Abstract
Since the next generation Internet protocol, IPv6, has been up and running for some years, the transition from the previous one, IPv4, has been strongly recommended, commonly due to a staggering increase in addresses. However, both coexist, although lacking the desired interoperability, which is useful for many purposes as it allows new applications to connect to services that are not ready for IPv6. Therefore, while in this phase three mechanisms, called dual-stack, translation and tunnelling, artificially perform this task, it is clear that there is room for improvement in terms of implementation and usability. For example, dual-stack provides a scalable and available network environment, while the translation mechanism allows native IPv6 and IPv4 nodes and applications to communicate with each other specifically. In this paper, we present a novel system of lossless and self-balanced translators to achieve the desired interoperability and scalability along with dynamic address mapping, thus solving the problem of high-level protocol failure without ALGs. In conclusion, we will make a proof of concept through a prototype called DirecTo.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
We define a “not connected” IP address as an address not compatible with the network because belongs to the wrong version of the used protocol, or has an incorrect subnet mask, and so on.
- 2.
Generic nodes (without modules) can only reply to different version IP nodes.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
The client module append a footer to the ICMP echo data that will be replied; the translator module will not remove the footer from the packet so that the IPv6 server will send replies “thinking” that the footer is part of ICMP data to reply. The ICMP DirecToBot will get final destination IPv4 address not from its state table (like for UDP or TCP) but from the replied data packet.
References
Pickard, J., Angolia, M., Chou, T.-S.: IPv6 diffusion on the internet reaches a critical point. J. Technol. Manag. Appl. Eng. 34(1), 3 (2018)
Putri, M.K., Sucahyo, Y.G.: Factors analysis that affecting the user acceptance towards IPv6 transition. In: 2016 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS). IEEE (2016)
Bali, P.: A detail comprehensive review on IPv4-to-IPv6 transition and co-existence strategies. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Eng. Technol. 44, 1432 (2015)
Tsuchiya, K., Higuchi, H., Atarashi, Y.: RFC 2767-Dual Stack Hosts using the “Bump-In-the-Stack” Technique (BIS) (2000)
Mir, Z.A., Aftab, W., Irfan, S.: Comparison and transition study of internet protocol version 4 & 6 (IPv4 & IPv6). Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. 8(7), 65 (2017)
Tsirtsis, G., Srisuresh, P.: Network address translation-protocol translation (NAT-PT). No. RFC 2766 (2000)
Li, X., et al.: The China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI translation design and deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 coexistence and transition. No. RFC 6219 (2011)
Blumbergs, B., et al.: Creating and detecting IPv6 transition mechanism-based information exfiltration covert channels. In: Nordic Conference on Secure IT Systems. Springer, Cham (2016)
Radley, S., Punithavathani, S.: Real time simulation of routing virtualization over a test bed designed for the various IPv4-IPv6 transition techniques. Asian J. Inf. Technol. 13(9), 485–493 (2014)
Bao, C., et al.: Framework for IPv4/IPv6 translation. Framework (2011)
Cui, Y., et al.: State management in IPv4 to IPv6 transition. IEEE Netw. 29(6), 48–53 (2015)
Lee, S., et al.: Dual stack hosts using “ bump-in-the-API” (BIA). No. RFC 3338 (2002)
Radley, S., Shalini Punithavathani, D.: Green computing in WAN through intensified teredo IPv6 tunneling to route multifarious symmetric NAT. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 87(2), 381–398 (2016)
Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., van Beijnum, I.: Stateful NAT64: Network address and protocol translation from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers (2011)
Liu, C., et al.: Generic application layer protocol translation for IPv4/IPv6 transition. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). IEEE (2017)
Borman, D.A., Deering, S.E., Hinden, R.M.: IPv6 Jumbograms (1999)
Brian, C., Moore, K.: Connection of IPv6 domains via IPv4 clouds. No. RFC 3056 (2001)
Carpenter, B., Jung, C.: Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels. Request for Comments 2529, Internet Engineering Task Force, March 1999
Templin, F., et al.: Intra-site automatic tunnel addressing protocol (ISATAP). No. RFC 4214 (2005)
Zaugg, G.: A Light Weight Packet Capturer for High-Speed Links, 2009-11 15. ftp//ftp.tik.ee.ethz.ch/pub/students/2003-2004-Wi/SA-2004-08.pal
Yamagata, I., et al.: NAT444 (2012)
Byrne, C.: 464XLAT: Breaking Free of IPv4. In: Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT) (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bembo, G., Lo Presti, F. (2020). Self-balanced IPv4–IPv6 Lossless Translators with Dynamic Addresses Mapping. In: Barolli, L., Amato, F., Moscato, F., Enokido, T., Takizawa, M. (eds) Advanced Information Networking and Applications. AINA 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1151. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44041-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44041-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44040-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44041-1
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)