Introduction
IPv4 was designed in the 1970s, a time when the number of devices having access to internet was limited with only a few thousand computers in operation. Consequently, the internet protocol’s ability to accommodate an approximate four billion numeric addresses was deemed sustainable at the time. However, modern technological innovations have increased the number of internet-enabled devices and have significantly reduced their cost making them more widespread which in turn has resulted in IPv4 exhaustion.
In response to this, designers have developed the IPv6, which allows for more numerical addresses. However, this may be effective only in the short run due the increasing numbers of devices that have access to the internet such as phones, printers, and computers etc. which have to be given unique IP addresses. This calls for the need to develop other strategies of overcoming the problem of address space exhaustion. The huge internet explosion that has taken place in the recent past has put IP version 4 at a greater risk of running out of addresses since it is unable to accommodate the rapidly increasing number of devices that now require public addresses.
Solution 1: development of IPv6
In response to the growing concerns regarding the exhaustion of numeric addresses in IP version 4, internet designers have sought to establish a long term solution to the problem by launching a new addressing format IPv6 which seeks to rectify the limitations of IPv4. IP version 6 uses 128 bits for addressing while the IP version 4 only 32 bits to represent addresses (Deal, 2008). This enables IPv6 to create billions of extra numerical addresses adequate to cater for future unprecedented demand. Designers have strategized to introduce IPv6 while the IPv4 is still in use, hoping that the IP version 6 will eventually replace IPv4.
Solution 2: implementation of IPv6
While IP version 6 is widely viewed as a major revamp of the earlier version’s architecture and largely driven by a shortage in IP addresses, it is more correct to say that it was motivated by fragmentation of address space (Chapman, 2000). The version evidently provides a larger volume of address nodes and utilizes a simpler configuration of addresses. In addition, the version is considered more efficient since the designers used the opportunity to address other limitations of internet protocol such as encryption, authentication, source rooting and dynamic configuration (Chapman, 2000).
Since IPv6 has been designed to establish an efficient able routing infrastructure that derives its basics from hierarchical levels of internet service providers, it significantly minimizes the above problems making the internet experience much more efficient. Its implementation will therefore provide users with an enhanced internet experience in addition to a larger volume of internet protocol addresses.
Problems with the IPv6 implementation
Not everyone holds the opinion that IP version 6 is an inevitable upgrade (Loshin, 2004). In fact, even after its establishment, IPv4 remains widely used despite the predictions for its exhaustion. IPv6 implementation is expected to be an expensive hustle for a crisis that has only been anticipated without much certainty (Hagen, 2006). The costs associated with the development of information technology solutions is at all time high and investing heavily on such strategies requires a substantial amount of certainty to guarantee maximum returns. The IP version 6 further implies additional costs for business operators which explain the failure by most organization to migrate from their own network infrastructures in support of IPv6 for production networks.
Implementation of the IP version 6 is going to be characterized by change which does not always impact positively on the long run operations of the organization (Malone, 2005). Running the protocol within an organization would require extensive training of the staff members which is both expensive and time consuming and the staff members may be unwilling to adjust. The version further requires companies to configure their internet infrastructure.
For instance, companies making use of the network address translation would have to configure their firewall settings in order to operate the IP version 6. In addition, the version’s operating system support has been criticized with its application support being cited as not being ideal in most cases. Further, the application cannot be accessed without using a manual tunnel in most cases.
Conclusion
The huge internet explosion that has taken place in the recent past has put IP version 4 at a greater risk of running out of addresses since it is unable to accommodate the rapidly increasing number of devices that now require public addresses. The attempt to switch to IPv6 which allows for more numerical addresses is appears effective only in the short run due to the dynamic nature of information technology which makes the future uncertain.
The version provides a larger number of internet protocol address space and addresses other limitations of IP which makes it a more efficient choice. However, difficulties facing its implementation and future uncertainties demand the development of other alternative solutions to the problem of IP address exhaustion.
Reference List
Chapman, D. B. 2000. Building internet firewalls, California: O’Reilly Media Inc.
Deal, R. 2008. Cisco certified network associate study guide (exam 640-802), NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Hagen, S. 2006. IPv6 essentials, California: O’ Reilly Media Inc.
Malone, D. 2005. IPv6 network administration, California: O’ Reilly Media Inc.
Loshin, P. 2004. IPv6: theory, protocol and practice, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.