IPv6 was delivered with migration techniques to cover every conceivable IPv4 upgrade case, but many were ultimately rejected by the technology community, and today we are left with a small set of practical approaches.

One technique, called dual stack, involves running IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time. End nodes and routers/switches run both protocols, and if IPv6 communication is possible that is the preferred protocol.

Click to see: IPv6 migration strategies

A common dual-stack migration strategy is to make the transition from the core to the edge. This involves enabling two TCP/IP protocol stacks on the WAN core routers, then perimeter routers and firewalls, then the server-farm routers and finally the desktop access routers. After the network supports IPv6 and IPv4 protocols, the process will enable dual protocol stacks on the servers and then the edge computer systems.

Another approach is to use tunnels to carry one protocol inside another. These tunnels take IPv6 packets and encapsulate them in IPv4 packets to be sent across portions of the network that haven’t yet been upgraded to IPv6. Tunnels can be created where there are IPv6 islands separated by an IPv4 ocean, which will be the norm during the early stages of the transition to IPv6. Later there will be IPv4 islands that will need to be bridged across an IPv6 ocean.

Other techniques, such as network address translation–protocol translation (NAT-PT) simply translate IPv6 packets into IPv4 packets. These translation techniques are more complicated than IPv4 NAT because the protocols have different header formats. Translation techniques were intended to be used as a last resort.

Using dual-stack and tunneling techniques is preferable to using NAT-PT.

There are two types of tunnels: manual and dynamic. Manually configured IPv6 tunneling (RFC 2893) requires configuration at both ends of the tunnel, whereas dynamic tunnels are created automatically based on the packet destination address and routing. Dynamic tunneling techniques simplify maintenance compared with statically configured tunnels, but static tunnels make traffic information available for each endpoint, providing extra security against injected traffic.

There are, in fact, concerns over the security of tunneling techniques. For example, with dynamic tunnels it isn’t easy to track who is communicating over the transient tunnels, and you don’t know the tunnel destination endpoint. It is a scary proposition when your routers communicate with other nonauthenticated routers. It is also possible to send forged traffic toward a tunnel endpoint and get traffic spuriously inserted into the tunnel. Tunneling creates situations in which traffic will be encapsulated, and many firewalls won’t inspect the traffic if it is in a tunnel. Allowing IP Protocol 41 (IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4) through an IPv4 firewall is not a best practice. This is like creating an “IPv6 permit any any all” rule through the firewall.