IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)

Despres, Remi

doi:10.17487/rfc5569

Cited by 39 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 5 shows the number of domains sampled that generated at least 50, 100 or 500 tests per day (based on HTTP referrer information for JS-tests and Google ad placement information for FA-tests). Apart from the initial period, there always were [30][31][32][33][34][35] domains that each generated at least 500 tests a day and 55-75 domains that each generated at least 100 tests per day. Figure 6 shows the number of unique versus total tested IPv4 addresses (left) and unique versus total tested /24 networks (right) for the measurement period (a /24 is obtained by setting an IPv4 address' last octet to zero).…”

Section: Country and Domain Coveragementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A detailed analysis is future work. Figure 10 shows a breakdown of the IPv6-capable connections into those using "native" IPv6 (including point-to-point tunnels and 6rd [31]), 6to4, or Teredo based on the IPv6 address prefixes. 4 Over 70% of the connections from IPv6-capable hosts used 6to4 tunnelling (4-5% of all connections), 20-30% of IPv6-capable connections came from hosts with native addresses (1-2% of all connections), and only 2-3% of IPv6-capable connections used Teredo -manually fully-enabled Windows Teredo or Teredo on other OS (0.1-0.2% of all connections).…”

Section: Overall Ipv6 Capabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mitigating sampling error when measuring internet client IPv6 capabilities

Zander

Andrew

Armitage

et al. 2012

Proceedings of the 2012 Internet Measurement Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the predicted exhaustion of unallocated IPv4 addresses between 2012 and 2014, it remains unclear how many current clients can use its successor, IPv6, to access the Internet. We propose a refinement of previous measurement studies that mitigates intrinsic measurement biases, and demonstrate a novel web-based technique using Google ads to perform IPv6 capability testing on a wider range of clients. After applying our sampling error reduction, we find that 6% of world-wide connections are from IPv6-capable clients, but only 1-2% of connections preferred IPv6 in dual-stack (dual-stack failure rates less than 1%). Except for an uptick around IPv6-day 2011 these proportions were relatively constant, while the percentage of connections with IPv6-capable DNS resolvers has increased to nearly 60%. The percentage of connections from clients with native IPv6 using happy eyeballs has risen to over 20%.

show abstract

Section: Country and Domain Coveragementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overall Ipv6 Capabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating sampling error when measuring internet client IPv6 capabilities

Zander

Andrew

Armitage

et al. 2012

Proceedings of the 2012 Internet Measurement Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the AERO mechanisms were initially designed for the specific purpose of NBMA tunnel virtual interfaces (e.g., see [RFC2529], [RFC5214], [RFC5569], and [VET]), they can also be applied to any multiple access link types that support redirection. AERO host a simple host on an AERO link.…”

Section: Aeromentioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO)

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nodes attached to common multi-access link types (e.g., multicastcapable, shared media, non-broadcast multiple access (NBMA), etc.) can exchange packets as neighbors on the link, but they may not always be provisioned with sufficient routing information for optimal neighbor selection. Such nodes should therefore be able to discover a trusted intermediate router on the link that provides both forwarding services to reach off-link destinations and redirection services to inform the node of an on-link neighbor that is closer to the final destination.

show abstract

“…In contrast to the situation described for basic 6rd [RFC5569], the operator is assumed to have no control over the capabilities of the IP devices on the customer premises. As a result, the operator cannot assume that any of these devices are capable of supporting 6rd.…”

Section: Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gateway-Initiated IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (GI 6rd)

Tsou¹,

Taylor²,

Chen³

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document proposes an alternative IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd) deployment model to that of RFC 5969. The basic 6rd model allows IPv6 hosts to gain access to IPv6 networks across an IPv4 access network using 6-in-4 tunnels. 6rd requires support by a device (the 6rd customer edge, or 6rd-CE) on the customer site, which must also be assigned an IPv4 address. The alternative model described in this document initiates the 6-in-4 tunnels from an operator-owned Gateway collocated with the operator's IPv4 network edge rather than from customer equipment, and hence is termed "Gateway-initiated 6rd" (GI 6rd). The advantages of this approach are that it requires no modification to customer equipment and avoids assignment of IPv4 addresses to customer equipment. The latter point means less pressure on IPv4 addresses in a high-growth environment.

show abstract

IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)

Cited by 39 publications

References 2 publications

Mitigating sampling error when measuring internet client IPv6 capabilities

Mitigating sampling error when measuring internet client IPv6 capabilities

Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO)

Gateway-Initiated IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (GI 6rd)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About