www.Fullinterview.
com
The Use of Translators as a
co-existence strategy for IPv4 - IPv6
transition for 3G evolution
ABSTRACT :
In the coming decade, we are said to confront
the final frontiers of the mobile revolution. The
3G or the Third Generation mobile technology is
expected to fulfil the idea of location and data
independent communication. It is almost now
clear that the packet switched (PS) technology
will dominate the technological developments in
the mobile sector. The packet switched
technology would not only integrate the mobile
infrastructure with the already existing Internet
backbone, but also provide the facility of
“always on“ connection. These two features are
seen to be two great leaps forward in the
direction of 3G. The Packet switched technology
would not only enhance the existing data
messaging services, but also provide alternate
www.Fullinterview.com
voice services through VOIP. The mobile
vendors have planned long term strategies for 3G
evolution. The most popular path is through
GSM-GPRS-EDGE. This has allowed gradual
transition, giving enough time for development,
deployment and testing of better technologies.
This evolution is as much a challenge to the
mobile sector as it is to the networking sector.
The advent of 3G technologies would rather blur
the line of distinction between the two. While the
mobile sector moves towards 3G, the Internet
infrastructure would be moving from IPv4 to
IPv6. Each of these transitions are essential for
the other, they rather form a symbiotic
combination. The 3G technologies would need
an IP address each, for all of its mobile
terminates. The huge requirement of IP
1
www.Fullinterview.com

addresses can only be provided by the 128 bit between the two, forms an essential feature of
IPv6. So the implementation of 3G technologies the evolution. This paper discusses the
would speed up the IPv4 to IPv6 transition and coexistence strategies for IPv4 and IPv6 in
vice versa. The mobility management too is general, and its specific applications in the
essentially done through the Mobile IP (MIP), mobile technologies.
stressing the need further for IP integration into Further it discusses the implementation of two
3G. translation methods used for coexistence
between IPv4 and IPv6 .
There will be no sudden changeover from
IPv4 to IPv6. Hence methods of coexistence

CONTENTS :

1. IP COEXISTENCE STARTEGIES 4

2. NAPT – PT 4

3. TCP UDP RELAY TRANSLATOR 6

4. COMPARISON BETWEEN NAT-PT AND TRT 7

5. SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF TRANSLATORS IN THE MOBILE

TECHNOLOGY. 8

6. CONCLUSIONS 9

7. REFERENCES 9

www.Fullinterview.com 2
www.Fullinterview.com
IP COEXISTENCE STARTEGIES :
The different methods for coexistence are
1) Dual IPv4/IPv6 Stack : Dual Stack
provides the facility of both the
protocols in terminals & routers, thus
facilitating tunneling.
2) Tunneling : Here, encapsulation and
decapsulation are used at terminal
nodes.
www.Fullinterview.com
3) Translation : This method is based on
the header conversions, mostly the
translation of source and destination IP
addresses that are carried by the
packets.
The two translation methods of coexistence
discussed in this paper are
I. The Network Address Port Translation –
Protocol Translation (NAPT –PT)
II. Transport Relay Translator (TRT)
Both of the above are the ‘middle box’ based
methods. The essential difference between the
two is the layer at which they work. While the
former works at the data link layer the latter
works at the transport layer.
NAPT-PT :
NAPT-PT [4] provides a combination
of port multiplexing, address translation and
IPv6/IPv4 protocol translation. It resides within
an IP router, situated at the boundary between an
IPv4 network (say the Internet backbone) and an
IPv6 network (say the mobile network). By
installing NAPT-PT between an IPv6 network
and the Internet, all Internet users are given
access to the IPv6 network without host
modification. Equally, all hosts on the IPv6
network (the 3G mobile) are given access to the
Internet with a pool of IPv4 addresses.
Suppose that some applications carry
network addresses in payloads. Because NAPT-
PT does not snoop the payload, it can be
3
www.Fullinterview.com

application unaware. So, NAPT-PT requires

some Application Level Gateway (ALG) which
are application specific programs that allow an
IPv6 node to communicate with an IPv4 node
and vice versa on a particular application level
program. That is, ALG could work in
conjunction with NAPT-PT to provide support
for many such applications.

www.Fullinterview.com 4
www.Fullinterview.com

Figure 1: Connection of NAPT-PT

www.Fullinterview.com 5
www.Fullinterview.com
Implementation :
The implementation of this model requires no
change in either host or the router
configurations[3]. The system that
works as NAPT has two interfaces as in the
figure 1. It uses multi-homing. One Ethernet
interface is connected to the IPv6 network while
the other to the router that routes the packet to
the (IPv4) internet. The implementation is
discussed below : -
• Two simultaneous processes on the
NAPT-PT system continuously sniff for
packets on the two respective interfaces.
When a packet arrives, it passes the
same for processing. This is done by
Packet capturing utilities. Note that, as
we need to extract the addresses and the
port numbers from the packets, the
packet needs to be captured at the Data-
link layer itself. Since only those
packets destined to reach this system
are to be accessed, promiscuous mode is
not used.
• The NAPT maintains a record table that
has the entries for all the connections
through it. The extracted addresses and
www.Fullinterview.com
port numbers from the arrived packets
are matched with the records of the
NAPT-PT table and manipulated
accordingly.
• If the protocols that carry the address or
address related information, are to be
made available, then it needs an ALG.
We have restricted our implementation
to only HTTP.
• The two processes work in totally
different memory segments. Hence the
variables in the two processes would
not correspond to the same location.
Since both the processes need to access
the table, the inter-process
communication technique comes handy.
This is done by storing the table in the Shared
Memory area so that it can be accessed by both
the processes. The following blocks show the
implementation of the two processes mentioned
above.
Process 1 :
When a packet is destined to reach a terminal
outside the LAN (the IPv6 network) , the
following manipulations are made before routing
the packet.
• search is made in the records to find if
6
www.Fullinterview.com
Figure 4: TCP UDP relay
the connection already exists.
• If yes, the source IP address is replaced
by that of the NAPT-PT and the source
port number is replaced by the port
number already assigned to this
‘connection’.
• If no, a new entry is made into the table
and an unused port number is assigned
to it.
• The packet IP header is now
manipulated, i.e the IPv4 addresses are
now changed with the IPv6 address(es)
assigned to the NAPT-PT system and
the port numbers are replaced with the
already assigned port numbers.
Process 2 :
For the packets that arrive from outside the LAN
i.e from the global IPv4 network, the following
manipulations are necessary before they are
passed on to the LAN system.
• Search is made in the records to find if
the connection already exists.
• If exists, the destination IP address
which is that of the NAPT-PT is
replaced by that of the local host, based
www.Fullinterview.com
on the assigned port number. It is
effectively the port de-multiplexing that
is taking place here.
• If not, the packet is discarded.
TRANSPORT RELAY TRANSLATOR :
The TCP UDP Relay Translator (TRT) [5] is a
transport layer system that performs IPv4 – IPv6
translation and vice versa. It is similar to NAPT-
PT in its application. But here, rather than
capturing individual packets at the data link
layer, the data is transferred by establishing
connections at the transport layer. Figure 4
illustrates the concept better.
Whenever a host from the IPv6 network tries to
initialize a connection with a remote host in the
internet, the connection is accepted by a listening
socket at the TRT system. Once the connection
is accepted, the TRT in turn sends a request to
establish a connection with the remote server.
Hence an indirect connection is established
between the hosts through the TRT.
7
www.Fullinterview.com

Implementation :
The implementation of the TRT is similar to that COMPARISON BETWEEN TRT AND
of the NAPT-PT, but there are glaring NAPT- PT :
differences too. Structure : The basic difference between the too
The TRT also has more than one simultaneous translators is the layer at which they work. As
processes running as in a server. The discussed earlier
parent process has a listening socket
that waits for a connection. When a
connection is requested, a child process the TRT works at the transport layer while the
is forked off which manages the setup NAPT-PT works at the Data
of the ‘indirect connection’. link layer. This makes the two to differ in many

When the connection is closed the child process
too is killed.
• The TRT has to have a mechanism which
distinguishes the various application level
protocols like HTTP, FTP etc. This is
needed for the extraction of the information
of the remote host, as the IP address may not
be directly available.
• Further the TRT needs to extract and
sometimes also resolve the destination IP
address. Our implementation is for the
HTTP. It can similarly be extended to the
other protocols too.
aspects.
Speed : The overhead in NAPT- PT is
theoretically less than the TRT, but the speed is
highly implementation dependent.
Security : Both the systems compromise on
security, while TRT completely disallows
security measures like IPsec, the addresses in
the packets cannot be encrypted if the NAPT –
PT is used [3].
Probability of errors : NAPT –PT increases the
probability of mis-addressing [3] , while this is
avoided in the TRT as a reliable connection itself
exists.

www.Fullinterview.com 8
www.Fullinterview.com

that the mobile networks would move towards

Figure 6 : GPRS network as an example for
mobile network using IP IPv6 faster than the Internet backbone. The
translators provide a coexistence strategy for the
SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE
TRANSLATORS IN THE two versions of the protocols till the IPv6
MOBILE SECTOR :
becomes prevalent in the Internet backbone.
Consider the GPRS network shown in the figure.
Another aspect that needs to be dealt while using
The figure shows how a translator is connected
the translators mostly the NAPT-PT in the
between the IPv6 mobile network and the
mobile networks is that the (Session Initiation
Internet ( IPv4 network). It also shows how
Protocol ) SIP [6] to inter-work with the Mobile
mobility management is done using mobile IP.
IP[1]. This requires a specific ALG that can
The SGSN ( Serving GPRS Support Node)
interpret the SIP signaling.
essentially looks after the issues concerning
mobility management. The GGSN (Gateway
GPRS Support Node) connects the network to
the external networks including the Internet.
From outside ( i.e from the IP networks point of
view) the GPRS network is another IP sub-
network and the GGSN looks like a IP router.
One of the main advantage of integrating the
mobile network into the IP network is mobility
management. The mobility management using
MIPv6 provides “always on” connection.
Although Mobile IPv4 can be used for mobility
management, but the Address Depletion Problem
makes the use of IPv6 inevitable. So it is seen

www.Fullinterview.com 9
www.Fullinterview.com

CONCLUSIONS: REFERENCES :

1. IEEE communications Magazine, January

1) IPv6 is a strategic issue making its own
2004, page 113 to 120, “IP Multimedia
scope in the global network system. It is
Services : Analysis of Mobile IP and SIP
experiencing its needs and at the same time
interactions in 3G networks” by Stefano M.
the research community is working on its
Faccin, Nokia Research Center, Poornima
perfection.
Lalwaney, Nokia Mobile Phones, Basavaraj
2) IPv6 is perfectly hailed as ‘evolutionary not
Patil, Nokia Networks.
revolutionary’. The IPv4 – IPv6 transition is
2. IEEE communications Magazine, January
expected to be eventual rather than sudden
2004, page 88 to 96, “IPv6 integration and
in the Internet backbone. But the 3G
coexistence strategies for Next- Generation
technologies would inevitably need IPv6.
Networks “ by Mallik Tatipamula and
Hence there will be a time period wherein
Patrick Grossetete, Cisco Systems Hiroshi
both the versions of the IP need to coexist.
Esaki, University of Tokyo.
3) The translators provide a coexistence
3. RFC 1631,
strategy for IPv4 - IPv6 transition.
4. RFC 2766, Network Address Translation -
4) Although they provide a temporary solution,
Protocol Translation (NAT-PT), G. Tsirtsis
they need to be eliminated in the long run,
BT, P. Srisuresh, Campio Communications,
due to the overhead that the translators add
February 2000.
in terms of speed and also due to the
5. RFC 3142 , An IPv6-to-IPv4 Transport
security constraints that they impose.
Relay Translator, J. Hagino and K.
Yamamoto, IIJ Research Laboratory, June
2001.
6. RFC 3261, Session Initiation Protocol, J.
Rosenberg t, H. Schulzrinne, G camarillo, A
Johnston, J Peterson, R sparks, M. Handlsy,
E Schooler, June 2002

www.Fullinterview.com 10