Changes

As early as 1990, internet experts predicted that the 4 billion available IP addresses under the IPv4 were not enough to accommodate the rapid growth of internet users worldwide. During the [[IETF|Internet Engineering Task Force]] Meeting (IETF) in Vancouver in 1990, [[Phil Gross]], Chairman of the [[IESG|Internet Steering Group]] (IESG), together with [[Frank Solensky]] and [[Sue Hares]], informed that the Class B space will be exhausted as early as March, 1994. The solution to the problem was to assign multiple Class C address.This expansion signaled a great problem, which meant deciding whether to limit the size and growth rate of the internet or to disrupt the network by changing to new strategies or technology.<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref>

As early as 1990, internet experts predicted that the 4 billion available IP addresses under the IPv4 were not enough to accommodate the rapid growth of internet users worldwide. During the [[IETF|Internet Engineering Task Force]] Meeting (IETF) in Vancouver in 1990, [[Phil Gross]], Chairman of the [[IESG|Internet Steering Group]] (IESG), together with [[Frank Solensky]] and [[Sue Hares]], informed that the Class B space will be exhausted as early as March, 1994. The solution to the problem was to assign multiple Class C address.This expansion signaled a great problem, which meant deciding whether to limit the size and growth rate of the internet or to disrupt the network by changing to new strategies or technology.<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref>

In 1991, the [[IAB|Internet Architecture Board]] (IAB) recommended the need for additional address flexibility. Based on this recommendation, the [[Internet Engineering Task Force]] formed the  Routing and Addressing (Road) Group to  examine the consumption of address space and the exponential growth in inter-domain routing entries.<ref>[http://www.potaroo.net/papers/2002-10-ipv6/IPv6.pdf IP Version 6 Geoff Huston]</ref> The Road Group enumerated three possible serious problems, which include:<ref>[http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=1519 RFC Archive]</ref>Exhaustion of the class B network address space, Growth of routing tables in Internet routers beyond the ability of current software, hardware, and people to effectively manage it, and eventual exhaustion of the 32-bit IP address space. It also recommended immediate and long term solutions which include the adoption of CIDR route aggregation proposal, reducing the growth rate of routing table and called for proposals "to form working groups to explore separate approaches for bigger Internet addresses."<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref>  

In 1991, the [[IAB|Internet Architecture Board]] (IAB) recommended the need for additional address flexibility. Based on this recommendation, the [[IETF|Internet Engineering Task Force]] formed the  Routing and Addressing (Road) Group to  examine the consumption of address space and the exponential growth in inter-domain routing entries.<ref>[http://www.potaroo.net/papers/2002-10-ipv6/IPv6.pdf IP Version 6 Geoff Huston]</ref> The Road Group enumerated three possible serious problems, which include:<ref>[http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=1519 RFC Archive]</ref>Exhaustion of the class B network address space, Growth of routing tables in Internet routers beyond the ability of current software, hardware, and people to effectively manage it, and eventual exhaustion of the 32-bit IP address space. It also recommended immediate and long term solutions which include the adoption of CIDR route aggregation proposal, reducing the growth rate of routing table and called for proposals "to form working groups to explore separate approaches for bigger Internet addresses."<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref>  

In 1993, IETF formed the [[Internet Protocol Next Generation Group]] to evaluate the proposals and determine how to proceed in selecting a successor to the IPv4. THe group evaluated and reviewed the proposals of [[CATNIP]], [[SIPP]] and [[TUBA]]. After numerous discussions, the Directorate recommended the adoption of [[SIPP|Simple Internet Protocol Plus]] (SIPP) Spec. (128 bit version as the basis for the next generation of Internet Protocol. The version number 6 was assigned by [[IANA]] and it was officially called IPv6.<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref>

In 1993, IETF formed the [[Internet Protocol Next Generation Group]] to evaluate the proposals and determine how to proceed in selecting a successor to the IPv4. THe group evaluated and reviewed the proposals of [[CATNIP]], [[SIPP]] and [[TUBA]]. After numerous discussions, the Directorate recommended the adoption of [[SIPP|Simple Internet Protocol Plus]] (SIPP) Spec. (128 bit version as the basis for the next generation of Internet Protocol. The version number 6 was assigned by [[IANA]] and it was officially called IPv6.<ref>[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1752/?include_text=1 RFC 1752]</ref>