See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317721035

Transition Mechanisms from IPv4 to IPv6 Addresses

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 1,788

7 authors, including:

Subha T D
RMK Engineering College
29 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Image processing View project

low power VLSI View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Subha T D on 21 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Web Engineering & Technology
ISSN: 2455-1880(online)
Volume 3, Issue 2
www.stmjournals.com

Transition Mechanisms from IPv4 to IPv6 Addresses

Arya*, Jaqualin, Nimmy, Sonali, Amrutha, Hega, Subha
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Holy Grace Academy of Engineering,
Mala, Kerala, India

Abstract
The introduction of IPv6 has opened up many questions with reference to its conversion and
transition from IPv4 to IPv6 and is one of the critical problems being commonly discussed in
networking community nowadays. IPv6 produces many seamless characteristics that make it
far better protocol as compared to its previous IPv4. It is a common fact that IPv4 is a really
a standard at present and is currently been placed in almost all the internet architectures,
hence, the transition procedure from IPv4 to IPv6 is very demanding. To avoid this transition,
or in real sense to wait it, many techniques have been introduced such as CIDR and NAT; but
the reality is, the set of IP addresses is sending and final solution is to move towards IPv6.
The aim of this survey paper is twofold: Firstly, to highlight the matters related with the
transition from IPv4 to IPv6; and secondly, to find the transition process that can be provided
to end users where they will be able to use all the services of IPv4. The purpose is to cog the
event, and demands that are likely to be faced during the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. DSTM
allows both protocols to run at a time and the results show that it also gives seamless
transition from IPv4 to IPv6.

Keywords: IPv6, networking community, transition strategies, NAT-PT, dual stack, CIDR,
tunneling

*Author for Correspondence E-mail: aryanand54@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION submerged because of lesser features of

In 1970s, when internet started to develop
from ARPANET [1], objectives about internet
were not something what we see now. The
internet was firstly introduced with the aim to
connect few agencies of US but later on, it
progressed into a network of networks
connecting the total globe. The present internet
is based upon internet protocol ver4 (IPv4)
which is inherently light and simple [2]. With
the increasing use of IP, it started to become
security etc. In order to serve the request, a lot
of additions were introduced such as classless
inter domain routing (CIDR) [3], address
resolution protocol (ARP) [4], dynamic host
configuration protocol (DHCP) [5] and
network address translation (NAT) [6]. With
lot of additions, the working of simple IPv4
over public networks became very complex. It
became even worst when the internet users
began to grow in geometric progression.

Fig. 1: Structure of NAT.

JoWET (2016) 21-27 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 21
Transition Mechanisms from IPv4 to IPv6 Addresses Arya et al.

Fig. 2: Working of NAT.

Fig. 3: NAT between IPV4 and IPV6.

Table 1: Comparison between IPV6 and NAT.

NAT IPv6
It does not provide an end to end connectivity to host IPv6 global address provide an end to end connectivity to host
It is not a long term solution It is an actual solution due to theoretically unlimited address space
It provides isolation benefit of security Less secure due to direct connectivity

This development finally resulted in shortage
of IP addresses because IPv4 supports only
32 bit address which means 4.3 billion
addresses, whereas addresses based on classes
would only be less than a billion. To solve
these problems, CIDR and NAT procedures
were launched which increased the total
number of IP nodes from 232 addresses of class
full addressing and somehow slowed the
transition process [7]. Figure 1 represents the
structure of NAT. Network address translation
acts as a bridge between the Ethernet as well
as the internet, which is used for some specific
locations. Figure 2 represents the working of
NAT. There are twofold in this paper: Firstly,
the paper highlights the matters related with
the change from IPv4 to IPv6. Secondly, the
aim is to look into the transition procedure that
can be provided to end users where they will
be able to use all the services already being
used over IPv4. This is to notice and gear the
problems and challenges that are likely to be
faced during the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
Graphical network simulator 3 (GNS3) and
Wireshark are used for reproduction; and dual
stack transition procedure (DSTM) has been

JoWET (2016) 21-27 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 22
Journal of Web Engineering & Technology
Volume 3, Issue 2
ISSN: 2455-1880(online)
Fig. 4: Dual Stack Router.
chosen for the test bed. DSTM allows both
protocols to run at a time and the results show
that it provides seamless transition from IPv4
to IPv6. Figure 3 represents the NAT between
the IPv4 and IPv6. In this, the host computers
are connected with the help of IPv4 and the
other side it is connected with the use of IPv6.
The rest of paper is classified as:
 Next part of the paper gives the overall
idea and motivation, and mainly discusses
the limitations that have been responsible
for the delay of transition and need for the
transition. The difference between NAT
and IPv6 is provided.
 The following part introduces the
transition strategies.
 Next part presents the simulated test bed
and discusses why DSTM have been
chosen for the test bed.
Finally, the conclusion of the paper and
upcoming directions are given.
OVERVIEW AND MOTIVATION
There are many limitations such as whether
IPv6 can be changed by the networking
community, how is the transition going to take
place, how long it takes for the transition
procedure. Although, the delay is not a long
term solution when one looks at the
development of the current internet.
The final solution is transition from IPV4 to
IPv6. Most widely discussed topic in
JoWET (2016) 21-27 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved
networking community today is either to adapt
IPv6 or to stay with IPv4? If both of them are
compared, the merits offered by IPv6 can
clearly be seen over its predecessor (IPv4),
hence the question appears what holds the
transition? First answer to this question is that
the two protocols are not directly affable to
one another. Completely new infrastructure is
needed in order to make them well-matched,
which is least favored and recommended.
Therefore, it is recommended to keep running
the surviving protocol (IPv4) as long as
possible.
If IPv4 is used, then the question appears, do
IPv4 used because of NAT? NAT makes the
network, a private network, by making use of
private IP addresses, which are not routable;
rather it is connected to the router answerable
for the translation of private IP into public IP
address [8].
In this way by using a single public IP, group
of stations can be connected to internet, and
the personal IP addresses used by them would
also be used by other private networks, as
shown in Figure 1. The process shown in
Figure 1, illustrates that there is a growth in
the total number of IP addresses; hence, there
is no need to give unique IP to each and every
host over the internet. Parts of network shown
in Figure 1 use private IP addresses and have
introduced one more.
Page 23
Transition Mechanisms from IPv4 to IPv6 Addresses
Fig. 5: Tunneling.
Fig. 6: NAT Protocol Translation.
The comparison between IPv6 and NAT is in
Table 1. From Table 1, it can be seen that
NAT is not a compound to the address
shortage issue, but it is just a way to keep this
problem on confine and stay using internet,
actual solution is IPv6. IPv6 removes the need
of NAT by providing huge number of
addresses such that all nodes on the internet
may have unique IP address because it is
inherently 64 bit and there will be no need of
NAT [9]. Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is also
the need of time because of the incoming
boom of cellular generation, where every
mobile phone will be a unique IP node. The
transition is also needed because the way the
world population is increasing; more IP
addresses are needed to facilitate the mobile
users. Hence, the transition towards IPv6 is the
only solution, which gives the total number of
addresses lot more than the total population all
over the globe and will also provide sufficient
addresses for the generations to come.
Keeping all these things in view, network of
MUET is taken into account in this research
and complete transition layout has been
projected. Before discussing the transition
layout, transition strategies are discussed in the
next part of the paper.
JoWET (2016) 21-27 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved
Arya et al.
INTRODUCTION TO TRANSITION
SCENARIO
Complete transition from IPv4 to IPv6 might
not be possible because IPv6 is not backward
compatible. This causes an area where either a
site is on IPv6 or it is not. It is not like
construction of other new technologies where
the latest one is backward compatible, so the
previous system can still work with the newer
version without any extra changes. To conquer
this imperfection, we have a few technologies
that can be used to protect slow and smooth
transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
Dual Stack Router
A router can be installed with both IPv4 and
IPv6 addresses configured on its connections
pointing to the network of admissible IP
scheme. In the above diagram (Figure 4), a
server having IPv4 as well as IPv6 address
organized for it can now talk with all the hosts
on both the IPv4 as well as the IPv6 networks
with the support of dual stack router. A dual
stack router can communicate with both the
networks. It provides a medium to organize to
obtain a server without modifying its
respective IP versions. Figure 4 shows the
representation of dual stack router.
Page 24
Journal of Web Engineering & Technology
Volume 3, Issue 2
ISSN: 2455-1880(online)
Tunneling
In a scenario, where different IP versions exist
on intermediate path or transit networks,
tunneling permits a better result where user’s
data can pass through a non-supported IP
version. The above diagram (Figure 5)
illustrates how two remote IPv4 networks can
communicate with a tunnel, where the transit
network was on IPv6. It is also possible where
the movement of network is on IPv6 and the
remote sites that intend to communicate are on
IPv4. Figure 5 shows the representation of
tunneling.
NAT Protocol Translation
This is another important method of transition
to IPv6 by using a NAT-PT enabled device.
With the help of a NAT-PT device, it can take
place by IPv4 and IPv6 packets and
conversely. Figure 6 shows the representation
of NAT protocol translation. A party-giver
with IPv4 address sends a message to an IPv6
permitted server on internet that does not
know IPv4 address. In this, the NAT-PT
device can help them communicate. When the
IPv4 host sends a packet to the IPv6 server,
the NAT-PT router clears down the IPv4
packet, removes IPv4 header, and adds IPv6
header and moves it through the internet.
When a message from the IPv6 server comes
for the IPv4 host, the router does the vice
versa.
REVIEW OF LECTURE
Ahmad and Yaacob analyzed a dual stack
worm, which can spread over IPV4-IPV6 dual
stack network [10]. Two level scanning
methods are applied by this worm to trace the
target in dual stack network. After simulation
result, they found that worm expands faster in
IPV4-IPV6 dual stack network than in IPV4.
Worm defense is considered in future internet
constructions.
Many authors designed and simulated network
by using OPNET modeler to know different
translation schemes [11–16]. After parallel
result, they found that network performance
disparate across different processes. Result
shows that IPV6 has higher execution time
than IPV4 dual stack 6 to 4, manual tunnel
mechanism. Some authors studied about
JoWET (2016) 21-27 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved
common transition technologies that smoothen
co-existence of both IPV4 and IPV6 addresses
[17–19]. They used different scenarios for
migrating to IPV6. These scenarios come
within one of three transitional technology
categories native dual stack tunneling and
translation.
Based on the outcome of this research paper,
native dual stack technology should be
considered by companies for their installment.
It can be run on technologies that grant IPV4
host to communicate with IPV6 host and
services are needed. Some authors surveyed on
importance of IPV6 and reason to place IPV6;
and they discussed standards and techniques,
which are needed for, interoperate between
two protocols [8, 20]. Dual stack architecture,
tunneling mechanism and translation device is
used for both protocols. We conclude that
IPV6 provides great advantage as compared to
IPV4. We must implement IPV6 for future
use. They sum up jitter and delay period by
transferring various files with various sizes.
Result shows average of jitter period is
throughout size transfer. Result of this
research shows that, dual stack system is a
reliable implementation for transition of IPV4
to IPV6 system. To increase the performance
of IPV6 connection in other research, we can
use many other header compression plans that
have been designed overtime to decrease
header size. It will increase performance of
IPV6. Boucadair et al. analyzed the series of
transition mechanism over multiprotocol [7].
CONCLUSION
From this paper, we studied the difficulties
and challenges in the transition from IPv4 to
IPv6. Migrating from IPv4 to IPv6 in an
instant is not possible because of the huge size
of the internet and of the great number of IPv4
users. After looking at different transition
strategies (Translation, Tunneling and DSTM)
we reached at the conclusion that DTSM
provides seamless transition from IPv4 to
IPv6.
The major issues faced during the transition
process are also discussed and studied in the
paper. Actual test bed of MUET has been used
for real time simulation and the parameters
Page 25
Transition Mechanisms from IPv4 to IPv6 Addresses
used are practically applicable to any network
for transition from IPv4 to IPv6. By analysis,
it has been proved that DSTM is the most
suitable option and seamless transition from
IPv4 to IPv6, provided without affecting the 9.
end users application. Further, most of the
hardware and software are also supporting the
IPv6 and the transition depends upon the type 10.
of network. Also it was analyzed that it is a
planned procedure and it is high time to move
towards IPv6.
REFERENCES
1. Chen M, Li X, Li A, et al. Forwarding 11.
IPv4 Traffics in Pure IPv6 Backbone with
Stateless Address Mapping. In
Proceedings of 10th IEEE/IFIP Network
Operations and Management Symposium,
NOMS2006, Vancouver, Canada. 2006;
260–270p.
2. Marina R. RFC 791 Internet Protocol 12.
Darpainernet Programm, Protocol
Specification. 1981. [Online]. Available:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791
3. Joseph D, Shetty N, Chuang J, et al. 13.
Modeling the Adoption of new Network
Architectures. In Proceedings of 3rd
International Conference on Emerging 14.
Networking Experiments and
Technologies, CoNEXT ’07, New York,
United States. 2007.
4. A Survey of Transition Mechanisms from 15.
IPv4 to IPv6: Simulated Test Bed and
Analysis.
5. Fuller V, Li T, Yu J, et al. Classless Inter-
Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy. 16.
RFC 1519 (Proposed Standard), Internet
Engineering Task Force; Sep 1993.
Obsoleted by RFC 4632. [Online]. 17.
6. Soliman H, Tsirtsis G, Deverapalli V, et
al. Dual Stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6)
for Hosts and Routers. Technical Report 18.
Draft-ietf-mip6-nemov4traversal-01,
IETF. Mar 2006.
7. Boucadair M, Grimault J-L, Levis P, et al.
Anticipate ipv4 Address Exhaustion: A 19.
Critical Challenge for Internet Survival.
Evolving Internet, International
Conference on. 2009; 27–32p.
8. Sailan M, Hassan R, Patel A. A 20.
Comparative Review of IPv4 and IPv6 for
JoWET (2016) 21-27 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved
Arya et al.
Research Test Bed. Proceedings of
International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI '09),
Malaysia. 2009; 427–433p.
Gouda MG, Huang C-T. A Secure
Address Resolution Protocol. Computer
Networks. 2003; 41(1): 57–71p.
Ahmad N, Yaacob A. IPSec over
Heterogeneous IPv4 and IPv6 Networks:
Issues and Implementation. International
Journal of Computer Networks &
Communications (IJCNC). 2012; 4(5): 57–
72p.
Fiuczynski M, Lam V, Bershad B. The
Design and Implementation of an
IPv6/IPv4 Network Address and Protocol
Translator. In Proceedings of the USENIX
Annual Technical Conference, USENIX
’98, New Orleans, United States. 1998;
201–212p.
Ali A. Comparison Study between IPv4 &
IPv6. International Journal of Computer
Science Issues (IJCSI). 2012; 9(3): 314–
3p.
Shepler S, Callaghan B, Robinson D, et al.
Network File System Version 4 Protocol.
RFC 3530. Apr 2003.
Batiha K. Improving IPv6 Addressing
Type and Size. International Journal of
Computer Networks & Communications
(IJCNC). 2013; 5(4): 41–51p.
Parra JI. Comparison of IPv4 and IPv6
Networks Including Concepts for
Deployment and Interworking. INFOTECH
Seminar Advanced Communication
Services (ACS). 2014; 1–13p.
Srisuresh P, Egevang K. Traditional IP
Network Address Translator (Traditional
NAT). IETF RFC3022. Jan 2001.
Tsirtsis G, Srisuresh P. Network Address
Translation: Protocol Translation (NAT-
PT). IETF RFC2766. Feb 2000.
Aoun C, Davies E. Reasons to Move the
Network Address Translator Protocol
Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status.
IETF RFC4966. Jul 2007.
Wing D. Network Address Translation:
Extending the Internet Address Space.
IEEE Internet Computing. Jul–Aug 2010;
14: 66–70p.
Zhang H, Chen M. Forming an IPv6-only
Core for Today’s Internet. In Proceedings
Page 26
 Journal of Web Engineering & Technology
Volume 3, Issue 2
ISSN: 2455-1880(online)

of ACM SIGCOMM Workshops, Kyoto, Communications (IJCNC). 2014; 6(2):

Japan. 2007; 379–384p. 111–126p.
21. Claffy K, Braun H, Polyzos G. A
Parameterizable Methodology for Internet
Traffic Flow Profiling. IEEE J Select
Cite this Article
Areas Commun. 1995; 13(8): 1481–1494p. Arya, Jaqualin, Nimmy, et al. Transition
22. Droms R, Bound J, Volz B, et al. Dynamic Mechanisms from IPv4 to IPv6
Host Configuration Protocol for ipv6 Addresses. Journal of Web Engineering
(dhcpv6). RFC 3315, Tech Rep. Jul 2003. & Technology. 2016; 3(2): 21–27p.
23. Arafat M, Ahmed F, Sobhan M. On the
Migration of a Large Scale Network from
IPv4 to IPv6 Environment. International
Journal of Computer Networks &

JoWET (2016) 21-27 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 27

View publication stats