English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The IPv4 addresses exhaustion demands a protocol transition from IPv4 toIPv6. The original transition technique, the dual stack, is not widely deployedyet and it demanded the creation of new transition techniques to extend thetransition period. This work makes an experimental comparison of techniquesthat use dual stack with a limited IPv4 address. This limited address might bea RFC 1918 address with a NAT at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) gateway,also known as Carrier Grade NAT (CGN), or an Address Plus Port (A+P) sharedIPv4 address. The chosen techniques also consider an IPv6 only ISP network. Thetransport of the IPv4 packets through the IPv6 only networks may use IPv4packets encapsulated on IPv6 packets or a double translation, by making oneIPv4 to IPv6 translation to enter the IPv6 only network and one IPv6 to IPv4translation to return to the IPv4 network. The chosen techniques were DS-Lite,464XLAT, MAP-E and MAP-T. The first part of the test is to check some of themost common usages of the Internet by a home user and the impacts of thetransition techniques on the user experience. The second part is a measuredcomparison considering bandwidth, jitter and latency introduced by thetechniques and processor usage on the network equipment.

Comparison Between IPv4 to IPv6 Transition Techniques