Abstract
The IPv6 transition problem has become the most urgent and practical obstacle holding back the development of the next generation Internet. Various translation and tunneling techniques have been proposed to solve the transition problem. Tunneling satisfies the demand of IPv4-IPv6 traversing while translation achieves IPv4-IPv6 interconnection. However, translation faces several challenges including heterogeneous addressing, operation complexity and scalability issues. Although researchers have attempted to decompose and simplify these problems, little achievement has been made due to these problems being bound to the very nature of translation. In this paper we propose a novel translation spot selection approach that solves the existing issues from a new angle and hence makes effective use of translation techniques. Based on this approach, we propose a transition framework for transit and edge networks. This framework integrates tunneling and translation to support both traversing and IPv4-IPv6 interconnection, and uses them to create communication models flexibly for different demand scenarios. Moreover, we present signaling methods for both cases, to achieve automatic translation spot selection and context advertisement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
C. Metz, “Moving toward an ipv6 future,” IEEE Internet Comput., vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 25–26, May–Jun. 2003.
J. Wu, Y. Cui, C. Metz, and E. Rosen, “RFC 5565: Softwire Mesh Framework,” IETF, Jun. 2009.
Y. Cui, J. Wu, X. Li, M. Xu, and C. Metz, “The transition to IPv6, Part II: The softwire mesh framework solution,” IEEE Internet Comput., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 76–80, Sept.–Oct. 2006.
W. Townsley and O. Troan, “RFC 5969: IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd) — Protocol Specification,” IETF, Aug. 2010.
X. Li, C. Bao, and F. Baker, “RFC 6145: IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm,” IETF, Apr. 2011.
E. Nordmark, “RFC 2765: Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (SIIT),” IETF, Feb. 2000.
Y. Zhu, M. Chen, H. Zhang, and X. Li, “Stateless mapping and multiplexing of IPv4 addresses in migration to IPv6 internet,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM 2008, New Orleans, USA, pp. 2248–2252.
G. Tsirtsis and P. Srisuresh, “RFC 2766: Network Address Translation — Protocol Translation (NAT-PT),” IETF, Feb. 2000.
M. Bagnulo, P. Matthews, and I. van Beijnum, “RFC 6146: Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers,” IETF, Apr. 2011.
C. Aoun and E. Davies, “RFC 4966: Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator — Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status,” IETF, Jul. 2007.
M. Bagnulo, A. Sullivan, P. Matthews, and I. van Beijnum, “RFC 6147: DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers,” IETF, Apr. 2011.
A. Durand, R. Droms, J. Woodyatt, and Y. Lee, “RFC 6333: Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion,” IETF, Aug. 2011.
Y. Cui, J. Wu, P. Wu, C. Metz, O. Vautrin, and Y. Lee, “Public IPv4 over Access IPv6 Network,” IETF draft, Sept. 2011.
Y. Cui, J. Wu, P. Wu, Q. Sun, C. Xie, and C. Zhou, “Lightweight 4over6 in Access Network,” IETF draft, Jul. 2011.
D. Wing, S. Cheshire, M. Boucadair, R. Penno, and P. Selkirk, “Port Control Protocol,” IETF draft, Oct. 2011.
G. Maier, A. Feldmann, V. Paxson, and M. Allman, “On dominant characteristics of residential broadband Internet traffic,” in Proc. 9th ACM SIGCOMM Conf. Internet Measurement, Chicago, USA, 2009, pp. 90–102.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, P., Cui, Y., Xu, M. et al. Flexible integration of tunneling and translation for IPv6 transition. Netw.Sci. 1, 23–33 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13119-011-0005-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13119-011-0005-4