Ipv6 Deployment Case Studies
Figure 1: Graphical internet usage trend 9
Figure 2: IPv6 tunneling 11
Figure 3: Data routing 13
Figure 4: Internet protocol suite 15
In the midst of the number of IPv4 addresses almost entirely depleted, the realization of IPv6 has become a prime concern for many organizations. However, it is not possible to, immediately, change the whole thing over to IPv6 without a few transitions. This Paper takes a look at the ways that can be used to successfully transit to IPv6 from IPv4 among other deployment issues.
Section 1: IPv6 deployment strategy
The global IPv6 deployment recently made a significant milestone on the internet. The proportion of users getting Google services through IPV6 went beyond the previous 2% threshold. This information was made available by Google’s control published statistics. However, this is still a comparatively small fraction of course, though it is vital as a determinant of improved usage of IPV6 globally. In the year 2012, it also crossed 1% threshold as at that time. Currently, there are more than twice as many IPv6 linked users from the time worldIPv6 was started in mid 2012 with 2013 marking the third year global IPv6 practice that has doubled. This information concurs well for continual IPv6 deployment. Many network operators around the world were recently witnessed as they started rolling out IPv6 to their subscribers, and various network operators who had then begun that process have kept on increasing their own contributions. The roll out of IPv6 took place last year in South Africa, Germany, Swisscom, North America, and Singapore by different operators. Google, Yahoo, and other internet service providers share measurements of IPv6 deployment from many network operators all over the world. These measurements offer significant viewpoint on IPv6 deployment, although there is an additional view. For a network operator, the quantities of IPv6 traffic raise exceptionally fast as end users are enabled since so much admired web content is already accessible via IPv6. It is anticipated that these network operators will report numbers that are significantly higher as a percentage than the total seen by the worldwide web companies.
IPV6 deployment in Google Network
The deployment of IPV6 by Google was based on the methodology that was driven by four principles. The four principles are reliability implementation, iterative or repetitive work, global thinking and trying to enable IPV6 everywhere and finally elimination of down time. The deployment was planned in phases. To begin with, they started creating full and inclusive addressing plan for the different sized offices, campus buildings, and data centers. They used the early addressing system for IPV6 which followed the rules specified in IPV6 Unicast Address assignment: assign/64 for each VLAN, assign/56 for each building, assign/48 for each campus or office.
They chose to employ Stateless address Auto-Configuration Capability(SLAAC) for IPV6 address allocations to the end hosts which permits the host to produce its own address by use of a combination of both locally accessible information and the information advertised by routers. This ensures that no manual address allocation will be needed.
They then designed the IPV6 network link itself where they preferred to use choices like dual-stack where possible. In the case where dual stack is not used, then they had to build diverse kinds of tunnels like 6 to 4 transitioning mechanism. This was built on top of the existing IPV4 infrastructure or by creating separate IPV6 infrastructure although this was not their preferred choice. They did not prefer this method because this could imply extra time and resources for ordering of data circuits, as well as building separate infrastructure for IPV6 link.
In the first phase, Google first ARIN- assigned/40 IPV6 space for GOOGLE IT. They also deployed a single test router with dual-stacked link using their upstream transit provider in 2008. The main purpose of them having separate device was so that they could be able to experiment with non-standard IOS versions. Also, it would enable them keep away from the risk of having high resource usage such as the CPU power. The initial volunteers to test IPV6 protocol had one GRE tunnel. Each tunnel was running from their work stations to this IPV6 competent router. This router could at times give around 200ms latency because of reaching relatively closely to the located IPV6 sites through broker device on the opposite side.
Phase I – dual -stack separate hosts and labs
The following stages, through this early implementation phase, were to create many fully dual-stacked labs. These stages are shown in phase1 and then link them to the dual-stacked router using the same GRE tunnels. However, These GRE tunnels were then terminated at the lab routers instead of termination at certain hosts. In this phase2, they started dual-stacking the whole offices and campus buildings as shown bellow. They then build a GRE tunnel from the WAN B order router at each location to the IPV6 peering router.
Phase II - dual - stack offices
In this phase, Google began dual-stacking the whole offices while trying to give priorities to deployment in offices with immediate needs for IPV6 as shown bellow. These immediate users were like engineers working on the development or support for IPV6 applications. By use of this phase approach, it permits them to, slowly, increase skills and self-assurance as well as to verify that IPV6 is steady easy enough to manage for deployment in their global network.
Phase III - dual - stack the upstream WAN connections to transit and MPLS VPN providers
IPV6 deployment in Yahoo Network
The opening of Classes interdomain routing (CIDR) in the Internet routing, in addition to IP address allotment techniques, in 1993 and the widespread use of network address translation (NAT) resulted to a delay in the expected IPV4 address translation, but the final phase of exhaustion began on 3 February 2011. Nevertheless, in spite of a decade extended expansion and completion history as a Standards Track protocol, universal worldwide deployment is still in its early years. As at September 2013, an approximately 4% of domain names and 16.2% of the networks on the internet have IPv6 protocol sustenance.
IPv6 has been put in to place on all main operating systems which are in use in commercial, business, as well as home consumer settings. As from 2008, the domain name system could be employed in IPv6. IPv6 was first utilized in a main world occasion during the 2008 summer Olympic Games, the leading showcase of IPv6 technology since the beginning of IPv6. A number of governments with the Federal US Government along with China are also commencing to need IPv6 competence on their communication facilities.
In 2009, Verizon authorized IPv6 function and denounced IPv4 as an alternative means for cellular (LTE) hardware. T-Mobile USA then followed the similar suit. As at June 2012, T-Mobile USA sustained external IPv6 access.
In current years, the rising market demand for extra data, in addition to smart devices with, persistent linkage, has contributed to propelling of the fast fresh growth and acceptance of the Internet of Things (IoT) technology. Every one of the sensors, as well as machine-readable identifiers, required to make the IoT realism. This situation would have to utilize IPv6 to house the tremendously large address space necessary. Even if the present provision of IPv4 addresses were not to be used up soon, the size of IPv4 is not immense enough to sustain the prospect needs of IoT. As a result, it is strongly alleged that the IoT will be the eventual driver for the worldwide implementation of IPv6 in the years to come.
Figure 1: Graphical internet usage trend
IPv6 was designed as a substitute for the current version, IPv4, which has been in use from 1982. It is currently in the final stages of exhausting its unallocated address space. Ipv6 marked its 10th anniversary as a Standards Track protocol in 2008. However, IPv6 still accounted for an exceedingly small portion of the used addresses and the traffic in the openly accessible Internet which is still dominated by IPv4. Its penetration was still less than one percent of Internet traffic in any country according to the Google study at that time. The leading countries in penetration were Russia, France, Ukraine, Norway and the United States in that order with United States having the least penetration.
The Google System Administration and network engineer Thomas Limoncelli recently wrote an enlightening paper on ‘Successful Strategies for IPv6 Rollouts’. The paper, introduced by TCP-IP fellow inventor and Internet star Vint Cerf, lists the sensible steps that can be used for a successful IPv6 transition. Limoncelli stated that the biggest choice for various organizations was to know where to start. He outlined three strategies being employed by organizations that are transits to IPv6. Those strategies that work, he says, tend to be those that center on some applications or Web sites.
IPv6 changeover approach
There is a pair of key approaches that suits to be applied when changing the existing network to IPv6 from IPv4. The approaches are dual stack, tunneling and translation.
Dual stack approach
The simplest technique, when changing to IPv6, is to run IPv6 on all of the devices that are at present running IPv4. It is extremely easy to implement in case it is something that is probably found on the corporate network. Nevertheless, for various organizations, IPv6 is not compatible with all the IPv4 devices and that is why other techniques have to be taken into account. Both Google and Yahoo use dual stack change over approach. Yahoo uses dual stack ipv4/ipv6 single-tier branch profile with IPv4 TCP/IP dual stack and IPv6 TCP/IP dual stack. Google utilizes BlueCove supported v2.0.x dual-stack IPv4/IPv6.
The majority people with a few networking expertise are conversant with the idea of tunneling. Tunneling is where a given data packet is undertaken through encapsulation. This covering allows its transmission clearly where it is decapsulate and retransmitted. There are different methods of tunneling for IPv6; several that are included as part of Cisco and other manufacturer’s certification tests. These methods include manual IPv6 tunnels, generic routing encapsulation (GRE) IPV6 tunnels, 6 to 4 tunnels, IPv6 rapid deployment (6th), IPv4 compatible tunnels, and Intra site automatic tunnel addressing protocol (ISATAP) tunnels. Yahoo uses automatic tunneling while Google uses 6 to 4 tunneling.
Manual Ipv6 tunnels are a tunneling technology where IPv6 are created and configured amid two routers that, each, have to support for either IPV4 or IPV6. The arriving traffic is encapsulated on the router at the source and tunneled through IPV4. Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) IPv6 tunnels is a code of behavior that was build up by Cisco and for reasons of IPv6 tunneling functions and is configured extraordinarily much the same as manual tunnels. GRE itself is intelligent; this makes it suitable for use in different network protocols. It is preferred in these uses than IPv4. When working with IPv6, a GRE tunnel can be utilized to tunnel IPv6 over IPv4 or IPv4 over IPv6. The case of manual tunnels is that there is a need to have both the source and the destination to be configured manually. In this case, both the source and destination should have IPv4 and IPv6. A 6to4 tunnel allows IPv6 to be tunneled via IPv4 just as the name suggest. In contrast with the formerly discussed tunneling techniques, the 6to4 technique is set up without human involvement. The IPv4 address used by the edge router is set in IPv6 address that is styled in a given way. IPv6 rapid deployment (6rd) was derived from the 6to4 technique although it allows the implementer to employ the IPv6 block that was allocated to it. The IPv4 Compatible tunneling technique is extremely alike for 6 to 4 tunneling; both offer a mechanism to tunnel IPv6 over IPv4. The main distinction is how IPv4 is embedded in the entire process. There is the embedding of IPv4 to the IPv6 which is used by the device that is utilizing. There has been the devaluing of IPv4. Although this is the case, they are still being examined. This includes the present Cisco ROUTE examination. Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) Tunnels, once more, like the other tunneling mechanisms, convey IPv6 traffic over IPv4; different from other techniques, the ISATAP technique is planned for use within the site and not amid two dual stacked edge devices. Information transmission between IPv6 hosts is handled via a central IPv6 proficient machine.
Figure 2: IPv6 tunneling
The third transition method is translation. Different from the above discussed tunneling techniques, the translation technique offers away to convert IPV6 to IPV4 traffic and vice versa. When employing the translation there is no encapsulation of the traffic though is converted to the destination kind or category, which may be either IPV4 or IPV6. There are two methods that are classically employed with converted IPV6 networks. They are Network address translation-Protocol translation (NAT-PT) and NAT64. The NAT-PT technique permits the capability to either statically or dynamically configure a conversion of IPV4 network address into IPV6 network address and vice versa. This is similar to extra classical NAT realization. In extra classical NAT, the process is, remarkably, identical though comprises a protocol conversion function. The NAT-PT, in addition, ties in Application Layer Gateway (ALG) functionality responsible, for the conversion of Domain name System (DNS) mappings amid set of rules (protocol). One of the major disadvantages to NAT-PT was the fact that it is tied in ALG functionality. This disadvantage was considered an obstacle to deployment. It later became devalued when NAT64 came with DNS64, both of which being configured and implemented separately. When this separate implementation was defined and accepted, the employment of NAT-PT went down. NAT64 offers both stateless and stateful alternative during the time of deployment with the latter keeping track of bindings and enables 1-to-N functionality.
Translations at all times have to have the URL. The history of translation in Yahoo began with Polish translation in 2002 followed by Chinese translation in late the same year which is still in progress. In November 2002, the German translation was started by Georg Käfer followed by French translation in early April 2003. In mid, the same year, a member of the MontevideoLibre, a project in Uruguay (South America) started the translation into Spanish in wiki format in October 2003; the Italian translation was initiated by Michele Ferritto with Japanese translation also taking place mid the same year. Nikolaos Tsarmpopoulos started the Greek translation on June 2004. By July 2005, Turkish translation was available followed by the Portuguese-Brazil translation on March 2007.
Structure of the internet
The most well-known constituent of the Internet model is the Internet Protocol (IP), which offers to address systems (IP addresses) for computers on the Internet. IP allows internetworking and in essence sets up the Internet itself. Internet Protocol version 4(IPv4) is the first version used on the first generation of the Internet and is still in leading exercise. It was intended to address up to ~4.3 billion (109) Internet hosts. However, the quick growth of the Internet had resulted in IPV4 address exhaustion, which entered its last stage in 2011, when the worldwide address allocation pool was exhausted. A fresh protocol edition, IPv6, was developed in the mid-1990s, which offers large addressing capacities and extra effective routing of Internet traffic. Ipv6 is presently in growing deployment around the world as Internet address registries RIRs began to advise every resource managers to plan quick implementation and translation.
Figure 3: Data routing
IPv6 is indirectly interoperable by design with IPv4. In the real meaning, it sets up a corresponding version of the Internet indirectly accessible with IPv4 software. This development implies software improvement or translator facilities are essential for networking devices that require communicating on both networks. Every current computer operating systems sustains both versions of the Internet Protocol. Network infrastructure, on the other hand, is still lagging in this advancement. Away from the difficult array of physical links that create up its infrastructure, the Internet is made promising by either bi- or multi-lateral profitable contracts, e.g., Peering agreements, and by technological specifications or protocols that explain how to swap over data over the network. Certainly, the Internet is defined by its interconnections and routing guidelines.
Internet packet routing
Internet data packet routing is completed amongst different levels (tiers) of Internet service providers. A diagrammatic representation of this routing is shown in appendix II. Internet service providers link consumers, which stand for the bottom of the routing chain of command, to consumers of other ISPs through other higher or similar-level networks. At the top of the routing chain of command is the level one network, large telecommunication companies that exchange traffic straight with each other through peering conformity. Level two and lower level networks acquire internet transit from other internet service providers to get to at least a number of parties on the worldwide Internet, even if they might also engage in peering. An ISP might utilize a sole upstream provider for linkage, or implement multi homing to attain redundancy and load harmonizing. Internet exchange points are main traffic exchanges with physical links to numerous ISPs.
Computers and routers utilize a routing table in their operating system. Routing is in the process of directing packets to the hop router that follows or destination. Routing tables are retained by manual arrangement or automatically by means of routing protocol. The nodes in the end classically use a default path that points in the direction of an ISP offering transit, as ISP routers use the Border Gateway Protocol to set up the most proficient routing across the complex links of the worldwide Internet. Big organizations, such as academic institutions, large ventures, and governments, might carry out the same function as ISPs, taking part in peering and buying transit on behalf of their internal networks. Research networks tend to be linked with large subnetworks such as GEANT, GLORIAD, Internet2, and UK's national research and education network, JANET.
Internet Protocol governance
The Internet is a globally distributed network that comprises of several voluntarily interlinked independent networks. The operation is with no central governing body. The technical foundation and standardization of the core protocols of Internet (IPv4 and IPv6) is an action of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). IETF is a non-profit association of, loosely-allied worldwide participants that everyone might relate with by contributing technical know-how.
Internet protocol suite
As the processing of user data continues via the stack protocol, every conception layer includes hidden security information at the transmitter. Data transmission takes place along wired media at the level of connection amid hosts and routers. Encapsulation is detached by the receiving host. Midway relays renew connection encapsulation at every hop and examine the internet protocol (IP) layer for routing reasons. The diagram in appendix III illustrates the internet protocol suite with application layer, transport, and internet and link layers of communication.
Figure 4: Internet protocol suite
The communications infrastructure of the Internet comprises of its hardware elements. In addition, there is also a structure of layers for software that run a multiplicity of features of the design. While the hardware can repeatedly be engaged to sustain added software systems, it is the design and the thorough standardization procedure of the software design that describes the Internet and offers the groundwork for its scalability and achievement. The work for the architectural design of the Internet software systems is handed over to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IETF performs standard-setting work groups, free to any person, about the different features of Internet design. The main ways of networking that allows the Internet are enclosed in particularly chosen RFCs that comprise the Internet standards. Extra less rigorous documents are just educational, experimental, or chronological, or document the most excellent present practices during the time of implementing Internet technologies.
The Internet protocol suite is the framework described by internet standards. This framework is a representation design responsible for dividing methods into a layered system of protocols, initially documented in RFC 1122 and RFC 1123. The layers correspond to the atmosphere or extent in which their services function. The application layer is found on the upper part. This is the part for the software used for a given networking methods. A web browser program is a masterly example that utilizes the client-server application model, and a given protocol of communication amid servers and clients. On the other hand, many file-sharing systems use a peer-to-peer standard. Below this top layer, the transport layer links applications on diverse hosts with a logical channel via the network with suitable data exchange techniques.
The networking technology that interlinks networks at their boundaries, and hosts by means of the physical connections take place through these layers. The internet layer allows computers to recognize and find each other via Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and transmits their traffic using midway (transit) networks. Last, at the base of the design is the link layer. The link layer offers linkage among transmitters/receivers within the like link network such as a physical link which appear in the appearance of (LAN) or telephone connection. The model, also called TCP/IP, is intended to be self-governing of the underlying hardware, which the representation thus does not concern itself with in any feature. Additional models have been made, such as the Open System Interconnection (OSI) model that tries to be complete in each feature of communications. As many likenesses exist between the models, they are not well-matched in the facts of description or realization. Certainly, TCP/IP codes of behavior are built-in in the debate of OSI networking.
Section 2: Comparative Analysis
The Google cost of implementing dual stack is more costly than Yahoo due to the initial cost of equipment needed. However, the cost of dual stack implementation in Yahoo is relatively less as compared to Google since Yahoo is trying to forge ahead with a shift to a pure IPV6 system and not dual stack hence the cost is redistributed. The migration of Yahoo to IPV6 is, therefore, quite low in terms of cost. Although both Google and yahoo use tunneling, the cost of tunneling in Google is relatively higher as compared to that of Yahoo. This is because of a drop in prices for other devices and equipment products used by Yahoo. The translation cost from one protocol to the other is also higher as compared to that of Yahoo due to the expensive equipment used.
Organizations and other ventures that persist to rely only on IPv4 with no strategy to put into operation IPv6 in the near prospect risk running into a host of a business challenge. The challenges range from increased costs and limited website functionality, to slowing down serious growth chances in up-and-coming markets and beyond. The only long-term answer to this deficiency and successive business disturbances are implementation of IPv6, offering a practically limitless number of addresses. Google and Yahoo websites and those of other service providers will be turning, on IPv6, to counteract this cost increase in advance. Companies will require spending additional funds to deal with the scarcity of IPv4 addresses, whether it is in workarounds, buying networking equipment or trying to purchase extra IPv4 addresses. In reality, it is expensive if there is no plan. This means that these service providers may initially use costly equipment to install IPV6, but in the long run the total cost of implementation will be less as compared to the cost of failing to implement it.
Google has high dual stack performance. Yahoo, on the other hand, has relatively low performance on dual stack due to the quality of the file transfer protocol (FTP) which might be decreased in dual stack. However, the tunneling performance is almost equal in both Google and Yahoo since in both cases, IPV6 packets are tunneled within IPV4 infrastructure in a number of phases using IPV4 as a link layer for IPV6. Google also has high performance in mapping of protocol translation with the help of simple protocol buffers. Yahoo translation protocol has low performance as compared to Google. This low cost of comparison arises because a remarkably short time in milliseconds of slows down in the translation process results to a huge drop in full page traffic. However, the increase in translation rate in Yahoo also results in a relative increase in translation rate hence high performance in such a case.
The security of dual stack, tunneling and translation process in high in Google due to the use of a high standard rated equipment upgrade which reduces any down time. Yahoo, on the other hand, focuses on a move to a pure IPV6 and not dual stack; hence its security on dual stack implementation is not that strong. Likewise, tunneling and translation security in yahoo is still below that of Google, resulting to spasms which are widely experienced within its inboxes.
However, Yahoo service provider operates in the part of Internet safety as an entire thing. This ranges from area name safety, email safety, and all-purpose network safety. Soaring rank DDOS attacks interrupt functions and grab headlines. Routing infrastructure exploitation and even blameless mis-configurations can be quite troublesome to a network. Yahoo is still in the process of trying to do away with spam from their inboxes, avoid phishing scams, and figure out how to know if and when they can trust the source of the emails they get each day.
In general, each and every one of these subjects cost time, money, and customer self-assurance; a safe and flexible network is extremely beneficial to ongoing your existing functions and increasing your businesses. By way of so much interlinks and interdependency on the worldwide Internet, they have to manage risk collaboratively to attain successful security for everybody.
Google has high dual stack scalability in comparison to Yahoo. Nevertheless, it also has different issues that pop up while scaling web applications like the architecture shortcomings, scaling databases, CPU bound applications and input/output bound applications. Yahoo also has relatively windless dual stack scalability that permits accessing of videos. However, its overall dual stack scalability is still below that of Google. Google also has high tunneling scalability. This provides a way of reducing overcrowding and latency within the communication system by creating a pruned forwarding set for scalable tunneling applications. Yahoo also offers superior tunneling scalability that supports millions of users per node. This high support arises as it is presented for tunneling IPV4 packets in IPV6 packets and vice versa. However, this happens with a blend of performance and scalability at an aggressive total cost of ownership. Google is highly scalable in terms of protocol translation as its free online translation service instantly translates texts as well as web pages. The Google translator supports a variety of languages such as English, Afrikaans, Albanium and others. Yahoo also has scalable and consistence translation for video delivery to all devices. It is also scaled to translate English to Chinese and other few languages.
The resources and capabilities of IPv6 allow cloud provider environments in particular, to be able to scale to what they imagine it to be. The vast pool of Internet Protocol version 6(IPv6) simplifies address administration. It also makes it easy for providers to joint-venture private clouds. They could also provide clients virtual private cloud services with a devoted address space. This all allows greater cloud scalability. Moreover, the Neighbor Discovery Protocol, an auxiliary protocol for IPv6, is enhanced during the process of balancing large broadcast areas as compared to IPv4’s ARP. The inbuilt usage of multicast by IPv6 for scheming the aircraft, in addition to the intelligent accessibility, of multicast addresses make realizing Virtual Extensible LANs (VXLANs) easy and extra scalable. One more benefit of IPv6 is its packet header arrangement, which provides a more scalable approach to implementing VXLANs as compared to using Generic Routing Encapsulation or User Datagram Protocol (UDP) encapsulation. These are illustrations of apparent areas where IPv6 makes a distinction in allowing scalable cloud infrastructures.
There is also high manageability of dual stack in Google as it permits implementation of IPV6 protocol stack. Yahoo has relatively manageable dual stack but with some additional constraints. These constraints, like in the case of using Yahoo, pipes to build a scraper to scrape the company micro site. This is not simple although, with enough constraints, it becomes manageable. Tunneling manageability in Google can be seen from various point of views such as the case of IPV6 tunneling which enable IPV6 hosts and routers to link with other IPV6 hosts, a solution that allows ventures to deploy simple and manageable IPV6. Yahoo also has the same tunneling manageability characteristics. As far as protocol translation is concerned, Google provides an easy way to manage this translation, as well as understanding and troubleshooting of NAT address translation, in addition to IP routing protocol. However, Google tends to use complex upgraded equipment and communication devices for translation. Yahoo likewise provide similar translation but with simpler equipment and devices as compared to that of Google.
In general view, the deployment of IPV6 has come with an increase in the number of IP addresses, which is four times bigger than before. This makes the whole process of management a bit challenging. Not several providers have spent the time to look into managing address space. The majority has an action plan for CMTS, routing, CPEs, and in a few unusual cases, even consumer messages, but that is just not sufficient. IPv4 can be administered with spreadsheets, homegrown Access databases, or a key word document. Todd in engineering certainly has the whole space engrained in his memory. By way of IPv6, however, systems like that will not stand a possibility! Planning and management is the core of a total IPv6 strategy. Those who invest near the beginning, in a management platform, will, speedily, harvest the benefits. They will be able to changeover to IPv6 easily and fast. If things are done right from the beginning when there is still time, it will avoid payment of price when the system is busy. IPv6 will, therefore, be gentle on networks where IPv4 was not.
Trend Usage analysis.
Considering the years of 2005, 2010 and 2013 where the world population was 6.5billion, 6.9 billion and 7.1 billion respectively, 84%, 70% and 61% in that order were not using the internet. On the other hand, 16%, 30% and 39% in that order of years were using the internet. Out of those who used the internet, 8%, 21%, and 31% respectively, according to the years were users in the developing world. The users in the developed world were 51%, 67% and 77% respectively for the years 2005, 2010 and 2013 for the developed world. This trend, clearly, shows an increase in internet usage, in both the developing and the developed world. This trend is what perhaps has influenced the trend of IPV6 deployment currently which is in the process of replacing IPV4 protocol. For easy interpretation and understanding, see the diagram bellow where this trend has been tabulated.
Finally, we can deduce that the deployment of IPV6 protocol is likely to penetrate exceptionally fast all over the world if the trend of internet usage continues to be the same. As a result, many institutions, businesses, organizations and other ventures will enjoy faster data rates at enhanced security. IPV4 will thus end up being replaced entirely.
Arkko, J., & Baker, F. (2011). Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment.
Cisco IPv6 Q&A. Cisco IPv6 Q&A. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6553/prod_qas0900aecd803715bf.html
Colitti, L., Gunderson, S. H., Kline, E., & Refice, T. (2010, January). Evaluating IPv6 adoption in the Internet. In Passive and Active Measurement (pp. 141-150). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Dhamdhere, A., Luckie, M., Huffaker, B., Elmokashfi, A., & Aben, E. (2012, November). Measuring the deployment of ipv6: topology, routing and performance. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Internet measurement conference (pp. 537-550). ACM.
Esaki, H. (2004). IPv6 integration and coexistence strategies for next-generation networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 89.
Frankel, S., Graveman, R., Pearce, J., & Rooks, M. (2010). Guidelines for the secure deployment of IPv6. NIST Special Publication, 800, 119.
Hagen, S. (2011). Planning for IPv6. Farnham. O'Reilly.
Karpilovsky, E., Gerber, A., Pei, D., Rexford, J., & Shaikh, A. (2009). Quantifying the extent of IPv6 deployment. In Passive and Active Network Measurement (pp. 13-22). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., & Wu, J. (2011). The China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI translation design and deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 coexistence and transition. IETF RFC6219, May.
Lin, Y. D., Hwang, R. H., & Baker, F. (2012). Computer Networks: An Open Source Approach. McGraw-Hill.
Liu, Z., Liu, L., Hardy, J., Anjum, A., Hill, R., & Antonopoulos, N. (2012). Dot-base62x: building a compact and user-friendly text representation scheme of ipv6 addresses for cloud computing. Journal of Cloud Computing, 1(1), 1-20.
Minoli, D. (2012). Mobile Video with Mobile IPv6. John Wiley & Sons.
Murakami, T., Matsushima, S., & Troan, O. (2011). IPv4 Residual Deployment on IPv6 infrastructure-protocol specification.
Nguyen, M., Phu, N., Quynh Anh, N., Rantapuska, T., Utriainen, J., & Matilainen, M. (2012, October). Transition from IPv4 To IPv6: The Method for Large Enterprise Networks. In INNOV 2012, The First International Conference on Communications, Computation, Networks and Technologies (pp. 5-14).
Seliem, M. A., Elsayed, K. M., & Khattab, A. (2014, March). Performance evaluation and optimization of neighbor discovery implementation over Contiki OS. In Internet of Things (WF-IoT), 2014 IEEE World Forum on (pp. 119-123). IEEE.
Sitaram, D., & Manjunath, G. (2011). Moving To The Cloud: Developing Apps in the New World of Cloud Computing. Elsevier.
Smiljanić, A., & Čiča, Z. (2012). A comparative review of scalable lookup algorithms for IPv6. Computer Networks, 56(13), 3040-3054.
Tschofenig, H., & Kroeselberg, D. (2012). Mobile IPv6 Security Framework Using Transport Layer Security for Communication between the Mobile Node and Home Agent.
Wilkins, S. (2012). The IPv6 transition. Retrieved on 5 May 2014, from http://www.petri.co.il/ipv6-transition.htm#
Wu, J., Wang, J. H., & Yang, J. (2011). CNGI-CERNET2: an IPv6 deployment in China. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 41(2), 48-52.
Wu, P., Cui, Y., Wu, J., Liu, J., & Metz, C. (2013). Transition from IPv4 to IPv6: A state-of-the-art survey. Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE, 15(3), 1407-1424.