International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security (IJCNIS)
IJCNIS Vol. 8, No. 2, 8 Feb. 2016
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 779KB)
Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms
Full Text (PDF, 779KB), PP.1-14
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Adira Quintero
1,*
Francisco Sans
1
Eric Gamess
1
Index Terms
Performance Evaluation, Benchmarking Tools, IPv6, IPv4, Transition Mechanisms, ISATAP, 6to4, NAT64
Abstract
The exhaustion of IPv4 addresses has forced the deployment of the new version of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). However, the migration to the new protocol is done gradually and with the due care for many reasons that include: cost, inclusion of support for IPv6 in existing applications, training of technical staff, lack of web content available over IPv6 from important providers, and obsolete devices not anymore supported by manufacturers. For those reasons, many transition mechanisms have been proposed, each one to fill distinct requirements, with different operational theory and availability according to the network environment. A performance evaluation of these mechanisms can help network administrators and researchers in their selection of the best transition technology for their environment. In this paper, we present a performance comparison of some transition mechanisms such as ISATAP, 6to4, and NAT64 in real testbeds with Debian, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10. For NAT64, two different tools were tested: TAYGA and Jool. We measure the OWD and the throughput for UDP and TCP for every mechanism, for both Ethernet and Fast Ethernet technologies. From this research, we can conclude that all the modern operating systems for PCs already have good support for IPv6, and a very similar network performance. Also, we can infer from our work that in controlled environments, native IPv4 has the best performance, closely followed by native IPv6. The difference is essentially due to the length of the IP header (20 bytes in IPv4 and 40 bytes in IPv6). The tunneling solutions chosen for this research (ISATAP and 6to4) have a similar performance, which is the lowest of the studied technologies, because of the additional IPv4 header in the tunnel.
Cite This Paper
Adira Quintero, Francisco Sans, Eric Gamess, "Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms", International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security(IJCNIS), Vol.8, No.2, pp.1-14, 2016. DOI:10.5815/ijcnis.2016.02.01
Reference
[1]P. Srisuresh and K. Egevang, “Tradicional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT),” IETF, RFC 3022, January 2001.
[2]J. Davies, Understanding IPv6, 3rd ed., Microsoft Press, June 2012.
[3]L. Colitti, S. H. Gunderson, E. Kline, and T. Refice, “Evaluating IPv6 Adoption in the Internet,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Passive and Active Measurement (PAM’10), Zurich, Switzerland, April 2010, pp. 141–150.
[4]kc Claffy, “Tracking IPv6: Data We Have and Data We Need,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 43–48, July 2011.
[5]S. Zeadally and I. Raicu, “Evaluating IPv6 on Windows and Solaris,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 51–57, May 2003.
[6]E. Gamess and R. Surós, “An Upper Bound Model for TCP and UDP Throughput in IPv4 and IPv6,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 585–602, November 2008.
[7]S. Narayan, P. Shang, and N. Fan, “Performance Evaluation of IPv4 and IPv6 on Windows Vista and Linux Ubuntu,” in Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Networks Security, Wireless Communications and Trusted Computing (NSWCTC’09), vol. 1, Wuhan, China, April 2009, pp. 653–656.
[8]S. Narayan, P. Shang, and N. Fan, “Network Performance Evaluation of Internet Protocols IPv4 and IPv6 on Operating Systems,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks (WOCN’09), Cairo, Egypt, April 2009, pp. 1–5.
[9]S. S. Kolahi, B. K. Soorty, Z. Qu, and N. Chand, “Performance Analysis of IPv4 and IPv6 on Windows Vista and Windows XP over Fast Ethernet in Peer-peer LAN,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS’09). Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press, 2009, pp. 450–453.
[10]J. Balen, G. Martinovic, and Z. Hocenski, “Network Performance Evaluation of Latest Windows Operating Systems,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM), vol. 7, Split, Croatia, September 2012, pp. 1–6.
[11]P. Svec and M. Munk, “IPv4/IPv6 Performance Analysis: Transport Layer Protocol Impact to Transmission Time,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Internet Technology and Applications (iTAP 2011), Wuhan, China, August 2011, pp.1–4.
[12]E. Gamess and K. Velásquez, “IPv4 and IPv6 Forwarding Performance Evaluation on Different Operating Systems,” in Proceedings of the XXXIV Latin American Computing Conference (CLEI’08), Santa Fe, Argentina, September 2008.
[13]S. Narayan, S. S. Sodhi, P. R. Lutui, and K. J. Vijayakumar, “Network Performance Evaluation of Routers in IPv4/IPv6 Environment,” in Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking, and Information Security (WCNIS), Beijing, China, June 2010.
[14]S. S. Kolahi, Z. Qu, B. K. Soorty, and N. Chand, “The Impact of Security on the Performance of IPv4 and IPv6 using 802.11n Wireless LAN,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS’09). Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press, 2009, pp. 454–457.
[15]S. S. Kolahi, Z. Qu, B. K. Soorty, and N. Chand, “The Performance of IPv4 and IPv6 Using DP on IEEE 802.11n WLANs with WPA2 security,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interaction Sciences: Information Technology, Culture and Human (ICIS’09). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2009, pp. 873–876.
[16]H. Fahmy and S. Ghoneim, “Performance Comparison of Wireless Networks over IPv6 and IPv4 under Several Operating Systems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 20th International Conference on Electronics, Circuits, and Systems (ICECS’13), Abu Dhabi, UAE, December 2013, pp. 670–673.
[17]M. Ahmed, M. A. Suhaimi, Q. S. Md. Faisal, and S. Haseeb, “Evaluating QoS Performance of Streaming Video on Both IPv4 and IPv6 Protocols,” in Proceedings of the 2007 Spring Simulaiton Multiconference - Volume 1 (SpringSim’07). San Diego, CA, USA: Society for Computer Simulation International, 2007, pp. 109–116.
[18]S.-M. Huang, Q. Wu, and Y.-B. Lin, “Tunneling IPv6 through NAT with Teredo Mechanism,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, vol. 2, Taipei, Taiwan, March 2005, pp. 813–818.
[19]M. Aazam, S. A. H. Shah, I. Khan, and A. Qayyum, “Deployment and Performance Evaluation of Teredo and ISATAP over Real Test-bed Setup,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems (MEDES’10), Bangkok, Thailand, October 2010, pp. 229–233.
[20]S. Zander, L. L. H. Andrew, G. Armitage, G. Huston, and G. Michaelson, “Investigating the IPv6 Teredo Tunnelling Capability and Performance of Internet Clients,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 13–20, October 2012.
[21]S. Narayan and S. Tauch, “Network Performance Evaluation of IPv4-v6 Configured Tunnel and 6to4 Transition Mechanisms on Windows Server Operating Systems,” in Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Computer Design and Applications (ICCDA), vol. 5, Qinhuangdao, China, June 2010.
[22]S. Narayan and S. Tauch, “IPv4-v6 Configured Tunnel and 6to4 Transition Mechanisms Network Performance Evaluation on Linux Operating Systems,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Signal Processing Systems (ICSPS), vol. 2, Dalian, China, October 2010.
[23]D. Hadiya, R. Save, and G. Geetu, “Network Performance Evaluation of 6to4 and Configured Tunnel Transition Mechanisms: An Empirical Test-bed Analysis,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology (ICETET’13), Nagpur, India, December 2013, pp. 56–60.
[24]P. Amr and N. Abdelbaki, “Convergence Study of IPv6 Tunneling Techniques,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communications (COMM’14), Bucharest, Romania, May 2014, pp. 1–6.
[25]S.-J. Yoon, J.-T. Park, D.-I. Choi, and H. K. Kahng, “Performance Comparison of 6to4, 6rd, and ISATAP Tunnelling Methods on Real Testbeds,” International Journal on Internet and Distributed Computing Systems, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 149–156, July 2012.
[26]F. Sans and E. Gamess, “Analytical Performance Evaluation of Native IPv6 and Several Tunneling Technics Using Benchmarking Tools,” in Proceedings of the XXXIX Latin American Computing Conference (CLEI’13), Naiguata, Venezuela, October 2013, pp 1-9.
[27]K. J. O. Llanto and W. E. S. Yu, “Performance of NAT64 versus NAT44 in the Context of IPv6 Migration,” in Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Compuer Scientists (IMECS’ 12), Hong Kong, China, March 2012, pp. 638–645.
[28]C. P. Monte, M. I. Robles, G. Mercado, C. Taffernaberry, M. Orbiscay, S. Tobar, R. Moralejo, and S. Pérez, “Implementation and Evaluation of Protocols Translating Methods for IPv4 to IPv6 Transition,” Journal of Computer Science & Technology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 64–70, 2010.
[29]S.-Y. Yu and B. E. Carpenter, “Measuring IPv4 IPv6 Translation Techniques,” Department of Computer Science, The University of Auckland, Tech. Rep. 2012-001, January 2012.
[30]E. Hodzic and S. Mrdovic, “IPv4/IPv6 Transition using DNS64/NAT64: Deployment Issues,” in Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Telecommunications (BIHTEL’12), Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, October 2012, pp. 1–6.
[31]G. Lencse and G. Takacs, “Performance Analysis of DNS64 and NAT64 Solutions,” Infocommunications Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 29–36, 2012.
[32]G. Lencse and S. Repas, “Performance Analysis and Comparison of Different DNS64 Implementations for Linux, OpenBSD and FreeBSD,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA’13), Barcelona, Spain, March 2013, pp. 877–884.
[33]G. Lencse and S. Repas, “Performance Analysis and Comparison of the TAYGA and of the PF NAT64 Implementations,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP’13), Rome, Italy, July 2013, pp. 71–76.
[34]S. Repas, P. Farnadi, and G. Lencse, “Performance and Stability Analysis of Free NAT64 Implementations with Different Protocols,” Acta Technica Jaurinensis, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 404–427, 2014.
[35]M. Ahmed, A. Litchfield, S. Ahmed, A. Mahmood, Md. E. Hossain, “VoIP Performance Analysis over IPv4 and IPv6,” International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security, vol.6, no.11, pp.43-48, October 2014.
[36]C. Aoun and E. Davies, “Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status,” IETF, RFC 4966, July 2007.
[37]F. Templin, T. Gleeson, and D. Thaler, “Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP),” IETF, RFC 5214, March 2008.
[38]B. Carpenter and K. Moore, “Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds,” IETF, RFC 3056, February 2001.
[39]C. Huitema, “An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers,” IETF, RFC 3068, June 2001.
[40]M. Bagnulo, P. Matthews, and I. van Beijnum, “Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers,” IETF, RFC 6146, April 2011.
[41]C. Bao, C. Huitema, M. Bagnulo, M. Boucadair, and X. Li, “IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators,” IETF, RFC 6052, October 2010.
[42]K. Velásquez and E. Gamess, “A Survey of Network Benchmark Tools,” Machine Learning and System Engineering, vol. 68, pp. 465–480, October 2010.
[43]NLANR/DAST. Iperf Homepage. http://iperf.fr.
[44]Nathan Lutchansky. TAYGA Homepage. http://www.litech.org/tayga.
[45]Tecnológico de Monterrey. Jool Homepage. http://www.jool.mx.