IPv6 and Extended IPv6 (IPv6++) Features That Enable Autonomic Network Setup and Operation

  • Ranganai Chaparadza
  • Razvan Petre
  • Arun Prakash
  • Felicián Németh
  • Sławomir Kukliński
  • Alexej Starschenko
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 63)


In this paper we present an insight on the IPv6 features and a few examples of propositions for Extensions to IPv6 protocols, which enable autonomic network set-up and operation. The concept of autonomicity-realized through control-loop structures embedded within node/device architectures and the overall network architecture as a whole is an enabler for advanced self-manageability of network devices and the network as a whole. GANA Model for Autonomic networking introduces autonomic manager components at various levels of abstraction of functionality within device architectures and the overall network architecture, which are capable of performing autonomic management and control of their associated Managed-Entities (MEs) e.g. protocols, as well as co-operating with each other in driving the self-managing features of the Network(s). MEs are started, configured, constantly monitored and dynamically regulated by the autonomic managers towards optimal and reliable network services. This amounts to what we call autonomic setup and operation of the network. We present how to achieve this, and also present the features that IPv6 protocols exhibit, that are fundamental to designing and building self-configuring, self-optimizing and self-healing networks i.e. IPv6 based autonomic networks.


IPv6 Evolution of the current Internet towards Self-Managing Future Internet 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    EC FP7-IP EFIPSANS Project (2008-2010), INFSO-ICT-215549
  2. 2.
    Chaparadza, R.: Requirements for a Generic Autonomic Network Architecture (GANA), suitable for Standardizable Autonomic Behavior Specifications for Diverse Networking Environments. In: International Engineering Consortium (IEC), Annual Review of Communications, vol. 61 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaparadza, R., et al.: Creating a viable Evolution Path towards Self-Managing Future Internet via a Standardizable Reference Model for Autonomic Network Engineering. In: Towards the Future Internet - A European Research Perspective, pp. 313–324. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaparadza, R.: Evolution of the current IPv6 towards IPv6++ (IPv6 with Autonomic Flavours. In: International Engineering Consortium (IEC) Annual Review of Communications, vol. 60 (December 2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stoica, I., et al.: Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-Peer Lookup Protocol for Internet Applications. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 11(1), 17–32 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhao, B.Y., et al.: Tapestry: A Resilient Global-Scale Overlay for Service Deployment. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 22(1), 41–53 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maymounkov, P., Maziéres, D.: Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric. In: Druschel, P., Kaashoek, F., Rowstron, A. (eds.) IPTPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2429, pp. 53–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rowstron, A., Druschel, P.: Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems. In: Liu, H. (ed.) Middleware 2001. LNCS, vol. 2218, pp. 329–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rabin, M.O.: Fingerprinting by Random Polynomials. Technical Report TR-15-81, Center for Research in Computing Technology, Harvard University (1981)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bloom, B.H.: Space/Time Trade-offs in Hash Coding with Allowable Errors. ACM Communications 13(7), 422–426 (1970)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakash, A., Starschenko, A., Chaparadza, R.: Auto-Discovery and Auto-Configuration of Routers in an Autonomic Network. In: SELFMAGICNETS 2010: Proc. of the International Workshop on Autonomic Networking and Self-Management, ICST ACCESSNETS 2010, Budapest, Hungary (November 2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rétvári, G., Németh, F., Chaparadza, R., Szabó, R.: OSPF for Implementing Self-adaptive Routing in Autonomic Networks: A Case Study. In: Strassner, J.C., Ghamri-Doudane, Y.M. (eds.) MACE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5844, pp. 72–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baumann, R., Heimlicher, S., Strasser, M., Weibel, A.: A Survey on Routing Metrics. TIK Report 262, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, ETH-Zentrum, Switzerland (February 2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stefanescu, H., Skrocki, M., Kuklinski, S.: AAODV Routing Protocol: The Impact of the Routing Metric on the Performance of Wireless Mesh Networks. In: Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications, ICWMC 2010, Valencia, Spain (September 2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuklinski, S., Radziszewski, P., Wytrebowicz, J.: WARF: A Routing Framework for IPv6 based Wireless Mesh Networks. In: Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Internet, ICONI 2010, Cebu, Philippines (December 2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ranganai Chaparadza
    • 1
  • Razvan Petre
    • 1
  • Arun Prakash
    • 1
  • Felicián Németh
    • 2
  • Sławomir Kukliński
    • 3
  • Alexej Starschenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer FOKUSBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Warsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations