibly also redress other features as priv
acy, security, and better
support for mobile computing, among other added improvements that may come with
its development. IPV6 is now the answer.
OVERVIEW OF IPV6 STRUCTURE
IPV6 is a protocol developed for the next generation internet and is known
the TCP/IP suite version number six, with 128
bit address space which can address
well over 340 undecillion (2
or 340.2823669 x 10
) unique hosts. It solves the
problems of IPV4 by introducing needed new features while essentially following the
e architecture as IPV4
since it has been developed on the strength of IPV4
and not an entirely/completely new protocol [stallings, 2002].
The domain architecture of IPV6 includes the following in its design
considerations [Shenker, 1995]: Extended and e
xpanded addressing capabilities,
configuration, simplified header format, extension header, mobile
mode stack, Internet protocol security (IP sec), flexibility, Quality of
service (QoS) and the IPV6 addressing modes. These are con
sidered below, one
Extended and expanded addressing capabilities: These allow IPV6 to:
Handle additional addressing/addressable nodes
about 3.402823 669 x 10
(over 340 undecillion nodes, for short), that
about 1,564 live Internet addresses per square meter on the
earth surface to be uniquely identified on the internet
a capacity that
leaves far greater than one IP address per slice of bread in a multi
Handle additional addr
IPV6 allows end
peer communication without NAT or other short
term workarounds against
IPV4 shortage. All these allow for full, unconstrained IP connectivity for
based machines as well as upcoming mobile devices l
and cell phones, as all will benefit from full IP access through Universal
Mobile Telecommunication Systems (UMTS). Due to IPV6 multiple
architecture, route aggregation is possible such that IPV6 have multiple
addresses for each device interface.
This makes route aggregation easy
and quick should a host employ several access providers; it can have
separate addresses aggregated within each provider’s address space.
configuration: with expanded auto
re made plug and play, and can be installed without needing to
configure IP addresses. It is also now much easier to remember the
network. It is said that over half the IP networks in the world today have
manually defined addresses. So, anything that ca
n help this situation is
most likely to be welcomed. Now, with IPV6 the minimum requirement for
each host is that it should be able to generate one unique IP address and
discover at least one router address
whether or not there is a server or
its local subnet. It will then use the IPV6 link local prefix as the
beginning of the address and automatically generate an address either by
use of the Ethernet Card’s physical address as suffix with intervening
out with zeros, or by use of
routers’ address information (in
a more sophisticated environment with DHCP
Configuration Protocol), and by use of solicitation messages authenticate
the address as a unique address for itself. In addition to the use of
, IPV6 routers also send advertisements telling the
host what addresses are available to that router. This enhances
management of a switchover between different ISPs without having to
annually reconfigure the hosts, even if DHCP or a similar scheme is not
Simplified header format: Simplified IPV6 header was as a result of
removal, renaming or retaining of some IPV4 header fields and introducing
a new optional extension headers; with the headers chained. These added
more flexibility to IPV6 header
despite the fact that it now has a fixed
length of 40 bytes and incorporates two 16 bytes addresses (source and
destination) four times the size of IPV4 header. The two IPV6 headers
defines the minimum need for an IPV6 packet, which includes the version,
priority (traffic class), flow label, payload length, next header, hop limit and
a field to say, “and there’s another header after this
one”. Hence, there is no limit to the number of headers that can be
chained together in this way.
Fig. 1: simplified IPV6 header format.
The IPV6 header fields as defined (Biemolt, 2002) are thus presented:
The version field is a 4
bit field that designates the Internet protocol
version number of the packet. It is important for routing since
sages must be handled differently.
bit priority field enables a source to specify a desired packet
delivery priority with respect to another packet from the same source.
This field has two ranges of priority
one for real
time traffic that is
at a constant rate and does not respond to congestion, and vice
byte) flow label field can be utilized by a source/sender to
label the packet for which it requests special handling by IPV6 routers.
This includes non
default Quality of
Service (QoS) or real
The payload length field contains a 16
bit (2 byte) unsigned integer that
specified the size of the packet following the header in octets.
The next header field serves as an 8
bit (byte) selector.
The hop limit field c
ontains an 8
bit (1 byte) unsigned integer, which is
decremented each time a particular packet is forwarded. If a packet
with hop limit zero is encountered, it is discarded.
The extension headers have optional number of bits due to the
complexity of the p
acket being handled.
byte) source address field contains the address of the
initial source of the packet.
byte) Destination address field contains the address of
the packet’s final destination, if the routing header is prese
Furthermore, the new solution (the simplified IPV6 header) is much more
elegant, in that, straight forward tasks need only produce simple and light
weight header while allowing more complicated applications or systems add
whatever intricacy they need.
Hence, the source decides the highest packet
size handled by all routes throughout the destination. The source node then
fragments the message into packets that do not need any further
fragmentation by routers, and thus decreasing the total load on the r
and also allows vendors the ease to implement hardware acceleration for
IPV6 extension headers: IPV6 includes improved support for options.
These options are placed in the extension headers, which are located
between IPV6 header and
the transport layer header and can be inserted
when needed. They are of arbitrary length and the total amount of options
in a packet can be greater than the 40 bytes allowed by IPV6. The main
extension headers defined so far by IPV6 includes the Hop
header, the routing header, fragmentation header, destination options
headers, authentication header and the encapsulation security payload
Hop options header
A set of options needed to perform
certain management or debugging f
unctions and used for such special
options that require hop
Routing Header (RH)
used to mandate special routing.
Fragmentation header (FH)
used for message fragmentation and re
Destination option header
This header contai
ns a set of options to be
processed only by the final destination node having contained optional
information that is to be examined by the destination node.
Authentication header (AH)
used for security features like data
authentication, data integrity an
replay protection for the entire
IPV6 packet by use of the Hash Message Authentication Code
(HMAC). Data authentication ensures that an IP packet received by a
computer (node) actually came from the given source address in the
source address header
. Data integrity ensures that the contents of an
IP packet have not been modified along the path from source node to
the destination node, by use of the Integrity Check Value (ICV). While,
replay protection ensures that once a packet is received, an
packet with modified data won’t also be accepted as valid data.
Encapsulation Security Payload (ESP)
another security header that
provides authentication and encryption ensuring message privacy or
confidentiality. ESP header also provides anti
Confidentiality refers to the fact that a given computer receiving an IP
packet can be assured that nobody else has right to the contents of the
IP packet, besides the routers needing necessary information. ESP
header also contains the Se
curity Parameter Index (SPI), which
identifies the Security Association (SA) that employs which Internet
Key Exchange (IKE) parameters. These mechanisms and parameters
can be used individually or collectively to ensure varying level of
security. The figu
re 2 below shows how the extension header fits into
an IPV6 packet [Huitema, 1998]:
Fig. 2: Extension headers in IPV6 packet.
IPV6 headers are advantageous in that they allow for more efficient, less
limitations on the length of options in IPV6, and gr
eater flexibility such that if
the needs for new extensions arise, they can be added. These will be highly
important as the Internet evolves to meet the demands of the changing
markets of the future.
when mentioning mobile devices and IP,
it is important to
note that a special protocol called “mobile IP” is one of the requirements
for every IPV6 stack, since our networks these days are becoming more
and more mobile and wireless. Thus, anywhere there is IPV6 going, there
is support for roam
ing between different networks with global notification
when one leaves one network and enter another, without having to jump a
number of loops in order to get things working.
Mobile IPV6 makes use of a destination options header and a
routing header. Bot
h the routing header and the destination options
header are used with mobile IPV6 to ensure that applications do not lose
their TCP connection while a user is roaming from one network to another.
Mobile IP uses home agent, home address, and care
Mode Stack: The ability to interface with other networks types
built into the IPV6 standards. The main design consideration is being
able to tunnel or encapsulate the version six (IPV6) message into the other
version (IPV4). Implem
enting the dual
mode stack can take advantage of
the existing version four (IPV4) network and also exploit the advantages of
the new version six (IPV6) networks, as well as some other network
infrastructures as Open System Interconnection (OSI) or IPX/SPX
(Internet Packet Exchange/Sequence Packet Exchange) type networks.
Embedded software providers like Integrated system Inc., offer
embedded developers the necessary software for implementing a V4/V6
mode stack. For instance, Epilogue AttachE plus 6 is
IP stack used to implement IPV6 dual
mode stack. This has important
attributes as small memory size (with the V4 stacks requiring 25 to 30
kilobytes of Read Only Memory (ROM) and the V6 stack requiring 50 to 60
kilobytes of ROM), configurab
ility of V6 and V6 options to the processor,
operating system (OS), and tool
IP Security (IP sec): IPV6 specification incorporates security right at the
lowest level from day one. The security protocol of IPV6 is known as
otocol Security (IP sec), and is implemented using the optional
IPV6 extension headers to provide authentication, encryption and privacy
as earlier discussed. IPsec utilizes the Authentication Header (AH) and
the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) heade
r separately or in
combination to provide the desired security. Both the AH and ESP
headers are used in the following modes:
where the protocol is applied to the entire IP packet to
ensure security of the entire packet.
where the protocol is just applied to the transport
layer (i.e. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), User Datagram Protocol
(UDP), Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)), in the form of headers
AH or ESP, followed by the transport protocol d
ata (header data). These
are illustrated below:
Fig. 3: “Tunnel mode” and “Transport mode” IPsec
Notably, IPsec involves a concept known as Security Association (SA), which
is uniquely identified using the security parameter Index (SPI
a field in th
AH / ESP headers), destination IP address, and security protocol headers (AH
and ESP). The SA defines the type of security services for a connection, and
it contains the key needed for authentication or encryption and the
authentication or encryption al
gorithms to be used. The Internet Key
Exchange (IKE) then describes the process used to negotiate parameters
needed to establish a new SA, Internet secret key, cryptographic algorithm,
Flexibility: The flexibility in IPV6 is represented in two
Exercising control over options handling, and
Permitting applications to designate the manner in which it treats
These endow IPV6 with the versatility with new options updated with regards
to new functionalities. Also, IPV6 user
s can choose either (automatic) or strict
(specific) routing methods for each loop throughout the path. IPV6 integrates
this flexibility to incorporate additional routing methods as may be needed in
future. IPV6 also permits all the functions of neighbor
both retires and time
out parameters to be configured locally. This yields
greater flexibility in addition to the capability of optimizing neighbor discovery
for both the needs and constraints of each individual’s work.
of Service (QoS): A quality of service (QoS) feature can be
implemented using the flow label of the IPV6 header. QoS is a feature that
ensures that high priority is given to certain packets that need to arrive at their
destination in a timely manner. Fo
streaming video or voice over IP
(VOIP), these packets need to arrive close together since a small delay can
make the voice choppy. If there is just text being transmitted, a small delay
between the packets is really of no consequences.
ing modes: The extended and / or expanded address space is
extremely large even though that was one of the driving reasons for
developing the IPV6. But to manage IPV6 addresses, they are split into two
parts: the net bits
bits that identify the network
a machine is on, and the host
bits that identify a machine on a network or sub
network. The net bits are
the “left” or the most significant bits of an IP number, while the host bits are
the “right” or the least significant bits.
N net bits
N) host bits
Fig. 4: Two
part IPV6 address
An IPV6 address can be in one of the 3 categories: Unicast, Anycast and
Multicast. The format prefix of these classes of IPV6 addresses has fields
comprising the leading bits in
used to identify single interfaces and are of
several forms. These include the global communication; local
for use on a single link for purposes such as auto
configuration (i.e. link
ess), and for use in a single site
use address), and the IPV4 compatible IPV6 host
that allow hosts and routers to dynamically tunnel IPV6
packets over IPV4 routing infrastructures (where the exist even after
transition to IPV6).
unlike unicast address, this address is
assigned to more than one interface (usually the property of different
computers). Anycast address is used as part of a routing sequence to
select ISP that will carry that node’s traffic and
can be used to identify
the set of routers attached to a subnet or the set of routers providing
entry into a certain domain. Anycast addresses have the same format
with unicast address since they are syntactically indistinguishable from
used to identify a group of interfaces and to
reach a number of hosts in the same multicast group
which can be
machines spread across the Internet. It is possible for an interface to
belong to multiple multicast groups and t
here are two special multicast
addresses that supercede the broadcast addresses from IPV4. One is
the “all routers” multicast address; the other is for “all hosts”.
Multicasting decreases the load on hosts and routers to transmit
neighbor discovery messa
ges only to those machines that are
registered to accept them. This efficiently eliminates the extraneous
ADVANTAGES OF IPV6 OVER PREVIOUS SUITE
The IPV6 development has led to the emergence of five major advantages
over IPV4. The first is scal
ability. The address space of IPV6 is 128 bits and hence
addresses above 340 undecilion (i.e. about 2
or 340.2823669 x 10
compared to the 32 bits of IPV4, which address only about 4.2 billion (i.e. 2
) hosts. This allows for all r
easonable cases of growth of the Internet.
In the second place is security. IPV6 includes security in its basic
specification, like encryption and decryption capabilities, and authentication
and/privacy of packets. Placing host authentication information
at the Internet layer
in IPV6 provides considerably more protection to higher protocols and services than
what IPV4 offers.
Another advantage of IPV6 is in its consideration for real
time applications like
video conferencing and streaming audio and video.
IPV6 employs a mechanism that
assists in special handling and routing of these real
Again, IPV6 is advantageous in that it also includes plug and play support in
standard specification. This makes it easier for movie users to connect machi
the Internet. This also addresses the auto
configurability needs of nomadic personal
computing devices and the emerging accelerated technologies both fixed and
Yet, another advantage noted is the presence of a cleaner specification and
timization of the protocol that ensures optimized headers and address formats.
This is highly important as the Internet evolves to meet the demands of the changing
markets of the future.
Finally, IPV6 has transitional flexibility in that; IPV6 can accommo
existence on the transitional mechanisms long enough with IPV4 before transition to
IPV6 is fully completed.
DETERMINISTIC METHODS AND PARAMETERS
Determination of the extent of needed readiness of the Nigerian ISP
companies and the Nigerian I
nternet industry in general, to deploy and use the IPV6
Internet with the actual extent of efficient application and deployment of IPV6 Internet
was carried out, using Owerri Municipality in Imo State of Nigeria, as a case study.
There were two methods of
data acquisition employed in the investigation.
These include the primary and secondary methods. The primary method (also called
first hand method), involved getting appropriate real information/data from the
Internet Service Provider (ISP) companies an
d network engineers by use of
questionnaires, interviews and eye witness accounts. These were backed
up by the
secondary method involving the use of documented information/data available on the
The results were collated and presented tabularly b
y use of code keys and
assumed percentages based on the chosen code keys conversion, but analyzed
proper by use of bar charts and mean calculations.
RESULTS PRESENTATION, ANAYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The ISP companies visited, the specifications of intere
st areas, and the raw
data obtained as at the time of writing this material, are here collated and presented
tabularly using the following codes and keys:
Codes assigned to visited companies
Adesemi Nig. Ltd.
iii) Asonet Nig. Ltd.
Citi Communications Ltd.
Analytical conversion keys used
Presentation of the current extent of need and readiness to deploy IPV6 in
Data provided and reasons (where
(A) Extent of IPV6
Quite new but welcomed.
Interesting and is welcome.
Quite new and allowed.
Quite new and interesting.
(B) Need and
readiness to change
Comfortable with IPV4 for now
(because implementation of IPV6 is
costly and clients are not ready yet).
Not quite ready because of cost of
Kept in view.
About to be considered in the near
with IPV4 for
(C) Eagerness to go
for new services
offered by IPV6
That will be if need be.
When implemented, yes.
Not quite, for now (because of cost of
Yes, but with time.
(D) Knowledge of
with current internet
Not quite confirmed.
Some current operating systems and
equipments are optimized for IPV6 e.g.
windows XP, Linux, Wind
Said to need one or two translation
Needs some network configurations
and management fools in mixed
foot the bills for IPV6
Not yet in need of them except for one
or two servers.
Undecided for now.
Kept for future consideration
Yes, but very few of them
Presentation of the current extent of spread and application of IPV6 in
Data provided and reasons (where
(A) Current Internet
distribution in Nigeria
Concentrated in the highly
industrialized and populated cities like
Lagos and Port Harcourt.
Little live IP addresses in
generally as congested in USA,
followed by Europe and Asia.
Live IP addresses more in highly
academic, research and industrial
places in Nigeria.
Not evenly distributed as more goes to
places in Nigeria where they are more
(The few live
(B) Spread of IPV6
equipments in Nigeria
We don’t really have them per say
except for a few IPV6 optimized
Generally small nationally speaking.
Not considered having much of them
Not quite till need arises.
poor for now).
(C) Number of
No known company X1 inclusive.
No even fully deployed in most first
world countries because of some
Not known, we have not yet.
Not deployed in X4 and doubts if fully
deployed in any.
fully running in
No known cases yet.
No use yet.
cases of full
(E) Efforts towards
on internet address
spread in Nigeria.
Nigeria can’t do much but to wait
Allow things to take their natural course
Now known explicit efforts.
IANA is calling
for the return of unused live
IP addresses for re
distribution, but this is
quite funny because Nigeria’s chance of
getting part of that is
(Little or no
Analysis of the current extent of need and read
iness to deploy IPV6 in
Estimating the current extent of need and readiness to deploy IPV6 in Nigeria
using mean calculation gave:
60 + 10 + 50 + 70 + 30
44% (i.e. fair)
Analysis of the current extent of spread and applica
tion of IPV6 in Nigeria
Estimating the current extent of spread and application of IPV6 in Nigeria using
mean calculation gave:
40 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10
14% (i.e. too poor)
Discussions on the results of analysis/discoveries made
The results of the analysis on data as presented overleaf revealed these two
facts about the seemingly general position of the Nigerian Internet Industry as at
The current extent of need and readiness of the Nigerian Internet industry
to deploy IP
V6 is fair (about 44%), suggesting an average and
encouraging awareness and monitor of global trends in the Internet arena.
The current extent of spread and application of IPV6 in the Nigerian
Internet Industry is too poor (about 14%), suggesting therefore
technologies have very little spread and application in the Nigerian Internet
Industry due to reasons like cost of change of equipments and
infrastructures, lack of expertise as should be needed, global politics
involved in IPV6 roll
out, and ot
her bottlenecks of IPV6 development both
presently experienced and those envisaged in future.
Therefore, to this end, it is conclusively and generally revealing that IPV6 is yet to be
fully deployed and used in Nigeria. This is also a pointer to the ex
tent of global
deployability and use of IPV6 Internet till date.
Also, from the generalized comparative conclusion
knowing that the world is
less a global village where every issue is as secret as an open newspaper,
then it will not be an over s
tatement to say that IPV6 deployment and use globally is
quite lacking even when so much has been said and done to encourage its full global
deployment. This development is most probably traceable to the USA Internet
Industry’s politics, which frustrates
the global deployment of IPV6, since they are the
highest bearers of IPV4 addresses.
Discovered also are some other present and envisaged future bottlenecks
and problems of the IPV6 Internet, which are issues of concern to be addressed
before IPV6, comple
te rollout. These present bottlenecks and problems are
associated with security, fairness versus scaling, monopoly and delay, difference in
IP telephony, disabled applications, caveats and resources and cost of changing
network equipments; whereas, the en
visaged future problems of IPV6 Internet are
perceived to have something to do with traffic engineering technology tumor and
complete transition impediments.
The unfair distribution of IPV4 Internet IP addresses is calling for a redress.
n estimated 75% of the IPV4 IP addresses was speculated to have been used up
as at the year 2003 and all the steps towards expanding the existing IPV4 addresses
and solve the Internet address depletion problem either failed or created their own
nd yet the real
life constraints of IPV4 Internet such as security,
reliability, flexibility and accessibility, refused to let go. Therefore, IPV6 was
developed to address and correct all IPV4 shortcomings and that with new features,
rd and backward compatibility as part of its fundamental design
some to equip IPV6 to be able to co
exist with IPV4 in mixed
networks [Carpenter and Moore, 2001] until full transition is achieved, while some
are for supporting future growt
hs [Edward, 2003] on the Internet. IPV6 undoubtedly
based networking technologies to penetrate new sectors, beginning
with home networks and the mobile sector. These applications alone represent
billions of electronic devices that are pot
entially connectable to the Internet.
Nevertheless, IPV6 development and deployment has introduced some
constraints especially financially and materially with their attendant involvement and
investment demands on humanware, hardware and software acquisiti
subscriptions. These have limited the rate of implementation of IPV6 globally and in
Nigeria particularly. Hence, the very poor spread and deployment of IPV6 in the
Nigerian Internet industry currently, according to the result of the comparative
nalysis done so far. However, a big turn around is anticipated as the IPV6 real
constraints and bottlenecks are improved for good. IPV6 is now a reality.
Biemolt, W. (March, 2002); “An overview of the introduction of IPV6 in the
08 (work in progress)”, Draft
Bradner, S., and Mankin, A. (1996); “Ipng: Internet Protocol Next
Generation”, MA: Addison
Wesley, Reading, p. 6.
Bertsekas, D., and Gallager, R. (1992); “Data Networks”, NJ:
Englewood Cliffs, pp 38
Carpenter, B., and Moore, K. (February, 2001); “Connection of IPV6
Domains Via IPV4 Clouds”, RFC 3056.
Comer, D., and Stevens, D. (2001); “ Internetworking with TCP/IP”, volume
Server programming an
d applications, NJ: Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, pp 17
Edward, S. (2003); “IPV6 in support of the future war fighter”, MD.Poc:
1699, White paper prepared by pro object corporation, Hanover,
Feyre, H. (May, 2001); “Introduction to
IPV6”, On Camp Magazine, Vol.
140, pp 1
Huitema, C. (1995); “Routing in the Internet”, NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, p 10.
Huitema, C. (1998); “IPV6: The new Internet Protocol”, NJ: Prentice Hall,
upper saddle River, pp 6
Keshav, S., and Sh
arma, R. (May 1998); “ Issues and trends in Router
Design”, IEEE Communications magazine, p 21.
Garcia and Widjaja India. (2000); ”Communication networks;
fundamental concepts and Key Architectures”, McGraw
Hill Series in
computer Services, USA, p 21
Miller, S. (1998); “IPV6: The next generation Internet protocol”, MA: Digital
press, Bedford, p. 15.
Rodriquez, A., et al. (2002); “ TCP/IP: Tutorial and Technical Overview”,
NJ: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 41
Stallings, W. (July, 1996
); “The New Internet Protocol”, IEE
Communications, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp 96
Stallings, W. (2004); “Data and Computer Communications”, 7
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ0758, pp 550
Sklar, B. (November, 1993); “Defining, De
signing and Evaluating Digital
Communication Systems”, IEEE Communications magazine, p 30.
Shenker, S. (September, 1995); “Fundamental Design Issues for the
Future Internet”, IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications, p. 8.
Stevens, W. (1994); “TC
P/IP Illustrated: The Protocols”, Volume 1, MA:
Wesley, Reading, p 20.
Tsirtsis, G., and Srisuresh, P. (February, 2000); “Network Address
Protocol Translation (NAT
PT)”, RFC 2766.
Internet Protocol Version Six
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
Internet Protocol Version Four
Internet Protocol Next Generation
Local Area Network
Metropolitan Area Network
Wide Area Network
Protocol Data Unit
Service Data Unit
Protocol Control Information
Internet Control Message Protocol
American Standard Code for Information Interchange
Internet Service Providers
Network Address Translation
Internet Protocol Security
Quality of Service
Universal Mobile Telecommunication System
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
Hash Message Authentication Code
Integrity Check Value
Encapsulation Security Payload
Security Parameter Index
Internet Key Exchange
Open System Interconnection
Internet Packet Exchange/Sequence Packet Exchange
Read Only Memory
User Datagram protocol
Internet Control Message Protocol
ademic Backgrounds of Researchers
F. K. Opara
is a lecturer in the department of Electrical
and Electronic Engineering of Federal university of
Technology Owerri (FUTO); and a major in Data
Communication Engineering. He is a researcher on
related subject matters.
is a graduate of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering from Federal university of
Technology Owerri (FUTO); and a major in Electronics
and Computer Engineering. He is a researcher on
Electronic and Computer related subject matters.
Paper / Manuscript No.: JERD / 2007 / 031