1. INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN IPV4 AND IPV6
A Project report submitted to
Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal
Towards the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of
Bachelor of Engineering
In
Information Technology
Guided by Submitted by
Mr. Akhilesh Chauhan Rhytham Kothari
Nitin Gehlot
Department of Information Technology
INDORE INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
INDORE (M.P.)
2012-2013

2. INDORE INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2012-2013
RECOMMENDATION
This is to certify that Rhytham Kothari (0818IT101049), Nitin Gehlot(0818IT101039) student of
pre final year B.E. in the year 2012-2013 of Department of Information Technology of this institute
has completed the Minor Project work entitled “Interoperability Between IPv4 and Ipv6” based
on syllabus and have submitted a satisfactory account of their work in this report which is
recommended towards the partial fulfillment of degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Information
Technology of RGPV Bhopal.
HOD Project Guide
IT Department IT Department
IIST, Indore IIST, Indore
Principal
IIST, Indore

3. INDORE INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2012-2013
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project work entitled “INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN IPv4
and IPv6” submitted by Rhytham Kothari, Nitin Gehlot student of third year B.E. (Information
Technology) in the year 2012-2013 of Information Technology Department of this institute, is a
satisfactory account of his work based on syllabus which is approved for the award of degree of
Bachelor of Engineering in Information Technology.
Internal Examiner External Examiner
Date:

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
After the completion of this Project work, words are not enough to express my feelings about all those
who helped me to reach my goal; feeling above this is my indebtedness to The Almighty for providing me
this moment in life.
In this project we received constant support from our esteemed Mrs. Neha Gupta, Head of Department. I
am heartily indebted to Akhilesh Chauhan for his constant support and guidance. Without his guidance
and scholarly suggestion an urge to bring out the best would not have been possible. I hope to propagate his
scientific, industrial and professional fervors to the best of my abilities. His clear view and knowledge
provided help during every phase of Project Development. His perpetual motivation, patience and excellent
expertise in discussion during progress of the project work have benefited me to an extent, which is beyond
expression. His depth and breadth of knowledge of Information Technology field made me realize that
theoretical knowledge always helps to develop efficient operational software, which is a blend of all core
subjects of the field. He was major support to me throughout my project, being available with his odd ideas,
inspiration and encouragement. It is a through his masterful guidance that I have been able to complete my
Project.
I am also thankful to all the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff and Lab Assistants from Information
Technology Department and the Friends and people who helped me directly or indirectly for the completion
of this project, with success.
The successful completion of a Project is generally not an individual effort. It is an outcome of the
cumulative effort of a number of persons, each having their own importance to the objective. This section is
a vote of thanks and gratitude towards all those persons who have directly or indirectly contributed in
their own special way towards the completion of this project.
Last but not the least, I would like to express my deep appreciation for my family members for providing
their kind support and encouragement without which the completion of this project would be a dream.
Thanks to GOD for the unwavering support.
Rhythm Kothari
Nitin Gehlot

5. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page No.
Recommendation II
Certificate III
Acknowledgements IV
Contents V
List of figures VI
List of table VII

6. CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives 1
1.2 Problem Definition 3
1.3 Problem Solution 4
1.1.1 Tunneling 4
1.1.2 Dual stack approach 5
1.1.3 Translation approach 5
1.2 Scope of the Project 6
2. Literature Survey 7
2.1 Benefits 8
2.2 Present Working System 9
2.2.1 Drawbacks of present system 9
2.2.2 Additional Features 9
2.3 Technology Used 10
3. Analysis 11
3.1 Functional Requirements 11
3.2 Hardware and Software Requirements 11
3.3 Feasibility 12
4. Design 13
4.1 Network Model Object 13
4.2 Network Data Model Object 14
5. Implementation 15
5.1 IPv4 to IPv6 15
5.2 Tunnel approach 15
5.3 Transition requirement profile for 6over4 16
5.4 Interoperability between IPv4 & IPv6 with the help of GRE Tunnel 17
5.4.1 Router configuration 17
6. Testing 20
6.1 Testing command 20
6.1.1 Verify command 20
6.1.2 Troubleshoot command 21
7. Conclusion & Future Work 23
Reference 24

7. List of Figures
1.1 IPv4 and IPv6 Header Format 2
1.2 GRE Packet Flow 3
1.3.1: GRE Tunnel 5
2 GRE packet format 7
4.1 Network design 13
4.2 Network data model object 14
5.4 Interoperability between IPv4 and IPv6 17
With the help of GRE tunnel
5.5 Dual Stack Network 19
6 Testing command design 20

8. List of Tables
2.1 A Comparison of key IPv4 & IPv6 8
Design difference
2.3 Technology used 10
3.2 Hardware & Software requirement 11
5.3 Transitions requirement profile for 6over 4 16
5.4.1 Router Configuration 17

9. CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVE:
Intro IPv6 was developed in the mid-J1990 by the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It was primarily engineered to remove the fundamental address
space limitation of IPv4. IPv6 uses 128bits for IP addresses versus 32 bits in IPv4,
thus providing a practically unlimited address space that enables any device to
have a unique IP addresses. Thus the need for network address translation (NAT)
as a means to cope with limited address space is eliminated, although today
NATing also is viewed as a component of network security and is not expected to
go away any soon.
IPv6 and IPv4 are two completely separate protocols. IPv6 is not backwards
compatible with IPv4, and IPv4 hosts and routers will not be able to deal directly
with IPv6 traffic (and vice versa).Unfortunately, it is a fact of life both that
 There will be extreme difficulties with address allocation and routing
if the Internet is to continue be run indefinitely using IPv4.
 It is impossible to switch the entire Internet over to IPv6 overnight.
Therefore for a long period of time we are going to be dealing with a network in
which the two protocols will be operating side by side. A common estimate of the
length of time involved is 10 years ö in terms of the history of the Internet, a very
long time indeed, but probably a realistic figure in terms of the amount of installed
IPv4 software and infrastructure, all of which will need to be replaced or upgraded.
In the world of internet, few regions defined by IANA running with no IP
Address available in version 4 and slowly they are migrating on IPv6. In this
project, we are addressing the scalability between IPv4 and IPv6. Since we are

10. Using different routed and routing protocols to deal with IP packets to insure best
delivery towards destination. By default, establishing the communication through
IPv4 and IPv6 is not possible. Virtual tunnel using Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE) is way to deal with this problem domain.
Fig: 1.1 IPv4 and IPv6 Header Format
The transition to IPv6 will likely be a long process and may never attain complete
penetration before the protocol becomes obsolete. Some experts predict that in 20
years most Internet users will be using IPv6, but that pockets of IPv4 will still exist
as parts of legacy systems. Some firms may not find it cost-effective to convert
large segments of their existing systems. Hardware and software interoperability is,
therefore, a key requirement for interconnecting networks across heterogeneous
environments and thus will be a major consideration in an enterprise’s decision to
adopt IPv6.

11. The developers of IPv6 recognize the prospect of a lengthy transition period from
IPv4 to the new protocol and have attempted to accommodate that fact. They have
created several mechanisms (e.g., dual-stack, tunnelling, and translation) to enable
networks using either or both versions of IP to communicate with each other.
Those mechanisms are intended to eliminate deployment dependencies between
and among vendors and networks and thereby to allow enterprises to decide when
to adopt IPv6, if at all, based upon their own needs and goals, without regard to the
decisions of other enterprises. Interoperability will likely not be completely
seamless in practice. Firms will have to address a number of issues in order to
minimize interoperability problems during the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
1.2 PROBLEM DEFINATION:
Since we already knows that establishing communication to foreword IP
Packet is not possible between or through IPv6 and IPv4. Virtualization of tunnel
interface of the Router (Layer 3 Device) can be logically connected to physical
interface directing to carry the multicast packet of IPv6 through IPv4 physical link.
Tunneling provides a mechanism to transport packets of one protocol within
another protocol. The protocol that is carried is called as the passenger protocol,
and the protocol that is used for carrying the passenger protocol is called as the
transport protocol. Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) is one of the available
tunneling mechanisms which uses IP as the transport protocol and can be used for
carrying many different passenger protocols. The tunnels behave as virtual point-
to-point links that have two endpoints identified by the tunnel source and tunnel
destination addresses at each endpoint. Dual IP stacks have been proposed to solve
the first problem, and tunneling to solve the latter.
Fig: 1.2 GRE Packet Flow

12. 1.3 PROBLEM SOLUTION:
Generally, GRE provides a way to encapsulate arbitrary packets
(payload packet) inside of a transport protocol, and transmit them from one tunnel
endpoint to another. The payload is encapsulated in a GRE packet. The resulting
GRE packet is then encapsulated in a delivery protocol, and then forwarded to the
tunnel destination. At the tunnel destination, the packet is de-encapsulated to reveal
the payload. The payload is then forwarded to its final destination.
Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunnels supports following:
(a) IPv4 over GRE tunnels. IPv6 over GRE tunnels is not supported.
(b) Static and dynamic unicast routing over GRE tunnels.
(c) Multicast routing over GRE tunnels.
(d) Hardware forwarding of IP data traffic across a GRE tunnel.
IPv6-capable devices allow the tunneling of packets of the following protocols
over an IPv4 network using GRE: -
(a) OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) V2
(b) BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) V4
(c) RIPv 1 & 2
1.3.1 Tunneling:
Tunneling is a mechanism to allow IPv6 domains that are connected via
IPv4 networks to communicate with each other, or to allow isolated IPv6 hosts that
are not directly connected to an IPv6 router but only to IPv4 machines to reach the
wider IPv6 network. Naturally, to use tunneling a host must have a dual IP stack in
order to send and receive IPv4 data grams. In most cases, however, this won't
apply to large numbers of machines - just some routers and isolated IPv6 machines
on IPv4 networks.

13. Fig 1.3.1: GRE Tunnel
1.3.2 Dual Stack Approach (IPv4 & IPv6 together):
The dual-stack implementation is a common transitional mechanism where
all devices (workstations, servers, routers, etc.) support both versions – IPv4 and
IPv6. The applications and the network can communicate using either version. This
transitional mechanism is relatively easy to implement. Both protocols co-exist and
hence, there is no problem supporting older and newer applications that use IPv4
and IPv6respectively. The disadvantage of this approach is that the devices have to
support both versions and they need extra processing power (memory, CPU etc.) to
handle both protocols.
1.3.3 Translation Approach:
Translation lets you convert packets from one protocol to another. The
advantage of this approach is that it allows for communication between devices
supporting any version. However the disadvantage is that the translator has to read
every packet header and this requires extra processing power. Configuration of the
translator is tedious. The translator also becomes a single point of failure.

14. 1.4 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT:
In this project, we are addressing the scalability of IPv4 and IPv6 where we
are using most widely used routing protocol used OSPF (Open Shortest Path
First).Since IPv6 packet cannot move through physical network assigned with
IPv4, virtualization of physical link is being used through CISCO IOS. Issue with
multicast packets of OSPF could be address by using GRE (Generic Routing
Encapsulation) which function on IP Protocol 47.
Today, while dealing with routing protocols, which are running on the
Distance Vector or Link State Algorithm, calculating the best path to destination
based on the metrics they use .All widely implemented routing protocols are using
multicast addresses to form the adjacencies and defining them in real time world is
still challenge. In advanced communication age, the compiling of all applications
for Data communication/Voice/Mobile communication, IP Core structure playing
main roll. To design IP core network and implementation of routing protocol
with appropriate security policy, enable the industry to face any technological
hurdles it terms of advanced communication relevant to internet uses.

15. CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
The IPv6 protocol was created with the main purpose of solving the
problem of the depletion of IP addresses that IPv4 is currently facing. This thesis
gives an introduction to the differences betweenIPv4 and IPv6 and when one
should use one protocol rather than the other. It describes the services that we will
use in order to evaluate what kinds of problems IPv4 may experience and if these
problems can be solved by using IPv6. We also show how to set up a network with
both protocols for each service that we examine. We will subsequently evaluate the
performance of these two protocols for each of these services. We found that there
were no significant differences in the performance of any of the applications that
we tested with both IPv4 and IPv6. Due to the depletion of IPv4 addresses and the
continuing rapid growth of the Internet, this thesis describes a very current and a
relevant issue for computer networks today.
Fig 2: GRE PACKET FORMAT

16. 2.1 BENEFIT:
Table: 2.1

17. 2.2 PRESENT WORKING SYSYTEM:
2.2.1. Drawback of the present working system
With IPv4 address space getting exhausted, meet this IP address
challenge of creating more address space with IPv6. With most content, many
hosts and most applications accessed only via IPv4, migration to IPv6 can be a
challenge. What organizations need is a smart IPv4 to IPv6 migration plan and
tools to help provide an orderly transition. There are several challenges associated
with a transition to IPv6, some of these are:
 Ensuring minimal Production environment downtime should
 Ensuring the network has the same reach ability and isolation characteristics as
before, i.e., communication patterns are preserved
 Ensuring the previous levels of security are maintained
 Ensuring optimum, uninterrupted network and application performance
 Ensuring IPv4 and IPv6 co-exist
2.2.2 Additional Features
The Solutions provides the flexibility organizations need to devise IPv4 to
IPv6 migration plans with minimal disruption and downtime. We help with early
planning and implementation for IPv6 migration, supporting r both protocols
during the transition period. The new features and concepts of IPv6 and differences
from IPv4 to improve Internet communications include:
 Larger Address Space – 128 bit address in IPv6 as compared to 32 bit IPv4
address
 Auto-configuration – Plug n Play possible with IPv6
 Link-local addressing – Possible with IPv6
 Mobility – Mobile IPv6 for mobile networks / terminals
 Security – IPSec is mandatory that mitigates the risk of spoofing and loss of
confidential data
 Simple Header – IPv6 header is simple with many fields removed

18.  Support more addressable devices - like server, desktop, laptop, mobile device,
appliance, automobile and other devices without risking running out of
addresses.
2.3 TECHNOLOGY USED:
The project is all about scalability between IPv4 and IPv6 with most widely
used routing protocol with CISCO IOS. The details of specification are as under:
Sl.No. Technology Used Details
01. IPv4 and IPv6 It is difficult to establish communication
between two different stacks of Internet
Protocol addressing scheme.
02 Generic Routing
Encapsulation
GRE technologies introduce to carry
multicast packets required to form
adjacencies among neighboring L3 devices
03 Open Shortest Path First
Ver 3
Most widely used protocol for Intranet &
Internet. 80% ISPs are depends on this
routing protocol with deferent capacity.
04 CISCO IOS Ver 12.4T Internet Operating System which support
almost all Open Standard Routing protocol
designed using on Linux platform.
Table: 2.3

19. CHAPTER 3
ANALYSIS
3.1 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT:
The requirement for function of project scenario was implemented at ISP level on
CISCO platform which includes:
(a) Study of Network topology forwarded by ISP
(b) Selection of L2/L3 devices
(c) Interface Verification before introduce Router into live network.
(d) Verification and stand alone diagnosis of compiling power of Routing
algorithm relevant to L3 devices.
(e) Checking proper connectivity of wire.
(f) ICMP verification with each interface and network.
(g) Performance monitoring.
(h) Configuration of interfaces with IPv4 & IPv6 with appropriate routing
protocol as directed by ISP.
(i) Logging Network event for acceptance test.
3.2 HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE REQUIREMENT
The requirement of hardware and software for the project are as follows:
Sl.No. Hardware/Software Capacity Technical Details
01 CISCO Core Router
(Hardware)
Able to handle Enterprise
Network
Any variant
starting from 3600
to 7200 Series
02 Fast Ethernet/ Serial
Interface slot(Hardware)
Able to carry the data
from 10 to 1000 Gbps at
As per Network
requirement

20. Table: 3.2
3.3 FEASIBILITY:
Communication is not possible by-default between IPv4 and IPv6.
Establishing the communication between both variant is possible only when
method of interpretability used with help of various open source IEEE standard
available. Using GRE tunnel to establish feasibility for exchanging the information
among two entities is possible. Only the scenario of implementation may be
different. All hurdles may be sorted out by studying the topology and feasibility by
using such open standard protocols.
core level specified by the
ISP
03 OSPF v3
Routing Protocol
Able to carry IPv6
packets
--
04 CISCO IOS 12.4T Effective IOS on CISCO
platform which can
handle 50 routers in
single Area
12.4T IOS is latest
Enterprise Edition
05 GRE (IP Protocol 47)
Open Standard
Able to carry multicast
packet and can create
VPN tunnel without any
encryption
--

21. CHAPTER 4
DESIGN
4.1 NETWORK DESIGN
Fig: 4.1 Network Design

22. 4.2 NETWORK DATA MODEL OBJECT
Fig 4.2 Block Diagram of Network Data Model Object

23. CHAPTER 5
IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 IPv6 to IPv4
The motivation for 6to4 is to allow isolated small domains or single hosts on a
LAN or WAN with no native IPv6 support to communicate with the minimum
manual configuration. IPv6 domains build their own IPv6 prefix based on the IPv4
address of the border router. The prefix is '2002:' followed by the 32 bit IPv4
address of the border router. Therefore any IPv6/IPv4 router trying to tunnel
encapsulated IPv6 packets to a domain that starts with the "2002:" prefix can
immediately determine the address of the IPv4 router to tunnel the packets to. To
get access to the wider IPv6 network, you then need an IPv6/IPv4 router to den
capsulate your tunneled IPv6 packets and forward them to the backbone, and
likewise encapsulate any IPv6 packets destined for your domain and tunnel them
over IPv4 to the border router.
So the three pieces of information you need to use this are:
 Your outside-visible IP address (this might be a gateway or similar)
from which you derive your IPv6 48 bit prefix (and then somehow
choose the rest of your address)
 The address of a 6to4 gateway to use, to connect to the rest of the IPv6
world
5.2 Tunnel Approach (IPv6 to IPv4):
Tunneling uses encapsulation to carry IPv6 traffic in IPv4 packets and
vice versa. This allows for a partial transition where portions of the network can
migrate to IPv6 while the rest of the network remains in its original state.The
advantage of tunnels is that you can reuse the existing infrastructure in situations

24. Where old devices do not have enough processing power to support both protocols
or you are not ready or financially able to upgrade. The disadvantage of tunneling
is that it involves tedious configuration. Tunnel endpoints need extra processing
power to handle encapsulation and de-encapsulation. Tunnels can create routing
inefficiencies if they are not configured to match the underlying routing topology.
Tunnels also introduce security issues, as packets that were previously visible are
now encapsulated. Troubleshooting within the tunnel is difficult due to the lack of
visibility into the end-to-end traffic paths.
5.3 TRANSITION REQUIREMENT PROFILE FOR 6OVER4:
Table 5.3

25. 5.4 INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN IPv4 & IPv6 WITH THE HELP OF
GRE TUNNEL:
Fig: 5.4
5.4.1 Router Configuration:
R1 R2 R3 R4
En
config t
int f0/0
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add
1212::11/64
no shut
int l1
ip add 1.1.1.1
255.255.255.0
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add 11::1/128
int l2
ipv6 add 11::2/128
exit
en
config t
int f0/0
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add
1212::12/64
no shut
int l1
ip add 2.2.1.1
255.255.255.0
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add 22::1/128
int l2
ipv6 add 22::2/128
exit
int f0/1
ip add 10.10.23.2
255.255.255.0
en
config t
int f0/1
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add
3434::33/64
no shut
int l1
ip add 3.3.1.1
255.255.255.0
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add 33::1/128
int l2
ipv6 add 33::2/128
exit
int f0/0
ip add 10.10.23.3
255.255.255.0
en
config t
int f0/0
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add
3434::34/64
no shut
int l1
ip add 4.4.1.1
255.255.255.0
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add 44::1/128
int l2
ipv6 add 44::2/128
exit

26. no shut
exit
no shut
exit
IP v 6 Routing
ipv6 unicast-
routing
int f0/0
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
int l1
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
int l2
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
exit
ipv6 unicast-
routing
int f0/0
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
int l1
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
int l2
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
exit
ipv6 unicast-
routing
int f0/1
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
int l1
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
int l2
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
exit
ipv6 unicast-
routing
int f0/0
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
int l1
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
int l2
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
exit
Forming Tunnel to establish Communicate between IPv4 and IPv6
int tunnel 1
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add
2323::22/64
tunnel source
10.10.23.2
tunnel destination
10.10.23.3
int tunnel 1
ipv6 enable
ipv6 add
2323::23/64
tunnel source
10.10.23.3
tunnel destination
10.10.23.2
Configuring IP Routing using Tunnel Interface
int tunnel 1
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0
int tunnel 1
ipv6 ospf 100 area
0

27. Fig 5.5 Dual Stack Network

28. CHAPTER 6
TESTING
Fig 6: Testing
6.1 TESTING COMMAND
6.1.1 Verify Command
 Ping — Determines if a remote host is active or inactive, and the round-trip
delay in communicating with the host.
 Show ipv6 route — Verifies if a route exists on the IPv6.
 Show ipv6 int tunnel 0 — Verifies that the tunnel is up on the IPv6, and
verifies the MTU configured on the interface.

29. Verification Command Output for Manual IPv6 Mode
R1-ipv6#ping ipv6 4000:1:1:1:1:1:1:1112
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 4000:1:1:1:1:1:1:1112, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 72/72/72 ms
R1-ipv6#ping 4000:1:1:1:1:1:1:1112
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 4000:1:1:1:1:1:1:1112, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 72/72/72 ms
6.1.2 Troubleshoot:
This section provides information you can use to troubleshoot your
configuration.
# Troubleshooting Commands
 Show ipv6 route — Verifies if a route exists on the IPv6.
 Show ip ospf neighbour — Displays the router ID, priority, and state of the
neighbour router. Also, this command displays the amount of time
remaining that the router waits to receive an Open Shortest Path First
(OSPF) hello packet from the neighbour before declaring the neighbour
down. It also displays the IP address of the interface to which this
neighbour is directly connected and the interface on which the OSPF
neighbour forms adjacency.
 Show ipv6 interface brief — Verifies that the tunnel interface is up.
 Show interfaces tunnel 0 — Verifies that the tunnel destination configured
is known in the routing table.
 Show ipv6 protocols — Displays the status of the IPv6 routing protocol.
If the ping to the remote IPv6 network fails, verify that the IPv6 routes are learned
via IPv6 RIP.
R1-ipv6#show ipv6 route
IPv6 Routing Table - 6 entries

30. Codes: C - Connected, L - Local, S - Static, R - RIP, B - BGP
I1 - ISIS L1, I2 - ISIS L2, IA - ISIS interarea
Timers: Uptime/Expires
L 2000:1:1:1:1:1:1:1112/128 [0/0]
via ::, Ethernet0/1
C 2000:1:1:1:1:1:1:0/112 [0/0]
via ::, Ethernet0/1
R 3000::/112 [120/2]
via FE80::202:B9FF:FECB:D281, Ethernet0/1
R 4000:1:1:1:1:1:1:0/112 [120/3]
via FE80::202:B9FF:FECB:D281, Ethernet0/1
L FE80::/10 [0/0]
via ::, Null0
L FF00::/8 [0/0]
via ::, Null0

31. CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The migration of an existing IPv4 infrastructure to IPv6 will be one of the most
demanding challenges facing IT organizations in the years to come. This is not because of the
inherent complexities of the migration, but due to the universal reach of IP and dependency
of today’s enterprises on the operation of the network. The transition to IPv6 will require
planning and likely some degree of support for both protocols during the transition period. As
noted by those responsible for managing Internet addresses, it is only a matter of time before
IPv4 is no longer viable. Early planning will help ensure the transition is smooth with
minimum impact on business operations.

32. REFRENCES
[1] http://www.juniper.net/as/en/company/innovation/ipv6/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
[3] http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6553
[4] http://www.netmagicsolutions.com/ipv6-migration.html
[5] http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk872/tech_configuration_examples_list.html
[6] http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/security_services/ciag/documents/v6-v4-threats.pdf
[7] http://www.huawei.com/en/solutions/broader-smarter/hw-092950-ipv6.htm