Internet Protocol
Internet protocol suite |
---|
Application layer |
Transport layer |
Internet layer |
Link layer |
Internet history timeline |
Early research and development:
Merging the networks and creating the Internet:
Commercialization, privatization, broader access leads to the modern Internet:
Examples of Internet services:
|
The Internet Protocol (IP) is the
IP has the task of delivering
The first major version of IP,
Function

The Internet Protocol is responsible for addressing
Each datagram has two components: a header and a payload. The IP header includes a source IP address, a destination IP address, and other metadata needed to route and deliver the datagram. The payload is the data that is transported. This method of nesting the data payload in a packet with a header is called encapsulation.
IP addressing entails the assignment of IP addresses and associated parameters to host interfaces. The address space is divided into subnets, involving the designation of network prefixes. IP routing is performed by all hosts, as well as routers, whose main function is to transport packets across network boundaries. Routers communicate with one another via specially designed routing protocols, either interior gateway protocols or exterior gateway protocols, as needed for the topology of the network.[3]
Addressing methods
Routing schemes |
---|
Unicast |
Broadcast |
Multicast |
Anycast |
There are four principal addressing methods in the Internet Protocol:
- Unicast delivers a message to a single specific node using a one-to-one association between a sender and destination: each destination address uniquely identifies a single receiver endpoint.
- subnet.
- Multicast delivers a message to a group of nodes that have expressed interest in receiving the message using a one-to-many-of-many or many-to-many-of-many association; datagrams are routed simultaneously in a single transmission to many recipients. Multicast differs from broadcast in that the destination address designates a subset, not necessarily all, of the accessible nodes.
- Anycast delivers a message to any one out of a group of nodes, typically the one nearest to the source using a one-to-one-of-many[4] association where datagrams are routed to any single member of a group of potential receivers that are all identified by the same destination address. The routing algorithm selects the single receiver from the group based on which is the nearest according to some distance or cost measure.
Version history


In May 1974, the
The following Internet Experiment Note (IEN) documents describe the evolution of the Internet Protocol into the modern version of IPv4:[6]
- IEN 2 Comments on Internet Protocol and TCP (August 1977) describes the need to separate the TCP and Internet Protocol functionalities (which were previously combined). It proposes the first version of the IP header, using 0 for the version field.
- IEN 26 A Proposed New Internet Header Format (February 1978) describes a version of the IP header that uses a 1-bit version field.
- IEN 28 Draft Internetwork Protocol Description Version 2 (February 1978) describes IPv2.
- IEN 41 Internetwork Protocol Specification Version 4 (June 1978) describes the first protocol to be called IPv4. The IP header is different from the modern IPv4 header.
- IEN 44 Latest Header Formats (June 1978) describes another version of IPv4, also with a header different from the modern IPv4 header.
- IEN 54 Internetwork Protocol Specification Version 4 (September 1978) is the first description of IPv4 using the header that would become standardized in 1980 as RFC 760.
- IEN 80
- IEN 111
- IEN 123
- IEN 128/RFC 760 (1980)
IP versions 1 to 3 were experimental versions, designed between 1973 and 1978.
Version number 5 was used by the Internet Stream Protocol, an experimental streaming protocol that was not adopted.[7]
The successor to IPv4 is
The assignment of the new protocol as IPv6 was uncertain until due diligence assured that IPv6 had not been used previously.
IP version numbers
As the version number is carried in a 4-bit field, only numbers 0–15 can be assigned.
IP version | Description | Year | Status |
---|---|---|---|
0 | Internet Protocol, pre-v4 | N/A | Reserved[16] |
1 | Experimental version | 1973 | Obsolete |
2 | Experimental version | 1977 | Obsolete |
3 | Experimental version | 1978 | Obsolete |
4 | Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4)[17] |
1981 | Active |
5 | Internet Stream Protocol (ST) | 1979 | Obsolete; superseded by ST-II or ST2 |
Internet Stream Protocol (ST-II or ST2)[18] | 1987 | Obsolete; superseded by ST2+ | |
Internet Stream Protocol (ST2+) | 1995 | Obsolete | |
6 | Simple Internet Protocol (SIP) | N/A | Obsolete; merged into IPv6 in 1995[16] |
Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)[19] |
1995 | Active | |
7 | TP/IX The Next Internet (IPv7)[20] | 1993 | Obsolete[21] |
8 | P Internet Protocol (PIP)[22] | 1994 | Obsolete; merged into SIP in 1993 |
9 | TCP and UDP over Bigger Addresses (TUBA) | 1992 | Obsolete[23] |
IPv9 | 1994 | April Fools' Day joke[24] | |
Chinese IPv9 |
2004 | Abandoned | |
10–14 | N/A | N/A | Unassigned |
15 | Version field sentinel value | N/A | Reserved |
Reliability
The design of the Internet protocol suite adheres to the
As a consequence of this design, the Internet Protocol only provides
All fault conditions in the network must be detected and compensated by the participating end nodes. The
IPv4 provides safeguards to ensure that the header of an IP packet is error-free. A routing node discards packets that fail a header checksum test. Although the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) provides notification of errors, a routing node is not required to notify either end node of errors. IPv6, by contrast, operates without header checksums, since current link layer technology is assumed to provide sufficient error detection.[25][26]
Link capacity and capability
The dynamic nature of the Internet and the diversity of its components provide no guarantee that any particular path is actually capable of, or suitable for, performing the data transmission requested. One of the technical constraints is the size of data packets possible on a given link. Facilities exist to examine the maximum transmission unit (MTU) size of the local link and Path MTU Discovery can be used for the entire intended path to the destination.[27]
The IPv4 internetworking layer automatically fragments a datagram into smaller units for transmission when the link MTU is exceeded. IP provides re-ordering of fragments received out of order.[28] An IPv6 network does not perform fragmentation in network elements, but requires end hosts and higher-layer protocols to avoid exceeding the path MTU.[29]
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is an example of a protocol that adjusts its segment size to be smaller than the MTU. The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and ICMP disregard MTU size, thereby forcing IP to fragment oversized datagrams.[30]
Security
During the design phase of the ARPANET and the early Internet, the security aspects and needs of a public, international network were not adequately anticipated. Consequently, many Internet protocols exhibited vulnerabilities highlighted by network attacks and later security assessments. In 2008, a thorough security assessment and proposed mitigation of problems was published.[31] The IETF has been pursuing further studies.[32]
See also
- ICANN
- IP routing
- List of IP protocol numbers
- List of IP version numbers
- Next-generation network
- New IP (proposal)
References
- from the original on 2021-03-07. Retrieved 2020-12-04.
- ^ Charles M. Kozierok, The TCP/IP Guide, archived from the original on 2019-06-20, retrieved 2017-07-22
- ^ "IP Technologies and Migration — EITC". www.eitc.org. Archived from the original on 2021-01-05. Retrieved 2020-12-04.
- ISSN 1389-1286.
- (PDF) from the original on 2017-01-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The authors wish to thank a number of colleagues for helpful comments during early discussions of international network protocols, especially R. Metcalfe, R. Scantlebury, D. Walden, and H. Zimmerman; D. Davies and L. Pouzin who constructively commented on the fragmentation and accounting issues; and S. Crocker who commented on the creation and destruction of associations.
- ^ "Internet Experiment Note Index". www.rfc-editor.org. Retrieved 2024-01-21.
- ^ a b Stephen Coty (2011-02-11). "Where is IPv1, 2, 3, and 5?". Archived from the original on 2020-08-02. Retrieved 2020-03-25.
- ^ Postel, Jonathan B. (February 1978). "Draft Internetwork Protocol Specification Version 2" (PDF). RFC Editor. IEN 28. Retrieved 6 October 2022. Archived 16 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Postel, Jonathan B. (June 1978). "Internetwork Protocol Specification Version 4" (PDF). RFC Editor. IEN 41. Retrieved 11 February 2024. Archived 16 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Strowes, Stephen (4 Jun 2021). "IPv6 Adoption in 2021". RIPE Labs. Archived from the original on 2021-09-20. Retrieved 2021-09-20.
- ^ "IPv6". Google. Archived from the original on 2020-07-14. Retrieved 2023-05-19.
- ^ Mulligan, Geoff. "It was almost IPv7". O'Reilly. Archived from the original on 5 July 2015. Retrieved 4 July 2015.
- ^ "IP Version Numbers". Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Archived from the original on 2019-01-18. Retrieved 2019-07-25.
- RFC 1606: A Historical Perspective On The Usage Of IP Version 9. April 1, 1994.
- .
- ^ ISBN 978-1-58705-202-6.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
rfc791
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - and IEN 119.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
rfc8200
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - .
- .
- . Historic.
- . Historic.
- .
- RFC 1726section 6.2
- RFC 2460
- ISBN 978-81-219-4055-9. Archivedfrom the original on 2024-06-12. Retrieved 2020-12-11.
- ISBN 1-56205-714-6
- ^ Bill Cerveny (2011-07-25). "IPv6 Fragmentation". Arbor Networks. Archived from the original on 2016-09-16. Retrieved 2016-09-10.
- Symantec. Archivedfrom the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 4 May 2014.
- CPNI, archived from the original(PDF) on 2010-02-11
- .
External links
- Manfred Lindner. "IP Technology" (PDF). Retrieved 2018-02-11.
- Manfred Lindner. "IP Routing" (PDF). Retrieved 2018-02-11.