DETERMINATION OF IPV6 PROTOCOL, ITS DEPLOYMENT AND EFFICIENCY, IN COMPUTER SYSTEM NETWORKS IN NIGERIA

blackstartNetworking and Communications

Oct 26, 2013 (3 years and 9 months ago)

75 views


1

DETERMINATION OF IPV6 PROTOCOL, ITS DEPLOYMENT
AND EFFICIENCY, IN COMPUTER SYSTEM NETWORKS IN
NIGERIA


BY


OPARA, F. K. and ETUS CHUKWUEMEKA


Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,

Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria.




ABSTRAC
T


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
system and

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
to
have far
-
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
ral
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
reco
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.



Keywords:


IP numbers, n
ext generation IP, network infrastructure, transitional strategies,
deployment, and efficiency.



1.0

INTRODUCTION


Internet protocol version six (IPV6), also known as the Transmission control
protocol


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
Inter
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

2

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
-
bit addre
ss spaces, above 340 undecilion (i.e. 340x10
36

or 2
128
)
computer systems (unique hosts) can be hosted on the Internet’s multiple and mixed
networks


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):

a.

The IPV6 base protocol (TCP/IP)

b.

The address specification

c.

Description of the control protocol known as the Internet Control Message
Protocol (ICMP).

d.

Problems of an enhanced Domain Name Service (DNS)
; and

e.

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
more.


Many network administrators, however, for fear that an incomplete one
-
day
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
-
versa by
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
the ch
angeover now.


3

2.0

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
verloaded
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
global community


IP telephony, movies, e
-
mails, 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
-
related deficienc
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
-
line gaming.

However, the most prominent of the several approaches made to solve the
IPV4
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
Translation (NAT)
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
er
-
to
-
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

4

support for mobile computing, among other added improvements that may come with
its development. IPV6 is now the answer.


3.0

OVERVIEW OF IPV6 STRUCTURE

IPV6 is a protocol developed for the next generation internet and is known
as
the TCP/IP suite version number six, with 128
-
bit address space which can address
well over 340 undecillion (2
128
or 340.2823669 x 10
36
) unique hosts. It solves the
problems of IPV4 by introducing needed new features while essentially following the
sam
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,
expanded auto
-
configuration, simplified header format, extension header, mobile
IPV6, Dual
-
mode stack, Internet protocol security (IP sec), flexibility, Quality of
service (QoS) and the IPV6 addressing modes. These are con
sidered below, one
after another.

(a)

Extended and expanded addressing capabilities: These allow IPV6 to:

(i)

Handle additional addressing/addressable nodes


IPV6 addresses
about 3.402823 669 x 10
38

(over 340 undecillion nodes, for short), that
translates to

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
-
slice
toaster scenario.


(ii)

Handle additional addr
essing levels


IPV6 allows end
-
to
-
end/peer
-
to
-
peer communication without NAT or other short
-
term workarounds against
IPV4 shortage. All these allow for full, unconstrained IP connectivity for
today’s IP
-
based machines as well as upcoming mobile devices l
ike PDAs
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.


5

(b)

Expanded auto
-
configuration: with expanded auto
-
configuration, Internet
machines a
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
router on
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
space padded
-
out with zeros, or by use of
routers’ address information (in
a more sophisticated environment with DHCP
-

Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol), and by use of solicitation messages authenticate
the address as a unique address for itself. In addition to the use of
solicitation messages
, 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

in
use.


(c)

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
extension headers


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.




6


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
mes
sages must be handled differently.



The 4
-
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
sent
at a constant rate and does not respond to congestion, and vice
versa.



The 24
-
bit (3
-
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
-
time service.



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.



The 128
-
bit (16
-
byte) source address field contains the address of the
initial source of the packet.



The 128
-
bit (16
-
byte) Destination address field contains the address of
the packet’s final destination, if the routing header is prese
nt.


7

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
outers
and also allows vendors the ease to implement hardware acceleration for
IPV6 routers.


(d)

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
-
by
-
Hop options
header, the routing header, fragmentation header, destination options
headers, authentication header and the encapsulation security payload
header.



Hop
-
by
-
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
-
by
-
hop processing.



Routing Header (RH)


used to mandate special routing.



Fragmentation header (FH)


used for message fragmentation and re
-
assembly.



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
d anti
-
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

8

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,
anti
-
replay protection ensures that once a packet is received, an
other
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
-
rep
lay protection.
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.


9

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.


(e)

Mobile IPV6:
-

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
-
of addres
s.


(f)

IPV6 Dual


Mode Stack: The ability to interface with other networks types
is in
-
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
dual
-
mode stack. For instance, Epilogue AttachE plus 6 is

a source
-
code
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

10

kilobytes of ROM), configurab
ility of V6 and V6 options to the processor,
operating system (OS), and tool
-
chain independence.


(g)

IP Security (IP sec): IPV6 specification incorporates security right at the
lowest level from day one. The security protocol of IPV6 is known as
Internet Pr
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:


(i)

“Tunnel mode”


where the protocol is applied to the entire IP packet to
ensure security of the entire packet.


(ii)

“Transp
ort mode”


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
e
AH / ESP headers), destination IP address, and security protocol headers (AH

11

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,
etc.


(h)

Flexibility: The flexibility in IPV6 is represented in two

aspects:

i.

Exercising control over options handling, and

ii.

Permitting applications to designate the manner in which it treats
unknown options.

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

discovery including
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.


(I)

Quality
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
r in
-
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.


(J)

IPV6 address
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
-
bits that identify a machine on a network or sub
-
network. The net bits are

12

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


(128


N) host bits

Format prefix

Interface ID




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

the address.

(i)

Unicast Address


used to identify single interfaces and are of
several forms. These include the global communication; local
-
use
address


for use on a single link for purposes such as auto
-
address
configuration (i.e. link
-
local
-
use addr
ess), and for use in a single site
(i.e. site
-
local
-
use address), and the IPV4 compatible IPV6 host
address


that allow hosts and routers to dynamically tunnel IPV6
packets over IPV4 routing infrastructures (where the exist even after
transition to IPV6).


(ii)

Anycast Address


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
unicast addresses
.


(iii)

Multicast Address


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

13

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
packets.


4.0

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
128

or 340.2823669 x 10
36
) hosts
compared to the 32 bits of IPV4, which address only about 4.2 billion (i.e. 2
32

or
4.2x10
9
) 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
-
time packets.

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
nes to
the Internet. This also addresses the auto
-
configurability needs of nomadic personal
computing devices and the emerging accelerated technologies both fixed and
wireless.

Yet, another advantage noted is the presence of a cleaner specification and
op
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
date co
-
existence on the transitional mechanisms long enough with IPV4 before transition to
IPV6 is fully completed.



14

5.0

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
subject.


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.



6.0

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:


(a)

Codes assigned to visited companies
:

i)


Adesemi Nig. Ltd.




X 1

ii)


Lomasnet Ltd.




X 2

iii) Asonet Nig. Ltd.





X 3

iv)


Citi Communications Ltd.


X 4



(b)

Analytical conversion keys used
:

i)


(0
-
19)%



too poor

ii)


(20
-
39)%



poor

iii)


(40
-
59)%



fair

iv)


(60
-
79)%



good

v) (80
-
100)%



Very good







15



Presentation of the current extent of need and readiness to deploy IPV6 in
Nigeria
:


Specifications

Companies
providing
data

Data provided and reasons (where
necessary)

Harmonized
data
percentages

Sampled
extent and
their
implications

(A) Extent of IPV6
awareness and
acceptability currently

X1

X2

X3

X4

Quite new but welcomed.

Interesting and is welcome.

Quite new and allowed.

Quite new and interesting.



60%


Good

(Appreciated
and welcomed)

(B) Need and
readiness to change
to IPV6

X1




X2



X3


X4

Comfortable with IPV4 for now
(because implementation of IPV6 is
costly and clients are not ready yet).


Not quite ready because of cost of
implementation.


Kept in view.


About to be considered in the near
future.






10%




Too poor

(Comfortable
with IPV4 for
now).

(C) Eagerness to go
for new services
offered by IPV6

X1


X2


X3



X4

That will be if need be.


When implemented, yes.


Not quite, for now (because of cost of
implementation)


Yes, but with time.





50%


Fair

(New services
optio
ns
interesting
enough).

(D) Knowledge of
IPV6 compatibility
with current internet
equipments and
applications

X1


X2





X3



X4

Not quite confirmed.


Some current operating systems and
equipments are optimized for IPV6 e.g.
windows XP, Linux, Wind
ows 2003
server.


Said to need one or two translation
mechanisms.


Needs some network configurations
and management fools in mixed
networks.








70%




Good

(Needs some
translation and
transition
mechanisms
and optimized
applications).

(E) Readiness

to
foot the bills for IPV6
optimized and
implementing
equipments and
packages


hardwares &
softwares)

X1



X2


X3


X4

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

especially
softwares





30%



Poor

(Considered
not too
necessary for
now)







16



Presentation of the current extent of spread and application of IPV6 in
Nigeria
:


Specifications

Companies
providing
data

Data provided and reasons (where
necessary)

Har
monized
data
percentages

Sampled
extent and
their
implications

(A) Current Internet
distribution in Nigeria

X1




X2




X3




X4

Concentrated in the highly
industrialized and populated cities like
Lagos and Port Harcourt.


Little live IP addresses in

Nigeria
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
needed.








40%




Fair

(The few live
internet
addresses are
more
concentrated in
places with
higher demand
or needed)

(B) Spread of IPV6
Technology and
equipments in Nigeria

X1




X2


X3



X4

We don’t really have them per say
except for a few IPV6 optimized
operati
ng systems.


Generally small nationally speaking.


Not considered having much of them
yet.


Not quite till need arises.






20%




Poor

(Patronization
due to
necessity is
poor for now).

(C) Number of
ISPs/users
companies fully
deploying IPV6
technolog
ies in
Nigeria

X1


X2




X3


X4

No known company X1 inclusive.


No even fully deployed in most first
world countries because of some
politics involved.


Not known, we have not yet.


Not deployed in X4 and doubts if fully
deployed in any.





0%



Too
poor

(No known
companies or
users fully
deployed yet).

(D) IPV6
applications/services
fully running in
Nigeria.

X1


X2


X3


X4

Not yet.


No known cases yet.


No use yet.


Applications/services Nil.




0%


Too poor

(No known
cases of full
proof ye
t)

(E) Efforts towards
future improvement
on internet address
enlargement and
spread in Nigeria.

X1



X2


X3


X4

Nigeria can’t do much but to wait
expectantly.


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

too slim.







10%




Too poor

(Little or no
efforts
currently)


17



Analysis of the current extent of need and read
iness to deploy IPV6 in
Nigeria
:



Estimating the current extent of need and readiness to deploy IPV6 in Nigeria
using mean calculation gave:


Mean

=

60 + 10 + 50 + 70 + 30

=

220

=

44% (i.e. fair)

5

5






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:


Mean

=

40 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10

=

70

=

14% (i.e. too poor)





5






5


18



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
date:

1)

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.

2)

The current extent of spread and application of IPV6 in the Nigerian
Internet Industry is too poor (about 14%), suggesting therefore

that IPV6
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
more
-
or
-
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.


19

7.0

CONCLUSION


The unfair distribution of IPV4 Internet IP addresses is calling for a redress.
A
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
problems; a
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,
specifications, forwa
rd and backward compatibility as part of its fundamental design
considerations


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
allows Internet
-
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
on and
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
a
nalysis done so far. However, a big turn around is anticipated as the IPV6 real
-
life
constraints and bottlenecks are improved for good. IPV6 is now a reality.


20

REFERENCES


1.

Biemolt, W. (March, 2002); “An overview of the introduction of IPV6 in the
Intern
et: introduction
-
to
-
IPV6
-
Transition
-
08 (work in progress)”, Draft
-
ietf
-
ngtrans.


2.

Bradner, S., and Mankin, A. (1996); “Ipng: Internet Protocol Next
Generation”, MA: Addison
-
Wesley, Reading, p. 6.


3.

Bertsekas, D., and Gallager, R. (1992); “Data Networks”, NJ:

Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, pp 38
-
40.


4.

Carpenter, B., and Moore, K. (February, 2001); “Connection of IPV6
Domains Via IPV4 Clouds”, RFC 3056.


5.

Comer, D., and Stevens, D. (2001); “ Internetworking with TCP/IP”, volume
III: Client
-
Server programming an
d applications, NJ: Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, pp 17
-
20.


6.

Edward, S. (2003); “IPV6 in support of the future war fighter”, MD.Poc:
410
-
993
-
1699, White paper prepared by pro object corporation, Hanover,
p 11.


7.

Feyre, H. (May, 2001); “Introduction to
IPV6”, On Camp Magazine, Vol.
140, pp 1
-
3.


8.

Huitema, C. (1995); “Routing in the Internet”, NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, p 10.


9.

Huitema, C. (1998); “IPV6: The new Internet Protocol”, NJ: Prentice Hall,
upper saddle River, pp 6
-
7.


10.

Keshav, S., and Sh
arma, R. (May 1998); “ Issues and trends in Router
Design”, IEEE Communications magazine, p 21.


11.

Leon
-
Garcia and Widjaja India. (2000); ”Communication networks;
fundamental concepts and Key Architectures”, McGraw
-
Hill Series in
computer Services, USA, p 21
.


12.

Miller, S. (1998); “IPV6: The next generation Internet protocol”, MA: Digital
press, Bedford, p. 15.


13.

Rodriquez, A., et al. (2002); “ TCP/IP: Tutorial and Technical Overview”,
NJ: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 41
-
43.


14.

Stallings, W. (July, 1996
); “The New Internet Protocol”, IEE
Communications, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp 96
-
108.


15.

Stallings, W. (2004); “Data and Computer Communications”, 7
th

Edition,
Pearson
-
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ0758, pp 550
-
566.


21


16.

Sklar, B. (November, 1993); “Defining, De
signing and Evaluating Digital
Communication Systems”, IEEE Communications magazine, p 30.


17.

Shenker, S. (September, 1995); “Fundamental Design Issues for the
Future Internet”, IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications, p. 8.


18.

Stevens, W. (1994); “TC
P/IP Illustrated: The Protocols”, Volume 1, MA:
Addison
-
Wesley, Reading, p 20.


19.

Tsirtsis, G., and Srisuresh, P. (February, 2000); “Network Address
Translation


Protocol Translation (NAT
-
PT)”, RFC 2766.


20.


http:
//www.shore.net

/~ws/DCC6e.html


21.


http://www.williamStallings.com/Dcc6e.html

22

ACRONYMS


IP

-

Internet Protocol

IPV6

-

Internet Protocol Version Six

TCP/IP
-

Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol

IPV4

-

Internet Protocol Version Four

IPng

-

Internet Protocol Next Generation

LAN

-

Local Area Network


MAN

-

Metropolitan Area Network

WAN

-

Wide Area Network

PDU

-

Protocol Data Unit

SDU

-

Service Data Unit

PCI

-

Protocol Control Information

ICMP

-

Internet Control Message Protocol

DNS

-

Domain

Name Service

ASCII

-

American Standard Code for Information Interchange

ISP

-

Internet Service Providers

NAT

-

Network Address Translation

IPsec

-

Internet Protocol Security

QOS

-

Quality of Service

UMTS

-

Universal Mobile Telecommunication System

DHCP

-

Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol

RH

-

Routing Header

FH

-

Fragmentation Header

AH

-

Authentication Header

HMAC

-

Hash Message Authentication Code

ICV

-

Integrity Check Value

ESP

-

Encapsulation Security Payload

SPI

-

Security Parameter Index

SA

-

Securi
ty Association

IKE

-

Internet Key Exchange

OSI

-

Open System Interconnection

IPX/SPX
-

Internet Packet Exchange/Sequence Packet Exchange

ROM

-

Read Only Memory

OS

-

Operating System

UDP

-

User Datagram protocol

ICMP

-

Internet Control Message Protocol


23

Ac
ademic Backgrounds of Researchers



1.

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
communicatio
n
-
related subject matters.


e
-
mail:
kefelop@yahoo.com



2.

Etus Chukwuemeka

is a graduate of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering from Federal university of
Technology Owerri (FUTO); and a major in Electronics
and

and Computer Engineering. He is a researcher on
Electronic and Computer related subject matters.


e
-
mail:
etuscw@yahoo.com



Paper / Manuscript No.: JERD / 2007 / 031