IPv4 internet protocol by default of its nature is verified statistically to be the most widely used configuration in connecting devices to the network. The protocol in essence uses a 32-bit address method to enable an approximate of over 4 billion address to connect to a particular network (Sportack 2000). The number though significantly high has led to contention with the diversity in the evolution of the internet and the increased need to connect a variety of devises to the internet such as smart phones and game consoles (Siil 2005, p 33). With every device that needs to connect to the internet needing an address, there is a high probability that the available spaces that the IPv4 internet protocol has to offer will eventually run out which ergo has led to the development of the Ipv6 internet protocol method of interconnecting computers (Sportack 2000). A great significance to its initiation is to act as a counter to the increased diversity in continuous growth in internet application therefore providing a sustainable means to the ends. IPv6, an advanced somewhat replica of IPv4 has gained a variety of aliases such as “internet protocol next generation” to create notation of its nature and magnitude of how far it has surpassed the tradition IPv4 in relevance and application (Hogg 2012, p22). According to Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the routing protocol is by far the best method to replace the dying breed that is IPv4. Even though the two methods are diverse from a variety of features, it is estimated that the two will coexist in the inception stage of implementation with their irrelevances taking a gradual pace. A great significance to the implementation of the IPv6 is to cumber the need for more address ergo solving the exhaustion problem however; the implementation of the method poses other significant differences in evolution of internet protocol routing (Loshin & loshin 2004).
A relevant aspect of IPv6 is its ability to send a single packet of data to a variety of users with the application of only one send operation in a process termed as multicasting (Hagen 2006). Features of the process are also relevant in IPv4 routing but of great consideration is the improvement that the new method of IPv6 offers in application where it in essence allows for application without the involvement of some of the protocols associated with multicasting. A major difference between the two methods is the fact that the IPv6 routing implements the use of non-conventional multicasting protocols such as the transfer of data packets from a predefined link by implementing a unique broadcast address (Loshin & loshin 2004). In IPv6 an application link-local all nodes multicast group identified by address ff02::1 is used in implementation of multicasting (Goralski 2009). Other features of multicasting used in IPv6 include embedding of a specific point address in multicast group address allowing ability to provide multilateral solution to different domains. This provides a solution to the rather strenuous process involved in IPv4 ability to gain access to a universally routable multicast group. The application of a specific address to a specific host is still a common application on both applications of internet routing in that in both methods it is equally possible to isolate a particular computer in the internet (Hogg & vyncke 2009). The concept has been of great concern to internet users considering that privacy issues are still a matter on contention especially to people in the public circle who are obligated by virtue of their stature to keep information that they would conceive as harming to their reputation as secretive as possible (Ramanathan 2006). IPv6 network using ephemeral addresses have addressed the issue where the odds of tracing an IP address are reduced greatly. The address is also equally as easy to trace in the case where the host address is generated by media access control address from the network interface card in the computer hardware. The application of ephemeral addresses is enabled via the use of privacy extensions’ that are irrefutably generated by the computer operating system by joining address of the one generated as the host identifier and the ephemeral address through concatenation method. The use of this unique address ensures that internet activity for a particular is secure as the tracking of a predefined IPv6 address is considerably difficult. IPv6 have also played a great role in simplifying the process of packet sending and packet header even when in the case of IPv6 the packet header are significantly bigger than those of IPv4, routers are able to process the data at a higher pace enhancing the end to end principle. There is reduced use of the rooter in the implementation of IPv6 as compared to that of IPv4. In cases of fragmentation the router application in IPv4 is compulsory whereas in IPv6 routing from the router bears no obligation whatsoever in the process but rather requires that the data that is sent not to exceed a specific maximum as per MTU (maximum transmission unit)
(Karim & Khan 2011). There is also a significant difference in error detection between the two methods of routing where IPv6 header does not require check sum considering that security is optimized in internet protocols such as TCP (transmission control protocol). This is in terms of the relevance to error detection. In cases of UDP (user datagram protocol) which acts as the internet protocol used in transmission of streamed media such as video and audio files, IPv6 requires the internet protocol to have its own checksum unlike IPv4 where UDP can operate with zero checksum. In terms of mobility with the application of mobile IPv4 and IPv6, IPv4 applies triangular routing in contrary to IPv6 ergo making it just as optimal as applying the conventional IPv6. IPv6 also provides for efficiency from a mobility perspective in that it allows for the application of the subnet in a new router despite the fact that the router is not the native router containing the initial configurations of the network interface without implementing changes in the IP numbering. The application of routers is defined literally by their default routing tables. The network administrators develops routing tables through a method known as static routing or are derived automatically in an appropriate algorithm. The developed algorithms act as the conduit to exchange of information between routers with consideration of the applied topology in the network and the nature of the network. Most of the routing algorithms applied do not have a central point of origin where the tables are computed therefore they are developed as a result of the interaction of different routers with each router computing its unique table. The common groups of algorithm include distance vector and link state algorithm. Routing protocols at the time of their inception were implemented at a period characterized with rather small networks with only a particular backbone providing internet to the entire network this to signify the reduced level of considerations to factors of table size and standard of security in the network (Protocols Guide 2007). This is testament to level of hacking prevalent at the time. To prevent this, a variety of routing protocols was developed to rectify the various problems associated with routing in networking.
Interior routing protocols also known as interior gateway protocols are implemented to oversee routing enabling with the use of autonomous systems. Autonomous system refers to a collection of networks under a network administrator all of which are connected together working under the same pretext without outsourcing for data from other networks (Huitema 2000). A variety of the current internet domains are classified under this parenthesis applying the concept of autonomous systems. Some of the currently used internet protocols under this class include RIP that is still widely used to the present date though OSPF has garnered more acceptance testament to its continuous recommendation as a better option. Other protocols that have seized from application such as HELLO and GATED attributed by their irrelevance to aspects of technicality and application. Routing information protocol (RIP) a seasoned IGP (internet gateway protocol) is applied by use of distance-vector metrics in routing purposes this to mean that the number of hops in the link is irrelevant in compensation considering that the cost of the interface is determined by the actual number of hops irrespective of their status (Black 2004). The assumption that the number of hops transmitted is liable for pay without consideration of the actual hops with credible data has reduced the acceptance level for the protocol with most preference associated with OSPF (open shortest path first). The advancement of the RIP has led to the development of RIPv2 to provide for better security options and increased information in route data (Huitema 2000). Of great advantage to the application of RIP is its ability to use a small code ergo making it suitable for application in small network nodes with them employing reduced memory space to make it consumer friendly to those who cannot cater for protocols that are more efficient by default of their nature. RIP basic operation is defined by their continuous notification between the nodes present at the network with reference to the distance separating them. With the information that the nodes acquire termed as hop count, they are able to create routing tables for implementation by other nodes in the network (Goralski 2009). A unique version of RIP has been developed specifically to serve IPv6 but in essence applying concepts similar to those in RIPv2 to act as an extension of the same header (Black 2004). The basis that the new header is created to specification of IPv6 makes it an optimal routing protocol suitable for implementation in the network though it is also important to consider that the method is not completely reliable in terms of efficiency attributed by possible congestion from loops developed during routing process in cases where the network is unstable.
OSPF is at present implemented via a new version 2 of the predeceasing version of the original whose working is based on shortest path first protocol (SPF) (Hogg 2012). The routing protocol basic design is to annihilate contention brought by looping of packets by offering a more stable network capable of better data coverage latency (Bradner & mankin 2003). The protocol unlike the RIP is a link protocol this to mean that nodes present in the network have the capability of outsourcing the preferable routes in the network as per their ability to compute an analogy of the internal network paradigm. Nodes in the network have to work together to enable them build a database in accordance to the network topology in application where through mutual exclusivity, a predefined node in the network is chosen to play the role of the router while another is chosen to act as the back up to designated router. With the router in place the rest of the nodes interlink to it in essence creating optimal speed in starting process (Bradner & mankin 2003). OSPF acts as the exception from routing protocols in internet gateway protocol (IPG) from their ability to handle address of a bigger nature as compared to traditional ones. This enhances their use in IPv6 implementation making them the preferable routing protocol for application (Hogg 2012). The best routing protocol for application by far is the nimrod routing architecture for a variety of reasons stemming from its ability to support comprehensive internetworking without playing subject to the size of the network it is implemented in, its ability to provide self-specific routing therefore enhancing network security and its diversity in incremental deployment within a network. Though the protocol is still in the design phase it is estimated that it will provide for the unlimited routing protocol that will span for an inevitable period ensuring compatibility with IPv6 internet protocol infinitively (Jindal 2011).
The best routing protocol that would best suit the company in the upgrading from IPv4 to IPv6 would be the implementation of OSPFv6 considering that it is the most applicable for networks that are large (Jindal 2011). The greatest significance of the internet protocol OSPFv6 is its ability to use the new 128-bit address unlike IPv4 that uses 32-bit. The workability of the protocol despite the changes remains the same from a functionality perspective mostly from the fact OSPF represents the best of IGP protocols on all aspects (AbuAli, Shayeb, Batiha & Aliudos 2010, p 584).
References
AbuAli, A, Shayeb, I, Batiha, K, & Aliudos, H 2010, ‘The Benefits of Using Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)’, International Review On Computers & Software, 5, 6, pp. 583-587, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2012.
Beijnum, I. V. (2005). Running IPV6. Berkeley, CA, Apress.
Black, U. D. (2004). IP routing: RIP, OSPF, BGP, PNNI, and Cisco routing protocols. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Bradner, S. O., & mankin, A. (2003). IPng, Internet protocol next generation. Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Goralski, W. (2009). The illustrated network: how TCP/IP works in a modern network. Burlington, MA, Morgan Kaufmann/Elsevier.
Hagen, S. (2006). IPv6 essentials. Beijing, O’Reilly.
Hogg, S 2012, ‘IPv6 deployment starts at network edge’, Network World, 29, 3, p. 22, MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2012.
Hogg, S., & vyncke, E. (2009). IPv6 security. Indianapolis, Cisco Press.
Huitema, C. (2000). Routing in the internet. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall PTR [u.a.].
Jindal, GK 2011, ‘Investigations and Performance Evaluation of Dynamic Routing Protocol with New Proposed Protocol for WAN’, International Journal On Computer Science & Engineering, 3, 5, pp. 1970-1979, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2012.
Karim, A, & Khan, M 2011, ‘Behaviour of Routing Protocols for Medium to Large Scale Networks’, Australian Journal Of Basic & Applied Sciences, 5, 6, pp. 1605-1613, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2012.
Kavitha, D, Murthy, K, Sathyanarayana, B, Reddy, V, & Ul Huq, S 2010, ‘A Certificate Based Inquisition Approach for Routing Optimization in Mobile IPv6’, International Review On Computers & Software, 5, 1, pp. 71-76, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2012.
Loshin, p., & loshin, p. (2004). IPv6 theory, protocol, and practice. Amsterdam, Morgan Kaufmann.http://www.engineeringvillage.com/controller/servlet/OpenURL?genre=bo ok&isb n=9 781558608108.
Moy, J. T. (2002). OSPF: anatomy of an Internet routing protocol. Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley.
Protocols Guide: TCP/IP Protocols: Network Layer Protocols: Routing Protocols: IPv6: Internet Protocol version 6 2007, Network Protocols Handbook p. 55 EDS Foundation Index, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2012.
Ramamurthy, B. (2011). Next-generation Internet: architectures and protocols. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ramanathan, R 2006, ‘Thinking Beyond Security’, Information Systems Security, 15, 2, pp. 49-54, International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2012.
Shamim, F. (2002). Troubleshooting IP routing protocols. Indianapolis, IN, Cisco Press
Sharma, V 2010, ‘IPv6 and IPv4 Security challenge Analysis and Best- Practice Scenario’, International Journal Of Advanced Networking & Applications, 1, 4, p. 258, EDS Foundation Index, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2012.
Siil, K 2005, ‘IPv6 addresses demand for space’, Network World, 22, 19, p. 33, MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 April 2012.
Sportack, M. A. (2000). IP routing fundamentals. Indianapolis, IN, Cisco Systems/Cisco Press. http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com/157870071X. SPORTACK, M. A. (2000). IP routing fundamentals. Indianapolis, IN, Cisco Systems/Cisco Press. http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com/157870071X.
