TACS  Delivers the Insight and Vision on Technology for Strategic Decisions



Home ] Up ] Services of TACS ] Competences of TACS ] Markets of TACS ] About TACS ] Views & News ] Links ] Site Map ] Search ]
Key Drivers ] Applications & Requirements ] IP QoS Definition ] IP QoS Architectures ] MPLS ] [ IPv6 ] IP QoS Node ]


IPv6 Evaluation


An Overview of IPv6

The 1990s witnessed an explosion in the growth of the Internet. The number of connected networks and users has increased dramatically, posing the threat of address space exhaustion. Meanwhile, a new sort of application appeared, characterized by real-time constraints and driven by the emergence of cheap digital multimedia technology, which puts significant new communication demands on the underlying networks. This has set a considerable challenge for the Internet, which was designed to support non-time-critical applications. Besides requiring an increase in network capacity (i.e., the communications bandwidth), some significant architectural enhancements were prompted as well.


Figure 1 - The IPv6 header format

This has triggered the birth of new protocols such as multicast (leading to the creation of the MBone), Classless Interdomain Routing (CIDR), RSVP, and Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP). The features of the current version of the IP layer, IPv4, have been able to underpin these protocols for the past few years. However, it became evident that a more uniform and fundamentally better adapted solution to the new requirements was needed to provide a smooth evolution of the network.

IPv6 was then designed and adopted as the successor to IPv4, to occupy, of course, the central place in the entire Internet protocol architecture. As with IPv4, IPv6 is still based on the key concept of a datagram. On the other hand, IPv6 exhibits the following changes from its predecessor:

         Expanded address capabilities: IPv6 uses 16-byte-long addresses; these extend the CIDR addressing hierarchy strategy and definitively overcome the scaling problem of IPv4 (which uses 4-byte-long addresses).

         New packet format: The packets are based on a simple header (Fig.1). Also, the way header options are encoded has been totally rethought.

         Multicast support: IPv6 supports multicast as a native communication mode. Moreover, the addition of a scope field to multicast addresses improves the scalability of multicast routing.

         Flow labeling capability: This allows a sender to identify packets as being related to one another (i.e., belonging to the same traffic flow).

         Anycast support: Anycast is used to send a packet to any one member of a group of receivers (supposedly the "closest" in terms of the routing algorithm's unit of measurement).

         Authentication and privacy capabilities.

It is interesting to note how optional Internet-layer information is encoded in IPv6. Indeed, those options are encoded in separate headers that may be placed between the IPv6 header and the upper-layer header in the packet. Such headers are called extension headers, each identified by a distinct "next header" value Fig. 1). As a consequence, the "complete" header of an IPv6 packet can actually be seen as a "chain" of headers starting with the basic IPv6 header Fig. 1) and followed by some (i.e., zero or more) extension headers.

So far, six extension headers have been defined:

         Hop-by-hop options header: Carries information that has to be examined and processed by each node on the packet's path, with the source and destination included.

         Routing header: Used by a source to list one or more routers to be visited by the packet en route to its destination. This is very similar to IPv4's source route option.

         Fragment header: Used when fragmentation is required. In IPv6, fragmentation can only be done at the source.

         Destination header: Used to carry information that needs to be examined and processed by the destination of the packet.

         Authentication header and encapsulation security payload header.

New extension headers can be defined if required.

Finally, we note that the traffic class field in Fig. 1 is labeled the Differentiated Services (DS) field in the DiffServ work.

IPv6 Improvements

The experience gained during the years of operating and evolving IPv4 is reflected in IPv6 through the incorporation of some very interesting design features.

By supporting multicast as a native communication mode, IPv6 takes a decisive step toward avoiding the problems of bandwidth consumption exhibited by the MBone. Indeed, due to its implementation using tunnels between multicast routers (i.e., encapsulation of multicast packets in IPv4 packets), the MBone tends to replicate, several times, the same packet on its links. This is because a packet is replicated a number of times equal to the number of tunnels using the link. By avoiding the use of tunnels for multicasting (because multicast is "integrated" in the protocol), IPv6 will improve the support of multicast in the Internet. This will only happen when most of the routers in the Internet are based on IPv6, avoiding the need for tunneling IPv6 through IPv4 routes.

Besides better multicast routing, IPv6 also offers a very useful feature to improve control of multicast traffic: the scope field added to the multicast addresses. This allows precise control of where multicast packets are sent, and is very useful to avoid "leaks" of multicast packets on the Internet as well as ensure some security (e.g., making sure that a remote site cannot eavesdrop on a local teleconference). The same functionality can be obtained on the MBone today, but at the price of a difficult tuning of the IPv4 time to live (TTL) field. Also, the native support for anycast makes resource discovery a lot easier.

The IPv6 (basic) header format is simpler than that in IPv4. Indeed, some of the IPv4 header fields have been dropped (e.g., the header checksum) or made optional (e.g., fragmentation). This can only be beneficial to the performance achieved by IPv6, since the common-case processing cost (i.e., CPU instructions) of packet handling is reduced. In other words, packet forwarding is more efficient with IPv6.

Because of the simplification of the IPv6 header, a new way to deal with options had to be devised. This resulted in the extension headers already described. The good point about extension headers is that they allow less stringent limits on options than those imposed by IPv4 due to a lack of space in the IPv4 header. This is the case, for instance, with the source routing option which, in IPv4, limits the specification of the route to a maximum of nine hops. In IPv6 the limitation is 24 hops.

Fragmentation is a costly operation. Not only does it increase the overhead associated with the fragmented packet (because of the "replication" of the header in each fragment), but it also requires significant processing time at the fragmenting/reassembling nodes. By restricting fragmentation to being performed by source nodes only, IPv6 thus offloads the burden of fragmenting from potentially heavily loaded routers. It is worth noting that, given the widespread use of Ethernet LANs, this can lead to a network where it is unlikely to encounter packets bigger than 1500 bytes.

The flow labeling capability allows flow identification without layer violation (i.e., without combining fields from different protocol headers, e.g., IP and UDP headers). This not only enables fine-grained flow identification, but also simplifies the treatment of flows where security issues may require payload encryption at the network (i.e., IP) layer. Flow labeling also has an important role in QoS support since QoS in a network should be closely linked to the concept of flow (at least at the edge of the network). This is because QoS as required by multimedia communications cannot be defined on a datagram basis.

Shortcomings of IPv6

Although we acknowledge that extension headers were introduced for flexibility when dealing with options as well as getting rid of most of IPv4's limitations, the whole idea of extension headers nonetheless introduces concerns. Since new extension headers as well as new options for each of the existing headers can be specified at any time, it seems almost impossible to design routers that will process all the extensions efficiently. Indeed, when a new extension or option is introduced, the only reasonable way to make an existing router understand it is by means of a software update. This, however, contradicts the trend to build high-speed routers using specialized hardware.

Furthermore, since each new extension or option will impose updates on routers' and end systems' software, we may find there is disparity from one node to another, since some will be updated and others not. Such disparity in the functions supported in the nodes may well render some of those extensions or options totally unusable (because the nodes will either discard or misprocess packets containing options or extensions they do not understand). At best, we may evolve toward a situation where most of the nodes in the Internet will only support the core extension headers and options specified in today's version of the IPv6 specification.

A summary of the two previous paragraphs is perhaps to say that extended systems are probably better than extensible ones, especially when considering large-scale networks.

The IPv6 specification says that "with one exception (the hop-by-hop option header), extension headers are not examined or processed by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node identified in the destination address field of the IPv6 header." We would like to mention that when routing options are used (i.e., source routing), the destination of a packet changes several times on the way to the final destination, which will trigger the processing of the extension headers in the "intermediate" destination (i.e., routers). This may cause the corresponding packet to experience very long transmission delays.

It is worth noting that the concept of flow seems to somewhat contradict the concept of datagrams, and that simultaneous support for flows and datagrams by the same packet type inevitably leads to unnecessary overhead. When forwarding a packet in "datagram mode," the routers ignore the flow label. When forwarding a packet in "flow mode" (by ensuring that the different packets of a flow receive the same treatment from the network), a router should ignore the destination and source addresses of the packet. This is illustrated by the example of a telephone-quality audio flow (64 kb/s) where one packet is sent every 20 ms. Assuming now the typical use of RTP/UDP/IP for media transfer in the Internet, the header "information" would comprise 60 bytes (40 bytes of IPv6 header, 8 bytes of UDP header, and 12 bytes of RTP header); the packet payload would be 160 bytes. We would therefore have a per-packet overhead of about 27 percent, of which 53 percent is IPv6 addresses and 5 percent is the flow label.

With regard to the treatment packets of a given flow should receive, the IPv6 specification is rather elusive, stating that routers may (and thus may not) use flow labels to treat packets. It therefore appears that a source using a flow label will have no guarantee that the corresponding packets will receive special attention from the network. In other words, it cannot be assumed that IPv6 provides a communication scheme where the concept of flow has significance throughout the network (i.e., for nodes other than the source and destination).

The features of IPv6 (address size, packet format, etc.) render it incompatible with IPv4. In other words, in spite of the similarities in their name, IPv6 and IPv4 are two different protocols unable to interoperate. Therefore, a transition mechanism has had to be devised to facilitate and encourage the deployment of IPv6. This transition mechanism roughly specifies that:

         Each IPv6 router or end system has to provide a complete implementation of both versions (IPv4 and IPv6). This leads to a dual-stack architecture in every IPv6 node.

         IPv6 traffic will, when necessary, be carried over the IPv4 routing infrastructure using a tunneling technique (i.e., encapsulation of the IPv6 packets into IPv4 ones). This is likely to ruin the advantages of native support for multicast communication.

Finally, current Internet transport protocols (i.e., TCP and UDP) include the addresses from the IP header in their checksum computation. Since the size of IPv6 addresses is different from those of IPv4, these transport protocols have to be modified.





Home ] Up ] IPv6 Evaluation ]


Copyright 1997-2015 TACS
Last modified: July 13, 2016


The Best Networks Start with the Best Consultants, TACS