2. cnp3-ebook
3. protocols/ipv6
4. English
5. Zen

7 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:67
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — In the next chapter, we describe the organization and the operation of Local Area Networks. An important difference between the point-to-point datalink layers and the datalink layers used in LANs is that in a LAN, each communicating device is identified by a unique `datalink layer address`. This address is usually embedded in the hardware of the device and different types of LANs use different types of datalink layer addresses. Most LANs use 48-bits long addresses that are usually called `MAC` addresses. A communicating device attached to a LAN can send a datalink frame to any other communicating device that is attached to the same LAN. Most LANs also support special broadcast and multicast datalink layer addresses. A frame sent to the broadcast address of the LAN is delivered to all communicating devices that are attached to the LAN. The multicast addresses are used to identify groups of communicating devices. When a frame is sent towards a multicast datalink layer address, it is delivered by the LAN to all communicating devices that belong to the corresponding group. 1085/10000 · 1085
8 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:71
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The third type of datalink layers are used in Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) networks. These networks are used to interconnect devices like a LAN. All devices attached to an NBMA network are identified by a unique datalink layer address. However, and this is the main difference between an NBMA network and a traditional LAN, the NBMA service only supports unicast. The datalink layer service provided by an NBMA network supports neither broadcast nor multicast. 465/10000 · 465
9 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:73
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Unfortunately no datalink layer is able to send frames of unlimited side. Each datalink layer is characterized by a maximum frame size. There are more than a dozen different datalink layers and unfortunately most of them use a different maximum frame size. The network layer must cope with the heterogeneity of the datalink layer. 330/10000 · 330
10 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:77
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — IP version 6 12/10000 · 12
11 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:79
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — In the late 1980s and early 1990s the growth of the Internet was causing several operational problems on routers. Many of these routers had a single CPU and up to 1 MByte of RAM to store their operating system, packet buffers and routing tables. Given the rate of allocation of IPv4 prefixes to companies and universities willing to join the Internet, the routing tables where growing very quickly and some feared that all IPv4 prefixes would quickly be allocated. In 1987, a study cited in :rfc:`1752`, estimated that there would be 100,000 networks in the near future. In August 1990, estimates indicated that the class B space would be exhausted by March 1994. Two types of solution were developed to solve this problem. The first short term solution was the introduction of Classless Inter Domain Routing (:term:`CIDR`). A second short term solution was the Network Address Translation (:term:`NAT`) mechanism, defined in :rfc:`1631`. NAT allowed multiple hosts to share a single public IPv4 address. 1004/10000 · 1004
12 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:87
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — However, in parallel with these short-term solutions, which have allowed the IPv4 Internet to continue to be usable until now, the Internet Engineering Task Force started working on developing a replacement for IPv4. This work started with an open call for proposals, outlined in :rfc:`1550`. Several groups responded to this call with proposals for a next generation Internet Protocol (IPng) : 394/10000 · 394
13 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:89
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — TUBA proposed in :rfc:`1347` and :rfc:`1561` 44/10000 · 44
14 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:90
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — PIP proposed in :rfc:`1621` 27/10000 · 27
15 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:91
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — SIPP proposed in :rfc:`1710` 28/10000 · 28
16 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:93
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The IETF decided to pursue the development of IPng based on the SIPP proposal. As IP version `5` was already used by the experimental ST-2 protocol defined in :rfc:`1819`, the successor of IP version 4 is IP version 6. The initial IP version 6 defined in :rfc:`1752` was designed based on the following assumptions : 316/10000 · 316
17 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:95
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — IPv6 addresses are encoded as a 128 bits field 46/10000 · 46
18 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:96
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The IPv6 header has a simple format that can easily be parsed by hardware devices 81/10000 · 81
19 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:97
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — A host should be able to configure its IPv6 address automatically 65/10000 · 65
20 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:98
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Security must be part of IPv6 29/10000 · 29
21 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:100
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The IPng address size 21/10000 · 21
22 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:102
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — When the work on IPng started, it was clear that 32 bits was too small to encode an IPng address and all proposals used longer addresses. However, there were many discussions about the most suitable address length. A first approach, proposed by SIPP in :rfc:`1710`, was to use 64 bit addresses. A 64 bits address space was 4 billion times larger than the IPv4 address space and, furthermore, from an implementation perspective, 64 bit CPUs were being considered and 64 bit addresses would naturally fit inside their registers. Another approach was to use an existing address format. This was the TUBA proposal (:rfc:`1347`) that reuses the ISO CLNP 20 bytes addresses. The 20 bytes addresses provided room for growth, but using ISO CLNP was not favored by the IETF partially due to political reasons, despite the fact that mature CLNP implementations were already available. 128 bits appeared to be a reasonable compromise at that time. 936/10000 · 936
23 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:105
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — IPv6 addressing architecture 28/10000 · 28
24 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:107
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The experience of IPv4 revealed that the scalability of a network layer protocol heavily depends on its addressing architecture. The designers of IPv6 spent a lot of effort defining its addressing architecture :rfc:`3513`. All IPv6 addresses are 128 bits wide. This implies that there are :math:`340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 (3.4 \times 10^{38})` different IPv6 addresses. As the surface of the Earth is about 510,072,000 :math:`km^2`, this implies that there are about :math:`6.67 \times 10^{23}` IPv6 addresses per square meter on Earth. Compared to IPv4, which offers only 8 addresses per square kilometer, this is a significant improvement on paper. 676/10000 · 676
25 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:109
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Textual representation of IPv6 addresses 40/10000 · 40
26 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:111
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — It is sometimes necessary to write IPv6 addresses in text format, e.g. when manually configuring addresses or for documentation purposes. The preferred format for writing IPv6 addresses is ``x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x``, where the ``x`` 's are hexadecimal digits representing the eight 16-bit parts of the address. Here are a few examples of IPv6 addresses : 347/10000 · 347