State Management in IPv 4 to IPv 6 Transition
Yong Cui,Yuchi Chen,Jiangchuan Liu,Yiu-leung Lee,Jianping Wu,Xingwei Wang
2015-01-01
Abstract:(IANA) announced that global the IPv4 address pool had run out. The Internet community acknowledges that IPv6, the next generation of IP standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), is the most promising solution to IP address exhaustion. Since the late 1990s, IETF has published a series of solutions to promote the Internet transition from IPv4 to IPv6. Few of them, however, have seen success in the real world, and some have even been obsoleted by IETF [1]. Nowadays IPv6 transition is still one of the most important topics in IETF with solutions continuously being proposed to promote the IPv6 transition process. State management is the major difference among these solutions. The state in IPv6 transition is the binding between IPv4 and IPv6 protocol semantics. State management has an important influence on the development of IPv6 transition solutions. The well-known NAT-PT [2] was one of the best candidate solutions, but it was finally obsoleted mainly because of its complicated cross-layer state management [1]. The application of another well-known solution named 6to4 was also restricted due to routing issues caused by improper state management [3]. In early years, Per-prefix State was adopted in solutions for the backbone network. Recently the research focus has shifted to the delicate management in access network. The solution with per-flow state was published [4], but its heavy cost pushed people to work on more lightweight state management such as per-subscriber state [5, 6] and stateless mapping [7]. Their protocol designs have been discussed a lot in IETF [4–7], but there is no systematic study on state management yet. In this article, we present a comprehensive survey on IPv6 transition solutions from the perspective of state management. We first give a brief review on the basic rationale of IPv6 transition solutions, highlighting the necessity of state management. Then we study various types of state management adopted by several typical IPv6 transition solutions. By discussing the impacts of various types of state management on aspects of a network, we point out their causal relationships with major advantages and flaws of solutions. Based on the above analyses, we summarize the applicability of state management in various solutions, and discuss the state-of-the-art directions of their application, which may lead to potential future research directions in the IPv6 transition process. The remainder of the article is organized as follows. The following section introduces the basic rationales of IPv6 transition solutions as a background. The third section studies various types of state management adopted by typical IPv6 transition solutions. Then we summarize the application directions of state management. The final section concludes the article.